The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: sparks0314 on September 14, 2020, 10:28:21 AM
-
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.
I'm just curious what others might think.
Thanks.
-
Yes, it only needs enough evidence of a flat Earth for me to believe it.
-
I've asked and answered this question before. I've never heard a Flat Earther answer, but maybe someone will respond this time. I'm not a Flat Earther, but to change my mind it could be any number of things.
Touching the dome.
Looking over the edge.
Flying out into the endless ice plain.
Reporters discovering an ISS set in Hollywood, complete with the actors and all the real ISS feeds showing reporters walking around in space on the set.
An explanation or theory that actually made any kind of sense at all. :)
-
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat.
Have you not answered your own question to some extent then? You have seen evidence for yourself that suggests the Earth is not flat.
If you are open minded then you will see the potential of both sides and then make a decision about what is the most likely answer having evaluated all the evidence for and against each possible outcome. Whereas dedicated FEers will ignore all the evidence that suggests the view that the Earth is round and then make up new and unproven laws of physics to try and make the rest work for their flat Earth belief.
-
Actual evidence of a flat Earth would be rather useful, such as going up high enough to see all of Earth at once, or the vast majority of the known Earth; or seeing the edge.
Other things that would go a long way to making FE more credible, but not be able to replace a RE is a single unified model which can actually explain the multitude of problems the FE currently has.
-
I agree, and the silence is an answer in itself.
I've seen a video that "proves" a flat earth by showing a container ship NOT going over the horizon. I've also been to the beach and on a ship and seen, with my own eyes, ships going over the horizon, multiple times on multiple oceans.
I'm fascinated by all of this, though.
-
Here's something very simple. Very very simple.
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
The fact that you see an horizon should absolutely verify that, at the very least we do not live on top of a globe and especially one that's supposedly rotating.
Any vision from a level scope would increase in elevation due to a downward curvature of a globe, because everywhere you looked with unobstructed view, would take you over a downward curve. We do not witness this in any way shape or form.
What we do witness is a meeting point of sea and sky or land and sky...always.
We can conclude that the oceans do not curve down.
So what would create a meeting of floor to ceiling?
The only thing I can think of is a level ocean and a concave sky.
Essentially, water wise....ocean wise, the Earth is flat.
Land wise, it is uneven terrain but essentially it is due to mountainous areas and elevations.
There is absolutely nothing Rational about the existence of a rotating globe. Nothing.....other than story telling and magical mysterious equations/composites and CGI that nobody has a clue about in reality, other than to parrot them.
Now here's the thing......nobody has to be convinced if they don't want to be....of a flat/alternate Earth....but you need to ask yourself some serious questions about the one you bought into and of which peer pressure and potential ridicule keep you on that path.
I know in my mind we do not live on a rotating globe. I'm 100% sure of that.
That's my opinion, though...but simple logic should tell most that it requires deep questioning.
-
Thank you, sceptimatic, but you didn't answer my question. What would change YOUR mind, if anything?
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
-
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Yes, the edge should be visible.
-
Okay, and if you had a less-powerful telescope, it would still be seen but blurry, because, in the same plane, it would still be in your line of sight, is that correct?
-
Taking that to it's natural conclusion, there would be no time, even with your naked eyes, that there should be a clearly delineated horizon because there is always something in your plane of vision behind it. Since we both agree that there is a clear line at the horizon, then there would have to be nothing behind it. Which would be a point in favor of a curvature to the Earth, would you not agree, sceptimatic?
-
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.
Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.
Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.
I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
-
FE is a belief system. Nothing scientific about it.
-
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
Haven't you got that the wrong way round? By my reckoning the sharply defined horizon that we see when looking out to see on a clear day is directly observable evidence that the Earth is a globe. The horizon is created by the surface of the Earth curving away out of direct view. If the Earth was flat there would be no horizon because there would be no 'cut off' point to what we can see directly.
If you were out at sea with a clear horizon in all directions then the horizon would be the same distance from you in all directions. That is because the rate of curvature on a sphere is the same over the whole surface area. It also explains why the horizon is flat. Not because the Earth is flat (although that is what flat Earthers would have you believe) but because you are seeing the same distance in all directions. Flat Earthers will naturally grab hold of with both hands any apparent evidence that suggests the Earth might be flat and yell 'there you go - told you so!' but then will also fail to consider any other possible explanations for what that evidence might mean. I believe that is what the psychologists call conformation biasing.
The evidence that would change my mind about the Earth being flat has not been produced yet. Mainly because it is impossible to produce it.
It would probably help if flat Earthers stopped coming out with their ridiculous claims such as those about the distance and size of the Sun and Moon.
-
Yeah, I don't get the "...your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe," bit. That doesn't make any sense.
In any case, what would change my mind? I'd happily change my mind if on a clear day you NEVER saw such an obstruction from a distance such as this:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Ogse6s.jpg?1)
-
Here's something very simple. Very very simple.
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
You mean if Earth was flat.
Because a flat Earth should only have a horizon as the very edge of Earth which would likely be far too far away given the limited visibility through the atmosphere which would result in a blur rather than a clear horizon.
If Earth was round (as it is), then the ability to see it would depend on the FOV.
For example, assuming the telescope is at an elevation of 2 m above sea level (and a calm sea), then the horizon would be at an angle of roughly 2.7 arc minutes.
If the FOV was smaller than twice that, the horizon would not be visible, if the FOV was larger, it would be visible.
Also note that accurate measuring devices do measure this, confirming that Earth is a globe.
That's my opinion, though...but simple logic should tell most that it requires deep questioning.
Simple logic shows that your claim is pure nonsense.
And the actual evidence available further supports that by demonstrating that Earth is a globe.
But none of that addresses the topic. That is just you trying to support a FE. What would make you accept that Earth is round?
Is it only these strawmen that you wouldn't actually expect on a RE?
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
The limited visibility through the atmosphere would result in your view fading to a blur. On a FE, there should not be a clear horizon unless it is made of something like mountains.
-
Thank you, sceptimatic, but you didn't answer my question. What would change YOUR mind, if anything?
I did answer it, sort of.
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Forget about standing near any edge of the world. Let's deal with what you observe in actual reality.
I'll repeat what I said.
If you ere standing with a perfectly horizontally level scope, looking out to sea and you know the Earth should be curving downwards from your point, then over a short distance your water disappears from your scope to be replaced by sky....only (taking into account unobstructed view).
You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
-
Taking that to it's natural conclusion, there would be no time, even with your naked eyes, that there should be a clearly delineated horizon because there is always something in your plane of vision behind it. Since we both agree that there is a clear line at the horizon, then there would have to be nothing behind it. Which would be a point in favor of a curvature to the Earth, would you not agree, sceptimatic?
No...not at all.
You see nothing behind your horizon because your vision does not carry light farther than that. It really is a s simple as that.
The fact you see an horizon tells you you are not stood on a globe.
-
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.
Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.
Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.
I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.
-
FE is a belief system. Nothing scientific about it.
That depends on what you regard as, scientific.
Scientific research has to appeal to realism or the pursuance of realism.
Anything other than that is pseudo-science or merely story telling.
The problem is, the global model is saturated in this stuff......so.....what to believe?
-
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
Haven't you got that the wrong way round? By my reckoning the sharply defined horizon that we see when looking out to see on a clear day is directly observable evidence that the Earth is a globe. The horizon is created by the surface of the Earth curving away out of direct view. If the Earth was flat there would be no horizon because there would be no 'cut off' point to what we can see directly.
If you were out at sea with a clear horizon in all directions then the horizon would be the same distance from you in all directions. That is because the rate of curvature on a sphere is the same over the whole surface area. It also explains why the horizon is flat. Not because the Earth is flat (although that is what flat Earthers would have you believe) but because you are seeing the same distance in all directions. Flat Earthers will naturally grab hold of with both hands any apparent evidence that suggests the Earth might be flat and yell 'there you go - told you so!' but then will also fail to consider any other possible explanations for what that evidence might mean. I believe that is what the psychologists call conformation biasing.
The evidence that would change my mind about the Earth being flat has not been produced yet. Mainly because it is impossible to produce it.
It would probably help if flat Earthers stopped coming out with their ridiculous claims such as those about the distance and size of the Sun and Moon.
Maybe don't wait for people to produce evidence....look yourself...and if you don't want to, then stick with the indoctrinated model we were all handed on a plate.
-
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
The problem is that that does not represent the globe model at all.
It is a straw-man.
It would be no better (and in fact is worse) than saying:
If I saw that Earth was made of cheese then I'd go with a flat model.
I do not see that, so by reality the flat model we are conned into, is basically, dead.
You are saying that you would only accept the reality of the round Earth if something that you would not expect for a RE is observed.
You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
No, it isn't as simple as that as you don't just see out at an infinitesimally small region. Instead you see a FOV which includes both above and below level.
And that region below includes the horizon.
But by actually comparing where level is to here the horizon is, you can see that the horizon does go below level and thus the region right at level is only sky.
e.g:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
-
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.
Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.
Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.
I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.
You did a good job of validating everything I've said. You haven't answered the OPs question, just launched an attack on science with your post.
It's almost as if you are unable to comprehend the actual question that was asked, which proves my point.
-
Thank you for your responses, scepticmatic, it is unfortunate that you're the only FEer who has responded.
I'm curious about your answer to my question, though. Do you mean to say that seeing the curvature of the Earth from a sufficient height with your own eyes would not change your mind? I don't call myself a scientist, but take me with you and show me a flat Earth and I'm yours for life. No gadgets, no interpretations, no trusting in "faith" or "agreeing to disagree", nothing but our own eyes and what's out there. Above all, no condescension. We all have opinions. What scientists should do, if doing their jobs properly, is separate fact from opinion, no matter how unpopular that fact may be. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the Earth doesn't care if we believe in it, it is.
Can you do that? Can you take me with you? Or are you just catfishing Jack (and reeling the rest of us in)?
-
What would change your mind?
Nothing. Facts are facts and people should learn to deal with it.
-
What would change the mind of a flat Earther? The answer is not a lot really because flat Earth is a conspiracy theory and those who support or believe in conspiracy theories rarely if ever change their minds about what they believe.
That's because the belief comes first and then they rise to the challenge of making all the evidence fit in with their belief. Some of that is easy some less so. But conspiracy theorists need one thing above anything else. They need another, larger group of people who disagree with them. That simply reinforces their belief. Because a common feature among all conspiracy theorists is the feeling of being special that comes with being part of a minority group that knows or thinks it knows something the rest of us don't.
As you will know the concept or the belief that the Earth is flat has been around for a long time at a low level. The Internet has served to strengthen the links between believers just like it has with many other conspiracy theory followers. It provides an easily accessible, world wide and best of all completely anonymous communication channel. If you find you can connect with others who share your belief without so much as leaving your home then that helps to convince you that whatever it is you believe in is really true. Safety in numbers you might call it.
So that takes me back to what I said at the start. What would change the mind of a flat Earth believer? Very little I would suspect because they have already made up their minds. We can come up with whatever science based evidence we like, whatever internet links we like which provides evidence that the Earth is not flat. The 'flat' (sorry for the punn) response to all that is that everything is faked, hoaxed or otherwise deliberately misrepresented and we are all being lied to.
In short being part of a conspiracy theory is a good way of generating a feeling of importance or power in a life which is otherwise probably rather unremarkable. That's why you will often find comments posted which are deliberately provocative because they feed off the responses they get from them.
-
You can tell the Earth is flat or curved in your own backyard
Parallel Transport 8)
Draw out a triangle over an area
Take an arrow and put tangent to the Earth
Take another arrow with you and walk the triangle. Do not rotate the arrow locally
When you reach back to your starting point if the Earth is a sphere the arrow should be rotated differently than your starting one
I tried this in my backyard and guess what. Not a sphere ::)
-
You can tell the Earth is flat or curved in your own backyard
Parallel Transport 8)
Draw out a triangle over an area
Take an arrow and put tangent to the Earth
Take another arrow with you and walk the triangle. Do not rotate the arrow locally
When you reach back to your starting point if the Earth is a sphere the arrow should be rotated differently than your starting one
I tried this in my backyard and guess what. Not a sphere ::)
Did wise take over your account?
-
Draw out a triangle over an area
How big an 'area'? My back yard isn't huge. So shall I take a walk down to my local park or does it need to be bigger than that?
-
Draw out a triangle over an area
How big an 'area'? My back yard isn't huge. So shall I take a walk down to my local park or does it need to be bigger than that?
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
-
You can tell the Earth is flat or curved in your own backyard
Parallel Transport 8)
Draw out a triangle over an area
Take an arrow and put tangent to the Earth
Take another arrow with you and walk the triangle. Do not rotate the arrow locally
When you reach back to your starting point if the Earth is a sphere the arrow should be rotated differently than your starting one
I tried this in my backyard and guess what. Not a sphere ::)
Totally agree, your backyard is not a sphere.
-
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
My back yard is mostly a large patio area which I know is flat because when we (a friend and I) built it we made sure it was flat so it would provide a decent firm base for my home observatory among other things. I could walk over it a million times and it would still be flat.
If it was as easy to prove the Earth is flat as you suggest then why do these forums still exist? Surely you have provided the answer for all of us in a few lines of text. Job done!
Please excuse me while I go an chuck all my textbooks away and report the error to the millions of websites which are all quoting the Earths shape as a sphere.
-
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
My back yard is mostly a large patio area which I know is flat because when we (a friend and I) built it we made sure it was flat so it would provide a decent firm base for my home observatory among other things. I could walk over it a million times and it would still be flat.
If it was as easy to prove the Earth is flat as you suggest then why do these forums still exist? Surely you have provided the answer for all of us in a few lines of text. Job done!
If you believe the Earth to be curved then even the small area of your patio must take into account the curvature of the Earth to ensure it is level and flat. My guess is that you didn't and your patio is flat. Therefore based on your patio we can conclude the Earth has no curvature 8) Job done!
-
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
The problem is that each time you turn to follow another leg of the triangle you introduce a small error, which can add up or cancel as you repeat the loop.
But I agree with Stash. Your backyard is not a sphere.
-
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
The problem is that each time you turn to follow another leg of the triangle you introduce a small error, which can add up or cancel as you repeat the loop.
But I agree with Stash. Your backyard is not a sphere.
Well the point of the test was to determine if the earth was a sphere (or spherical). The conclusion drawn from the result of the test I found was that it was not a sphere. The backyard was just the place I used for the test.
But sure, we can all agree that my backyard is not a sphere. That's something we can all agree on
-
Well the point of the test was to determine if the earth was a sphere (or spherical). The conclusion drawn from the result of the test I found was that it was not a sphere. The backyard was just the place I used for the test.
But sure, we can all agree that my backyard is not a sphere. That's something we can all agree on
But all it shows is that your backyard has insignificant curvature and thus is not a sphere.
It says nothing about the overall shape of Earth.
Someone could do the same on a hill and conclude that Earth isn't flat.
-
So you mean to say that Shifter might be wrong..! Darn it I'd better go fetch all my books out of the bin that I threw away earlier...
-
So you mean to say that Shifter might be wrong..! Darn it I'd better go fetch all my books out of the bin that I threw away earlier...
You already proved the earth was flat when you observed your patio being flat while not taking into account any alleged curvature of the earth in its construction
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
It might not be much, but the number would not be zero.
-
I wondered why the floor in my living room is slightly raised in the middle. Obviously the builders didn't take the Earths curvature into account either!
-
I wondered why the floor in my living room is slightly raised in the middle. Obviously the builders didn't take the Earths curvature into account either!
That would do it! 8)
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
It might not be much, but the number would not be zero.
Question asked was “
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?”
Answer given was not pertaining to said question. Try again.
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
-
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
The problem is that that does not represent the globe model at all.
It is a straw-man.
It would be no better (and in fact is worse) than saying:
If I saw that Earth was made of cheese then I'd go with a flat model.
I do not see that, so by reality the flat model we are conned into, is basically, dead.
You are saying that you would only accept the reality of the round Earth if something that you would not expect for a RE is observed.
You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
No, it isn't as simple as that as you don't just see out at an infinitesimally small region. Instead you see a FOV which includes both above and below level.
And that region below includes the horizon.
But by actually comparing where level is to here the horizon is, you can see that the horizon does go below level and thus the region right at level is only sky.
e.g:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
Show me a level scope looking at the level tubes. Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
However, it still does not address the issue.
The issue is simple. Very very simple.
The issue is.....there should absolutely, 100% certain, not be any horizon line....at all if we supposedly live on top of a globe.
It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, the Earth should curve downwards from your level scope sight. Earth should disappear from your level sight almost right away...and this is only standing on a beach.
If you are looking from a tower or a mountain or a plane and looking absolutely level, your Earth is gone, to be replaced by sky...only.
There would be no horizon lines.
The Earth is 100% not a globe we walk upon.
-
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.
Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.
Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.
I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.
You did a good job of validating everything I've said. You haven't answered the OPs question, just launched an attack on science with your post.
It's almost as if you are unable to comprehend the actual question that was asked, which proves my point.
Pay attention and you would see what would change my mind.
As for attacking. Take a look at this post of yours.
Feel free to use any which way you feel you need to go but just remember your digs will not deflect what I'm saying. It will only strengthen it.
-
Thank you for your responses, scepticmatic, it is unfortunate that you're the only FEer who has responded.
I'm curious about your answer to my question, though. Do you mean to say that seeing the curvature of the Earth from a sufficient height with your own eyes would not change your mind? I don't call myself a scientist, but take me with you and show me a flat Earth and I'm yours for life. No gadgets, no interpretations, no trusting in "faith" or "agreeing to disagree", nothing but our own eyes and what's out there. Above all, no condescension. We all have opinions. What scientists should do, if doing their jobs properly, is separate fact from opinion, no matter how unpopular that fact may be. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the Earth doesn't care if we believe in it, it is.
Can you do that? Can you take me with you? Or are you just catfishing Jack (and reeling the rest of us in)?
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
As for showing you....hmmm.....I've explained some basic stuff that, for me, is simple in proving what I said.
That's my proof. As for you, It's up to you to delve in and question it for yourself. You do not need me or anyone else to make you believe anything. Look at it all and if you want to delve in, you may see something that peaks your interest. If not then you stay as you are.
Either way, what you believe has no bearing on me.
-
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
As for showing you....hmmm.....I've explained some basic stuff that, for me, is simple in proving what I said.
hmmm... I must have missed all that stuff that you mention.
As for showing you... well as soon as you write 'for me..' that turns your statement into an opinion and an opinion is a personal view and not proof of anything.
-
It might not be much, but the number would not be zero.
But it would be within the error of levelling it.
And seriously? kilokilometers?
Why not just use Mm?
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
Otherwise, you cannot magically turn a straight line (such as a line connecting the water levels to the "horizon" for a FE), into not being straight.
So no, with that setup there is no need to have them perfectly aligned, and those photo show the horizon below eye level.
but imperceptibly so near sea level.
However, it still does not address the issue.
That, along with my previous post addressed the issue in 2 ways, first by pointing out that seeing the horizon or not is dependent upon the FOV, and showing the horizon is not at level.
The issue is.....there should absolutely, 100% certain, not be any horizon line....at all if we supposedly live on top of a globe.
WHY?
There should certainly be a horizon due to the edge of Earth. It is a Flat Earth that should never have a horizon, unless it is due to mountains or teh very edge as otherwise the limited visibility through the atmosphere would result in nothing more than a blur, similar to a very foggy day.
As for seeing it, unless you are up very high, or have a FOV of basically 0, you would expect to see it.
How about instead of just repeating the same refuted, false assertion, you actually try to justify it?
Such as by doing the math to show just how far below eye level the horizon should be, like I did for an eye at 2 m, where the horizon should be 2.7 arc minutes below level. So unless your FOV is tiny, less than 5.4 arc minutes, YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE HORIZON!
It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, the Earth should curve downwards from your level scope sight. Earth should disappear from your level sight almost right away...and this is only standing on a beach.
You mean it should drop to 2.7 arc minutes below level. i.e. a tiny amount.
If you are looking from a tower or a mountain or a plane and looking absolutely level, your Earth is gone, to be replaced by sky...only.
There would be no horizon lines.
By that insanity, if you were looking at a round object, like a basketball, you shouldn't be able to see any of it unless your eye was right up against it; balls, or any round object should be invisible.
A tower 1 km tall on Earth would be equivalent to roughly 1 hair width on a basketball. So by your lack of reasoning unless your eye was within a hair's width of a basketball, it should be invisible.
That is clearly pure nonsense.
Back in reality, the angle that Earth should subtend, at a given height h is determined by:
2*arcsin(r/(r+h))
Also note that this is the same formula as for any spherical object. You could even replace r+h with the distance to the centre.
Even at an altitude of 100 km, Earth should still take up 160 degrees of your FOV.
At an altitude of 1000 km, it takes up 120 degrees.
Again, you are literally saying that the only thing you would accept to show Earth is round, is something you wouldn't expect if Earth was round, i.e. something which would show Earth is not round.
i.e. you would not accept Earth is round based upon things which show it is.
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
Like what?
Your strawman which in no way represents what you would actually expect a round Earth to look like or produce and thus in no way proves that Earth is not a globe?
Is everything that you have seen based upon either completely misunderstanding what you would expect for a RE or knowingly pretending you would expect something you shouldn't?
-
@jackblack
Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.
Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
-
@jackblack
Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.
Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?
Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?
If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then
Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
-
@jackblack
Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.
Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?
Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?
If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then
Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.
And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.
Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.
-
@jackblack
Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.
Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?
Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?
If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then
Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.
And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.
Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.
You can also walk a smaller area multiple times.
-
@jackblack
Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.
Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?
Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?
If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then
Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.
And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.
Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.
You can also walk a smaller area multiple times.
Please make a drawing of that. You know exactely it doesnt work like that.
-
@jackblack
Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.
Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?
Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?
If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then
Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.
And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.
Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.
You can also walk a smaller area multiple times.
Please make a drawing of that. You know exactely it doesnt work like that.
Every time you get back to your starting point, your vector should be changed slightly. The more times you go around, the greater the difference should be if the Earth is curved
Obviously you're not here to contribute to the topic at hand, so I'm done schooling you.
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Do I need to ask easier questions?
The earth’s curve does not need to be taken into account to build a back yard concrete patio.
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Do I need to ask easier questions?
The earth’s curve does not need to be taken into account to build a back yard concrete patio.
Well no it doesn't need to in order to build one. You can build it however sloppy you like
-
Shifter can you please calculate me the amount of curve in your backyard on a globe scenario? How straight can you walk? How accurate are your angles when walking? Please calculate that aswell.
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
Because you said so, silly.
You stated above that if the Earth is round and you build a patio there will be a curve on the patio. You are saying that you can't build anything flat on a curved surface, and if that's true, you can't build curved objects on flat surfaces either.
You can't have it both ways, you can either build shapes however you see fit, or everything has to conform to the surface it's built on.
So which is it? Were you wrong in your first post or wrong in your reply? :)
-
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.
Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.
Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.
I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.
You did a good job of validating everything I've said. You haven't answered the OPs question, just launched an attack on science with your post.
It's almost as if you are unable to comprehend the actual question that was asked, which proves my point.
Pay attention and you would see what would change my mind.
As for attacking. Take a look at this post of yours.
Feel free to use any which way you feel you need to go but just remember your digs will not deflect what I'm saying. It will only strengthen it.
You're the one deflecting, when asked a simple question you ignored it and went on an anti-science rant about how the Earth is flat.
If you claim you answered the question, please quote that part, or answer it again. Just in case you forgot, this is the question.
What evidence would convince you the Earth was round?
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Do I need to ask easier questions?
The earth’s curve does not need to be taken into account to build a back yard concrete patio.
Well no it doesn't need to in order to build one. You can build it however sloppy you like
To parrot myself, you need to stop talking about science.
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
Because you said so, silly.
You stated above that if the Earth is round and you build a patio there will be a curve on the patio. You are saying that you can't build anything flat on a curved surface, and if that's true, you can't build curved objects on flat surfaces either.
You can't have it both ways, you can either build shapes however you see fit, or everything has to conform to the surface it's built on.
So which is it? Were you wrong in your first post or wrong in your reply? :)
Neither.
If the Earth is curved, a 10m distance of a patio that does not take into account said curve of the earth will contour the minute curve over that distance. SolarWind said his patio is flat. He never said anything about taking the alleged Earths curve in consideration when building it
Therefore we can conclude one of 2 things
His patio is not as flat as he says (Earth is curved)
His patio is flat like he says (Earth is flat)
Now, if the Earth is ~40K km in circumference, the actual curve across 10m will be indiscernible to the naked eye and most home owner tools. But the math wouldn't lie
Is SolarWind insists his patio is indeed flat while its construction did not take into account any alleged curve, than that is proof the Earth is flat
-
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved. ::)
That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?
Because you said so, silly.
You stated above that if the Earth is round and you build a patio there will be a curve on the patio. You are saying that you can't build anything flat on a curved surface, and if that's true, you can't build curved objects on flat surfaces either.
You can't have it both ways, you can either build shapes however you see fit, or everything has to conform to the surface it's built on.
So which is it? Were you wrong in your first post or wrong in your reply? :)
Neither.
If the Earth is curved, a 10m distance of a patio that does not take into account said curve of the earth will contour the minute curve over that distance. SolarWind said his patio is flat. He never said anything about taking the alleged Earths curve in consideration when building it
Therefore we can conclude one of 2 things
His patio is not as flat as he says (Earth is curved)
His patio is flat like he says (Earth is flat)
Now, if the Earth is ~40K km in circumference, the actual curve across 10m will be indiscernible to the naked eye and most home owner tools. But the math wouldn't lie
Is SolarWind insists his patio is indeed flat while its construction did not take into account any alleged curve, than that is proof the Earth is flat
You need to learn how to build things. You don't need to take into account the curve of the Earth to build a flat 10 meter patio. We have these marvelous things called measuring devices that can use to easily make you a flat surface. Doesn't matter is the Earth is round, flat or a squiggly line, a laser level is going to make it flat regardless of what the shape under it is.
Perhaps you should take some woodworking courses. :)
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
-
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
As for showing you....hmmm.....I've explained some basic stuff that, for me, is simple in proving what I said.
hmmm... I must have missed all that stuff that you mention.
As for showing you... well as soon as you write 'for me..' that turns your statement into an opinion and an opinion is a personal view and not proof of anything.
It depends on what you regard as proof.
What I've mentioned , is an opinion of mine, you are correct on that but it's also a proof to myself that I would never change my mind to go back to following a global indoctrinated model.
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)
Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.
What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)
Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.
What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
Sigh
Lets scale it up to 1000km then
If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
-
What evidence would convince you the Earth was round?
Nothing, because shifter already knows and believes the earth is round. He is just one of the pretend-to-be flatearthers.
He knows exactely why his 'experiments' are wrong (I mean it's quite obvious).
-
Shifter can you please calculate me the amount of curve in your backyard on a globe scenario? How straight can you walk? How accurate are your angles when walking? Please calculate that aswell.
-
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
I'll make this easier.
If you stand up and have the scope at eye level and the scope horizontally level on a beach (for instance)... then immediately you are above the beach, meaning you will not see that beach because that beach is below you.
From that point your Earth should curve downwards, meaning, your immediate 5/6 feet worth of eye level sight is already moving horizontally into the distance while the sea should be gaining in downward curve.
Basically you can never see any horizon line. It would be impossible on your globe.
We clearly do see a convergence which is our very own horizon line to our very own sight.
Without arguing for whatever alternate Earth there may be, I can conclude with 100% confidence, we do not live on a globe and especially a spinning one.
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)
Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.
What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
Sigh
Lets scale it up to 1000km then
If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.
I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh. ::)
If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio. You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.
It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)
Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.
What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
Sigh
Lets scale it up to 1000km then
If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.
I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh. ::)
If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio. You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.
It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)
Not shifting the goalposts at all. I only 'scaled it up' as an example to show you what I meant by flat. Maybe you and I had differing views on what, how or why is flat
Why are you so grumpy? Sheesh
-
I am no longer that interested in the original topic, but as long as Sweden gets bashed, I am a happy camper!
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)
Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.
What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
Sigh
Lets scale it up to 1000km then
If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.
I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh. ::)
If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio. You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.
It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)
Not shifting the goalposts at all. I only 'scaled it up' as an example to show you what I meant by flat. Maybe you and I had differing views on what, how or why is flat
Why are you so grumpy? Sheesh
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)
The red line is curved.
The blue lines are flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)
I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)
-
And I did the math for you. A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)
Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.
What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
Sigh
Lets scale it up to 1000km then
If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.
I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh. ::)
If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio. You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.
It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)
Not shifting the goalposts at all. I only 'scaled it up' as an example to show you what I meant by flat. Maybe you and I had differing views on what, how or why is flat
Why are you so grumpy? Sheesh
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)
The red line is curved.
The blue lines are flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)
I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)
Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?
-
A (live) webcast from the moon showing Earth.
Something any of us can tune into real time of see replay of. "There's the hurricane." "There was the Beirut explosion." "There was the fireball crashing into Russian territory." "New Year's Eve fireworks over Sydney look so small from the Moon..."
China has rovers on the dark side of the moon. Outfit the next rover with an LED spotlight, drive from the dark side to the visible side and flash Morse Code to Earth during a "moonless night".
Those examples would be hard to refute.
-
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
How much of a short distance? And what are the dimensions of your earth?
-
A (live) webcast from the moon showing Earth.
Something any of us can tune into real time of see replay of. "There's the hurricane." "There was the Beirut explosion." "There was the fireball crashing into Russian territory." "New Year's Eve fireworks over Sydney look so small from the Moon..."
China has rovers on the dark side of the moon. Outfit the next rover with an LED spotlight, drive from the dark side to the visible side and flash Morse Code to Earth during a "moonless night".
Those examples would be hard to refute.
You can get very close to this right now.
The DSCOVR sits a million miles away from the Earth and takes high resolution pictures every hour. You can view these images on the NASA website.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Or from a closer perspective, actual live video from the ISS. Even better, you can wait until the ISS is passing overhead and look up and see it while you watch the live feed.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
-
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)
The red line is curved.
The blue lines are flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)
I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)
Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?
If you cover the surface of a curve, you get a curved surface.
So no, a 'patio' that went all the way around the Earth would not be flat, it would be curved.
The 1000km 'patio' you described would look like one of the blue lines, slicing straight through the earth if you connected the two points.
-
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)
The red line is curved.
The blue lines are flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)
I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)
Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?
If you cover the surface of a curve, you get a curved surface.
So no, a 'patio' that went all the way around the Earth would not be flat, it would be curved.
The 1000km 'patio' you described would look like one of the blue lines, slicing straight through the earth if you connected the two points.
Indeed and is not what I was talking about at all
The 1000km patio is on the surface. Obviously. So from one end to the other, it will obviously not be 'flat'. It will curve around the surface of the Earth if the Earth is curved. Geez, it's not that hard to follow ::)
To
-
I see my patio example is causing a bit of debate here. So I take a 4 ft decking post and then dig a hole so that it rises above the ground level 2 ft. I then take a 2nd post, dig a hole and place it in the ground a couple of metres away. I then place a beam on top of the two posts and place a spirit level in the centre of the beam. I then lightly knock each of the posts until the spirit level shows the bridging beam is completely level. With the posts secure and the tops of the posts all level with each other I secure them with concrete.
I then continue this pattern until I have a series of posts secured in the ground, the tops of which are all dead level with each other. Finally I connect all the posts with a framework of beams so that they are all flush with the tops of the beams.
How does any of this provide any clues about the shape of the surface of the entire planet? Simple answer. It doesn't.
-
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)
The red line is curved.
The blue lines are flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)
I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)
Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?
If you cover the surface of a curve, you get a curved surface.
So no, a 'patio' that went all the way around the Earth would not be flat, it would be curved.
The 1000km 'patio' you described would look like one of the blue lines, slicing straight through the earth if you connected the two points.
Indeed and is not what I was talking about at all
The 1000km patio is on the surface. Obviously. So from one end to the other, it will obviously not be 'flat'. It will curve around the surface of the Earth if the Earth is curved. Geez, it's not that hard to follow ::)
To
You are very confused.
If your patio follows the red line, it's curved and not flat.
If your patio follows a blue line, it's flat.
It's not that hard to understand. I even gave you a picture. ;)
Do you understand yet how you can build a flat patio on a curved surface? It doesn't matter what the shape is under it. Just use a laser, build along that line and it's flat. Simple.
-
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS
If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too
Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.
PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.
The OP 'What would change your mind?'
My answer was simply if parallel tracking would show a different vector to what you start with if you walk an area such as drawing out a triangle
(https://i1.wp.com/www.thephysicsmill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/measuring_angles.png)
Anyway, PM me if you want to continue this boring nonsense
-
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS
If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too
Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.
PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.
You said a patio will follow the curve of the Earth, and all of this is just to show you that no it does not. Remember, this is where we started.
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
If you build a patio all the way around the Earth following the curve, you get a curved patio.
If you build a flat patio, you get a flat patio.
Here is an example of a very large, flat patio built on the Earth.
Do you see the difference between flat and curved now? The red line above is curved, the blue lines are flat.
You can also build a 10m flat patio just like that. You can just ignore the 0.000002 meter drop a lot easier. ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/i7A4R5h.png)
-
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS
If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too
Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.
PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.
You said a patio will follow the curve of the Earth, and all of this is just to show you that no it does not. Remember, this is where we started.
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
If you build a patio all the way around the Earth following the curve, you get a curved patio.
If you build a flat patio, you get a flat patio.
Here is an example of a very large, flat patio built on the Earth.
Do you see the difference between flat and curved now? The red line above is curved, the blue lines are flat.
You can also build a 10m flat patio just like that. You can just ignore the 0.000002 meter drop a lot easier. ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/i7A4R5h.png)
You're still misrepresenting what I said. Clearly you only do it for the audience because there is no PM from you. I'm done with your trolling. POQ
-
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS
If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too
Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.
PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.
The OP 'What would change your mind?'
My answer was simply if parallel tracking would show a different vector to what you start with if you walk an area such as drawing out a triangle
(https://i1.wp.com/www.thephysicsmill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/measuring_angles.png)
Anyway, PM me if you want to continue this boring nonsense
Is your garden as big as the triangle in your picture?
-
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS
If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too
Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.
PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.
You said a patio will follow the curve of the Earth, and all of this is just to show you that no it does not. Remember, this is where we started.
Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.
If you build a patio all the way around the Earth following the curve, you get a curved patio.
If you build a flat patio, you get a flat patio.
Here is an example of a very large, flat patio built on the Earth.
Do you see the difference between flat and curved now? The red line above is curved, the blue lines are flat.
You can also build a 10m flat patio just like that. You can just ignore the 0.000002 meter drop a lot easier. ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/i7A4R5h.png)
You're still misrepresenting what I said. Clearly you only do it for the audience because there is no PM from you. I'm done with your trolling. POQ
Funny, didn't you start this whole patio debate as a troll in the first place? :P
I'm not misrepresenting anything, I directly quoted what you said. You claimed that his patio had to match the curvature (or lack of) of the Earth, which is total nonsense. A patio being flat or not doesn't prove anything about the shape of the surface it's sitting on. You can make it any shape you want.
I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept.
If I make a car, does it have to conform to the shape of the factory? Square factories make square cars? Round factories make round cars?
-
If I make a car, does it have to conform to the shape of the factory? Square factories make square cars? Round factories make round cars?
Well said, mate!
Maybe now even shittler will understand it, but tbh I doubt it. Even simple drawings seem to confuse him.
-
Please make a drawing of that. You know exactely it doesnt work like that.
Assuming you do it perfectly, and the surface is perfectly spherical, it does work like that.
The angle sum of the triangle is given by:
A=pi + A*K, where K is the curvature, for a sphere equal to 1/r^2.
So for Earth's ~6371000 m radius, the curvature is ~2.4*10-14 m-2.
So if you covered an area of 100 m2, the spherical excess would be ~2.5*10-12 radians, or ~5.1*10-7 arcseconds.
That means if you took a bar along that path, it would have appeared to rotate by ~5.1*10-7 arc seconds, compared to how it started.
If you did it 1 billion times, it would have appeared to rotate by ~0.14 degrees.
If you did it 1 trillion times, it would have appeared to rotate by ~140 degrees.
In practice, it doesn't work like that.
Each time you turn the corner you likely introduce a small error in the angle, and the surface is likely not a perfect shear. If it is irregular then instead of just using the Gaussian curvature of a sphere, you need to integrate over the area, including the Gaussian curvature of all of it.
For example, with the simple extreme case of an almost perfect cube (which is topologically equivalent to a sphere) with an extremely large Gaussian curvature at the corners (due to the edges and corners being rounded ever so slightly to avoid having sharp edges with infinite curvature) and a Gaussian curvature of 0 elsewhere, then for most of the surface it has an excess of 0 degrees, but each corner you include in the shape gives an excess of 90 degrees.
Therefore we can conclude one of 2 things
His patio is not as flat as he says (Earth is curved)
His patio is flat like he says (Earth is flat)
And by that lack of reasoning we can conclude that any round surface shows Earth is round.
In order to claim otherwise you need to explain a flat patio could not be constructed on a round Eath.
If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
That is if it is level, not flat.
If you construct it flat, then it does.
Flat and level are different.
You can construct a flat object which is not level.
Comprehend?
If you would like an example, consider LIGO.
An object which was constructed to be "flat", in the sense that the light paths are straight, rather than following the curvature of Earth's surface.
This could have been constructed in one of 2 ways and achieve the same result.
The simplest and fastest (due to the large size) is to account for the curvature and terrain of Earth so construction can begin everywhere. Each location can know how far down to dig and go much faster than the latter method. Then precision alignment only occurs at the final stage.
The more time consuming is to start building in one location, and then align everything to it. This works regardless of the shape of Earth, it just means if you didn't dig down far enough at the first spot, you need to dig further down and scrap most of the effort put in.
Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?
But that isn't what anyone suggested.
Instead it is just a small patio. Why can't that small patio be flat?
I see my patio example is causing a bit of debate here. So I take a 4 ft decking post and then dig a hole so that it rises above the ground level 2 ft. I then take a 2nd post, dig a hole and place it in the ground a couple of metres away. I then place a beam on top of the two posts and place a spirit level in the centre of the beam. I then lightly knock each of the posts until the spirit level shows the bridging beam is completely level. With the posts secure and the tops of the posts all level with each other I secure them with concrete.
I then continue this pattern until I have a series of posts secured in the ground, the tops of which are all dead level with each other. Finally I connect all the posts with a framework of beams so that they are all flush with the tops of the beams.
In that case, assuming it is done perfectly, it is level, not flat.
-
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
In order to have a straight line, such as a line connecting the water level, along with a horizon at the same level, you need to have a camera with significant distortion, distortion which bends straight lines into curves.
So distortion is exactly what you need to escape that proving Earth is round.
Without distortion, if the horizon was at level, rather than below level, you would be able to draw a straight line connecting the 2 visible water levels and continue it to the horizon.
The fact you cannot combined with the lack of any significant distortion, means the horizon is clearly below eye level in the high altitude pictures.
However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.
What you said is worthless, as you are providing nothing to justify it and ignoring the math which refutes you.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
Again, that is equivalent to saying that if you are even a short distance away from a spherical object, like a ball, you would only see anything other than objects around it.
It is pure nonsense.
The math clearly shows you are wrong.
Even at a distance of 100 km, Earth will still take up 160 degrees and thus only will be 10 degrees below level (with the 10 degrees in front and the 10 degrees behind you adding to the 160 degrees Earth takes up to give you 180 degrees), so if your FOV is greater than 10 degrees, YOU WOULD SEE THE HORIZON even when looking straight out (i.e. level).
I'll make this easier.
If you stand up and have the scope at eye level and the scope horizontally level on a beach (for instance)... then immediately you are above the beach, meaning you will not see that beach because that beach is below you.
From that point your Earth should curve downwards, meaning, your immediate 5/6 feet worth of eye level sight is already moving horizontally into the distance while the sea should be gaining in downward curve.
Again, this assumes a FOV of 0, which is never observed in reality.
If instead your vertical FOV is 90 degrees, and we ignore the curve for a minute, and your eye level was 2 m (above the ground/sea), that means you see the ground/sea 2 m in front of you.
Perhaps a picture will make it easier for you to understand (or just further ignore):
(https://i.imgur.com/WPmwK6u.png)
That is an example of a person, who unlike your mythical example, actually has a vertical FOV.
Notice how the horizon is within their FOV?
So no, it is very much possible to see the horizon on a globe.
We clearly do see a convergence which is our very own horizon line to our very own sight.
No, we don't.
We clearly see the horizon is below eye level, with the amount below getting larger as you get higher and higher, clearly refuting a flat Earth, and matching quite well with a globe.
So, you cannot honestly and rationally conclude with any confidence that we do not live on a globe based upon that.
You could only conclude that we don't based upon a dishonest and irrational misrepresentation of what you would expect on a globe, combined with ignoring the available evidence.
-
A (live) webcast from the moon showing Earth.
Something any of us can tune into real time of see replay of. "There's the hurricane." "There was the Beirut explosion." "There was the fireball crashing into Russian territory." "New Year's Eve fireworks over Sydney look so small from the Moon..."
There is EPIC on DSCOVR which takes a picture of Earth multiple times throughout the day, which you can either collect directly when the satellite transmits that image back to Earth, or access on a few different websites.
I also highly doubt you would see things like fireworks from the Moon, probably not even the Beirut explosion.
With such distance, everything is tiny.
Assuming you want to capture the entire globe some ~12750 km accross, and stream in back in 1080p, each pixel would be roughly 6 km wide.
The fireball from the Beirut explosion wouldn't even cover a single pixel. And that is assuming the camera is large enough to not be diffraction limited, and also that you have the equipment to stream back 1080p footage.
That is expensive to launch. 10s of thousands of dollars per kg.
China has rovers on the dark side of the moon. Outfit the next rover with an LED spotlight, drive from the dark side to the visible side and flash Morse Code to Earth during a "moonless night".
I assume by "dark side" you mean far side?
Then the question is how bright do you want it?
There are a few ways to do the calculation.
As a simple calculation, assume you want 1 uW / m2 (As a comparison, a fairly low power LED would operate at a few 10s of mW.
When viewed at 10 m, and assuming the light actually goes in all directions, instead of a small cone, that corresponds to a power of roughly 8 uW/m^2
So if you just want 1 uW/m^2, to cover all of Earth, you need a total of roughly 127 MW.
Because you want it done when the moon is in darkness, you can't use solar panels.
Also, the solar panels of the ISS provide roughly 100 kW, so you would need 1000 times that.
Using such power would also require extensive cooling.
Another option is to just consider how far away you can see such an LED from at night. So assuming you can see a simple 1 mW LED from 100 m away, then to see it from roughly 400 000 km away, noting that intensity follows an inverse square law, that distance is 4000000 times the 10 m, and thus requires a power of 16 GW.
This is much larger now as a large portion of that light would be going away from Earth. So you need a quite well focused spotlight, which projects a beam only 1.8 degrees wide, to keep the power low.
While the idea sounds simple, just strapping an LED light on a rover; it is actually a lot more complex to pull off, requiring multiple high power LED lights, and a system of lenses to focus them into a tight beam, and a large power generation unit (or large power storage unit along with large power generation from solar), and a cooling system. It is quite impractical.
And what gains would it get us?
How would you know it was from the Moon and not from a balloon or satellite?
Personally, if I saw such a thing, I would be inclined to think it is fake from the impracticality of it and that would cast doubt on everything to do with missions to the moon, at least if done by an official agency like NASA or ESA.
-
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
How much of a short distance? And what are the dimensions of your earth?
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
-
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
In order to have a straight line, such as a line connecting the water level, along with a horizon at the same level, you need to have a camera with significant distortion, distortion which bends straight lines into curves.
So distortion is exactly what you need to escape that proving Earth is round.
Without distortion, if the horizon was at level, rather than below level, you would be able to draw a straight line connecting the 2 visible water levels and continue it to the horizon.
The fact you cannot combined with the lack of any significant distortion, means the horizon is clearly below eye level in the high altitude pictures.
You cannot have your horizon below eye level. Your eye level view is the very reason you have an horizon in the first place.
The horizon is a convergence as far as your eye/scope can see. Its where the light from both floor and ceiling returns last light to your eyes.
For this to happen you must have that meeting point and you cannot have it on top of a globe that always curves downwards from your vision. It is impossible and is why the Earth is bot a globe, just by this simple view.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
Again, that is equivalent to saying that if you are even a short distance away from a spherical object, like a ball, you would only see anything other than objects around it.
It is pure nonsense.
We aren't talking about looking at any ball from a position away from the ball. You know this.
Let's deal with feet on the ball, not floating in your space looking at a supposed ball or looking at a ball on a table...because you know fine well this is not placing any reality on what I've just explained.
I'll make this easier.
If you stand up and have the scope at eye level and the scope horizontally level on a beach (for instance)... then immediately you are above the beach, meaning you will not see that beach because that beach is below you.
From that point your Earth should curve downwards, meaning, your immediate 5/6 feet worth of eye level sight is already moving horizontally into the distance while the sea should be gaining in downward curve.
Again, this assumes a FOV of 0, which is never observed in reality.
If instead your vertical FOV is 90 degrees, and we ignore the curve for a minute, and your eye level was 2 m (above the ground/sea), that means you see the ground/sea 2 m in front of you.
Perhaps a picture will make it easier for you to understand (or just further ignore):
(https://i.imgur.com/WPmwK6u.png)
That is an example of a person, who unlike your mythical example, actually has a vertical FOV.
Notice how the horizon is within their FOV?
So no, it is very much possible to see the horizon on a globe.
I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to represent.
Are those lines spanning out horizontally and angled left and right of the person's view or is one looking through the solid Earth and one looking directly into the sky?
We clearly do see a convergence which is our very own horizon line to our very own sight.
No, we don't.
We clearly see the horizon is below eye level, with the amount below getting larger as you get higher and higher, clearly refuting a flat Earth, and matching quite well with a globe.
So, you cannot honestly and rationally conclude with any confidence that we do not live on a globe based upon that.
You could only conclude that we don't based upon a dishonest and irrational misrepresentation of what you would expect on a globe, combined with ignoring the available evidence.
You cannot have any horizon below eye level.
Your eyes are convex and they bring in floor to ceiling convergence of light. It cannot be anything other than eye level.
-
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
How much of a short distance? And what are the dimensions of your earth?
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this exact argument. It's an odd one, but let's go with it. I like odd. Using just your natural optics (eyeballs), standing at a shoreline, about 1.7 m height, looking straight out, based upon your knowledge of conventional globe earth geometry, what would you see if the earth were a globe. A, B, or C:
(https://i.imgur.com/o86re6o.jpg)
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)
-
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this exact argument. It's an odd one, but let's go with it. I like odd. Using just your natural optics (eyeballs), standing at a shoreline, about 1.7 m height, looking straight out, based upon your knowledge of conventional globe earth geometry, what would you see if the earth were a globe. A, B, or C:
(https://i.imgur.com/o86re6o.jpg)
We are not talking about naked eye. I've highlighted what I said.
However, even with the naked eye you would see very little of the ground and horizontal spread before it was lost, in short order.
However, we are dealing with a level scope in how I explained it.
Now here's the key with your pictures.
The reality would be number 3 picture if Earth was a globe we walk upon.
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon and so, with it having a flat/level floor (sea) and (in my opinion) a concave sky (dome) and that The light back to our vision creates our very own horizon and vanishing point.
The reason for this is the light back to our vision, as I said and soooo, we lose the least brightest of that returned light which happens to be the densest area, which is the sea and retain more of the light from the sky, leaving buildings looking like they sink into the sea.
If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon.
-
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this exact argument. It's an odd one, but let's go with it. I like odd. Using just your natural optics (eyeballs), standing at a shoreline, about 1.7 m height, looking straight out, based upon your knowledge of conventional globe earth geometry, what would you see if the earth were a globe. A, B, or C:
(https://i.imgur.com/o86re6o.jpg)
We are not talking about naked eye. I've highlighted what I said.
However, even with the naked eye you would see very little of the ground and horizontal spread before it was lost, in short order.
However, we are dealing with a level scope in how I explained it.
Now here's the key with your pictures.
The reality would be number 3 picture if Earth was a globe we walk upon.
Scope, no scope - Doesn't matter. Eyes are level. Either way one can see just as much horizontally as vertically.
Why would the ground be lost in short order? How quickly do you calculate that the conventional round earth model dips from where you are standing on the shoreline? Are you familiar with the conventional model? Because it sounds like you are not. Which is fine. But you perpetually go on and on about how no one gets your model and we're all indoctrinated sheep. Whereas it seems by your "logic" here, you're just as indoctrinated into your own model so much so that you have no clue how the globe model you so loathe even works. That's why I said your argument is so odd. Because it literally doesn't even account for what the conventional model is.
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon and so, with it having a flat/level floor (sea) and (in my opinion) a concave sky (dome) and that The light back to our vision creates our very own horizon and vanishing point.
The reason for this is the light back to our vision, as I said and soooo, we lose the least brightest of that returned light which happens to be the densest area, which is the sea and retain more of the light from the sky, leaving buildings looking like they sink into the sea.
I'll say, another odd explanation. There are many examples that are not over water, but over land. Like the bottom parts of mountains one should be able to see, but are obscured when they shouldn't be. Mountain ranges where much higher peaks are actually lower in view than the shorter ones in the foreground. (I'll dig some up) So no, it's not a "light back" phenomenon or whatever it is you call it.
If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
According to conventional globe earth theory, how much lean and at what distance?
Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon.
Got it. But so far, that's really all you have said and presented, "Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon." Good for you. But that's not evidence. With your claims you need to also say by what margin. E.g., At what distance would the globe earth dip away where one would only be able to see sky and why. If you don't have a firm grasp on the theory you rail against I can help you. But your arguments thus far here make it seem you never even got a chance to be indoctrinated like the rest of us because you're talking like you don't understand them at all.
-
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Once more, only with a FOV of 0.
Also, considering you insist on going down this path of insanity, the same applies to a FE, unless it stretches on for an infinite distance (at which point the horizon would be obscured by the atmosphere). So on a FE, you likewise you shouldn't see it.
After all, the ground is below you. How does it magically fly up to get to eye level?
Surely with this path of insanity, Earth must be curved with us on the inside of a bowl.
Note that this bowl must go to exactly eye level, regardless of where you are, as otherwise, you would just see land, and no sky at all.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
Except we do see it, with the angle of dip to the horizon increasing (so the horizon appears lower) the higher you go.
We also see it with distant objects being obscured from the bottom up.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
You mean it is repeatedly refuted as it in no way actually describes what you would actually expect to see on a RE, with these refutations repeatedly brushed aside as they so simply show your strawmen in no way refutes the globe and when you do it properly, what we observe actually matches the globe.
You cannot have your horizon below eye level.
Then how is it repeatedly observed to be and measured to be below eye level?
Your eye level view is the very reason you have an horizon in the first place.
How?
How do your eyes magically a horizon, and why is it eye level? Why not just whatever direction you look?
The horizon sure seems to behave more as a physical edge of Earth.
It has nothing to do with convergence, as that requires it to be infinitely far away, not the few km away that is typically observed at.
The fact that it appears below eye level, also shows that.
If you look at a long corridor, the hall and ceiling doesn't magically converge. Instead they end at a hall.
The only 2 ways to have them converge, is if they curve or if they are infinitely long.
If you would like a picture of what happens when you visibility is limited such that you can't see forever, here are some from wikimedia commons of dense fog:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dense_fog_at_hill_station.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Light_vessel_Sula_in_dense_fog_at_Gloucester.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Costa_Pacifica_departing_Tallinn_in_dense_fog_18_May_2013.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halong_Bay_in_dense_fog.jpg
Notice how you don't see a clear horizon and instead it just fades to a blur?
The sole reason you see a horizon on Earth, is due to the curvature of Earth.
And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
We aren't talking about looking at any ball from a position away from the ball. You know this.
But it is equivalent.
You are saying you would see nothing but sky.
That is equivalent if you look at a ball, you see no ball, because you are too far away so it curves away and you don't see it.
Because the only 2 ways you can try to claim that we can only see sky and be remotely honest and rational is to claim that the FOV of 0 (and thus you don't really see anything) or if you claim that literally all you see is sky with no Earth at all. After all, if it moves down and away so fast so that all you can see is sky, why would looking down help?
The only way out (to claim hat you can see the ball) is to admit that the ball actually takes up a region of your FOV, and then see just how much it takes up and thus where it would be compared to looking out "level", which as already done for Earth at 2 m, means Earth would appear 2.7 arc minutes below level, clearly visible, and basically indistinguishable from eye level.
So how about we deal with what I have explained, rather than continuing with your deflection?
Do you accept that Earth will take up a portion of your FOV? For simplicity we will start with your FOV being 360 degrees in a plane that is perpendicular to the surface, this includes, straight up, straight down, straight out in front and straight behind you. Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Do you accept that it takes up a portion of your FOV?
If so:
What portion, i.e what angle out of the 360 degrees that make up that FOV?
Where are the edges of Earth, i.e. at what angle, measured from directly in front of you, do the edges of Earth appear at, i.e. how far down do you have to look to see the horizon?
See if you can actually answer these simple questions, because that is what an honest, rational attack on the RE would require; actually showing what angles you would expect the horizon for a RE to appear at
I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to represent.
I thought that was fairly clear, but I will spell it out more.
This is a side on view, of Earth, with a person (or object) on it looking out level.
The blue circle represents Earth.
The purple line represents the person.
The 2 orange lines represent the vertical FOV of the person/camera/whatever.
The region between the 2 orange lines is what the person is able to see (until it is obstructed by something in that FOV).
And before you say that is a large FOV, not just a small one near level, that corresponds to someone with an eye 225 km above Earth.
If you really want, I can make you a diagram for someone 2 m above Earth, and 1 km above Earth, showing just how small the FOV needs to be to see the horizon.
You cannot have any horizon below eye level.
Rather than just repeating the same assertion, can you justify that at all, and actually deal with the logical implications.
Your eyes do not magically converge light. They just see outwards at angles.
The horizon can be anywhere, just like the edge of a ball can be anywhere.
Likewise, you repeatedly asserting Earth is not a globe, while you reject the evidence that shows it is, and cling to a strawman which in no way matches the globe, doesn't help your case at all and just shows how much you reject reality.
If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
You mean they would lean back by an imperceptible amount, with the curvature of Earth hiding them from the bottom up, just like we observe, as if Earth actually is a globe?
If Earth was flat, we would see them standing upright, from their base to their tip, without any hidden by the water below them.
If it was just us not seeing the light, it would be a region of darkness. It wouldn't magically join the sea to the land removing part of it.
-
Scope, no scope - Doesn't matter. Eyes are level. Either way one can see just as much horizontally as vertically.
Nope, not at all.
The atmospheric stacking system puts paid to that but you haven't got to grips with that,
However, you do understand that atmosphere becomes less dense the higher you go, which also includes the higher you see, as opposed to eye level denser atmosphere.
Why would the ground be lost in short order? How quickly do you calculate that the conventional round earth model dips from where you are standing on the shoreline?
Not obscured......straight away.
Are you familiar with the conventional model? Because it sounds like you are not. Which is fine. But you perpetually go on and on about how no one gets your model and we're all indoctrinated sheep. Whereas it seems by your "logic" here, you're just as indoctrinated into your own model so much so that you have no clue how the globe model you so loathe even works. That's why I said your argument is so odd. Because it literally doesn't even account for what the conventional model is.
I'm familiar with the nonsense handed out for it, yes. It's the very reason why it makes no sense when looked at without indoctrinated glasses on.
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon and so, with it having a flat/level floor (sea) and (in my opinion) a concave sky (dome) and that The light back to our vision creates our very own horizon and vanishing point.
The reason for this is the light back to our vision, as I said and soooo, we lose the least brightest of that returned light which happens to be the densest area, which is the sea and retain more of the light from the sky, leaving buildings looking like they sink into the sea.
I'll say, another odd explanation. There are many examples that are not over water, but over land. Like the bottom parts of mountains one should be able to see, but are obscured when they shouldn't be. Mountain ranges where much higher peaks are actually lower in view than the shorter ones in the foreground. (I'll dig some up) So no, it's not a "light back" phenomenon or whatever it is you call it.
We are talking impossible horizon line on your global Earth....but, if you want to go into the mountain stuff, then let's look at it and show me what you mean.
If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
According to conventional globe earth theory, how much lean and at what distance?
We can argue 8 inches per mile squared...but, it doesn't matter. The reality would be a lean back of anything that is curving downwards and away from your vision.
What you would not see at distance is buildings standing vertically true on your global Earth. Surely you must understand that.
Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon.
Got it. But so far, that's really all you have said and presented, "Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon." Good for you. But that's not evidence.
Actually that dig is worthless, so deal with what I put forward.
With your claims you need to also say by what margin. E.g., At what distance would the globe earth dip away where one would only be able to see sky and why. If you don't have a firm grasp on the theory you rail against I can help you. But your arguments thus far here make it seem you never even got a chance to be indoctrinated like the rest of us because you're talking like you don't understand them at all.
All I need to know is what should be logical. Global Earth shows nothing logical....especially the very basic observations of which I've just explained.
-
Crap, forgot the ”atmospheric stacking system”.
Well, there are new users, sceptimatic can show them the path.
-
I'm familiar with the nonsense handed out for it, yes. It's the very reason why it makes no sense when looked at without indoctrinated glasses on.
Do you mean the nonsense handed out by indoctrinated FEers like you, which in no way actually respresents the RE model you claim to be attacking?
Or do you mean the non-nonsense, the stuff which actually makes sense, which is provided by honest, rational people that actually indicates what the RE model should have happen?
We are talking impossible horizon line on your global Earth....but, if you want to go into the mountain stuff, then let's look at it and show me what you mean.
Stop just repeating the same baseless garbage.
Again, there is nothing impossible about the horizon on the very real round Earth. The horizon is an edge of Earth.
You are yet to provide a valid reason for why it can't be seen on a RE.
Again, do you think you can't see the edge of a ball?
If not, why shouldn't you be able to see the horizon on a RE?
If your only objection is its location, then how about actually answering the extremely simple question you need to avoid to pretend there is a problem for the RE?
Tell us exactly where the horizon, the edge of Earth, should appear, for a RE, if you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Again, saying you can't see it is equivalent to saying you cannot see the edge of a ball.
We can argue 8 inches per mile squared...but, it doesn't matter.
Oh no, it does matter, very much.
That is because over roughly 5 km, the distance to the horizon when you stand 2 m above Earth, Earth would drop a mere 6.4 ft. Putting the horizon at ~ 4 m below your eye level, which at 5 km, amounts to 2.75 arc minutes. i.e. the horzion would be only a tiny bit below eye level.
This dip causes the bottom of buildings to disappear.
Unlike the FE, RE actually has an explanation for why objects disappear from the bottom up.
The reality would be a lean back of anything that is curving downwards and away from your vision.
A completely imperceptible lean.
For example, even at an extreme 400 km distance, that is only roughly 1% of the way around Earth and would only amount to 3.6 degrees.
And remember, this angle is measured in the one direction you cannot easily see just by your eyes alone.
Actually that dig is worthless, so deal with what I put forward.
Your nonsense has been dealt with, repeatedly; with you just repeating the same false, refuted assertions.
How about you start dealing with what we have put forwards?
Such as why the horizon is observed to be below eye level in the photos I provided?
Such as how at 2 m above Earth, for a RE, the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, and thus well within your FOV when looking out level?
Such as how your nonsense would require balls to be invisible, with no edge and with you only see stuff around them?
All I need to know is what should be logical.
And what you are spouting is not. There is nothing logical about what you have said.
You repeatedly ignoring refutations, including those involving math, and avoiding extremely simple questions shows that.
You are clinging to a completely illogical strawman to dismiss the RE.
Your nonsense is no more logical than saying Earth can't be flat because it isn't made of cheese, or that merry go rounds at a carnival can't be spinning, because if they were the kids would fly straight off the horses and be killed.
Logic dictates that Earth, being a visible object, MUST take up a portion of your FOV, unless all the lines of sight to it are obstructed.
Thus logic dictates that if you are looking out level, and your FOV is large enough, you WILL see the horizon, that is the edge of the round Earth, the line separating Earth from sky.
Saying it can't be seen because the ground is below you and bends away is not logical at all.
If you wish to claim you are using logic, then start addressing the extremely simple questions. If you were using logic, it would be easy to address.
-
Septimatic, you are smaller than you think, compared to the surface of the earth.
You say every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on the globe, yes?
The earth curves an average of 1 inch per 200 meters. That's half an inch per 100 meters. That means the earth curves an average of 0.0001270003 of an inch every inch.
Unless you are a germ living on the earth' surface, Septic, (and I'm not saying you're not) chances are you are not going to notice the curvature.
-
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Once more, only with a FOV of 0.
Also, considering you insist on going down this path of insanity, the same applies to a FE, unless it stretches on for an infinite distance (at which point the horizon would be obscured by the atmosphere). So on a FE, you likewise you shouldn't see it.
After all, the ground is below you. How does it magically fly up to get to eye level?
Surely with this path of insanity, Earth must be curved with us on the inside of a bowl.
Note that this bowl must go to exactly eye level, regardless of where you are, as otherwise, you would just see land, and no sky at all.
The ground doesn't magically fly up to eye level. It is everything to do with reflected light back to your eyes and the above (sky) converges towards the water as far as your eyes can differentiate the light from both at that meeting point for your vision.
This is why you can bring things into view with a telescope that can magnify that light back to your eyes and you can see what is within that horizon line convergence.
You cannot have your horizon below eye level.
Then how is it repeatedly observed to be and measured to be below eye level?
It isn't. It never is and never will be.
Your eye level view is the very reason you have an horizon in the first place.
How?
How do your eyes magically a horizon, and why is it eye level? Why not just whatever direction you look?
The horizon sure seems to behave more as a physical edge of Earth.
The ground is denser than the air. the sea is denser than the air.
You can see farther into the air than you can looking directly level and because of this your eyes lose the light from the denser ground quite early and this is where the light from the sky converges to form your exact eye level horizon line. It cannot ever be anything else.
It has nothing to do with convergence, as that requires it to be infinitely far away, not the few km away that is typically observed at.
We cannot see infinitely. We have a limit of what our eyes can reflect back. Once that limit is reached, your horizon line is set for that particular view.
The fact that it appears below eye level, also shows that.
It doesn't and never will.
If you look at a long corridor, the hall and ceiling doesn't magically converge. Instead they end at a hall.
The only 2 ways to have them converge, is if they curve or if they are infinitely long.
This is pointless. It's a hall and you see a wall at the end...or a door.
You will never see any horizon, so this is pointless to argue.
If you would like a picture of what happens when you visibility is limited such that you can't see forever, here are some from wikimedia commons of dense fog:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dense_fog_at_hill_station.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Light_vessel_Sula_in_dense_fog_at_Gloucester.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Costa_Pacifica_departing_Tallinn_in_dense_fog_18_May_2013.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halong_Bay_in_dense_fog.jpg
Notice how you don't see a clear horizon and instead it just fades to a blur?
The sole reason you see a horizon on Earth, is due to the curvature of Earth.
Using this is pointless as well.
This is obscuring your sight.
If I wanted to nit pick I'd argue you can see light differential to create your horizon line in close proximity but it seems you're struggling a little by trying to use this stuff.
And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.
We aren't talking about looking at any ball from a position away from the ball. You know this.
But it is equivalent.
It's absolutely not.
You are saying you would see nothing but sky.
That is equivalent if you look at a ball, you see no ball, because you are too far away so it curves away and you don't see it.
Because the only 2 ways you can try to claim that we can only see sky and be remotely honest and rational is to claim that the FOV of 0 (and thus you don't really see anything) or if you claim that literally all you see is sky with no Earth at all. After all, if it moves down and away so fast so that all you can see is sky, why would looking down help?
If you were on a ball and looking horizontally level,your vision rises on that ball...not because you look up but because the curvature of the ball curves downwards from your vision at all times in an unobstructed view.
Basically you would be viewing sky...not unobstructed ground and not unobstructed water.
The only way out (to claim hat you can see the ball) is to admit that the ball actually takes up a region of your FOV, and then see just how much it takes up and thus where it would be compared to looking out "level", which as already done for Earth at 2 m, means Earth would appear 2.7 arc minutes below level, clearly visible, and basically indistinguishable from eye level.
You would see sky.
Do you accept that Earth will take up a portion of your FOV?
No.
For simplicity we will start with your FOV being 360 degrees in a plane that is perpendicular to the surface, this includes, straight up, straight down, straight out in front and straight behind you. Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Do you accept that it takes up a portion of your FOV?
Nope.
If so:
What portion, i.e what angle out of the 360 degrees that make up that FOV?
Where are the edges of Earth, i.e. at what angle, measured from directly in front of you, do the edges of Earth appear at, i.e. how far down do you have to look to see the horizon?
There are no edges of Earth.
See if you can actually answer these simple questions, because that is what an honest, rational attack on the RE would require; actually showing what angles you would expect the horizon for a RE to appear at.
I'm trying to be honest and I'm giving my honest views on your global Earth.
Whether you accept any of it, is not my issue. I'm giving my answers just as you are giving yours.
-
I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to represent.
I thought that was fairly clear, but I will spell it out more.
This is a side on view, of Earth, with a person (or object) on it looking out level.
The blue circle represents Earth.
The purple line represents the person.
The 2 orange lines represent the vertical FOV of the person/camera/whatever.
The region between the 2 orange lines is what the person is able to see (until it is obstructed by something in that FOV).
And before you say that is a large FOV, not just a small one near level, that corresponds to someone with an eye 225 km above Earth.
If you really want, I can make you a diagram for someone 2 m above Earth, and 1 km above Earth, showing just how small the FOV needs to be to see the horizon.
Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.
I'll help you out.
Do your circle and draw a level line right along the very top of the circle to line up with the top of the circle down the left and right.
Place as many horizontally level thinner lines inside the thicker line and we will accept this as someone looking through a scope.
At what point does any of those lines hit any horizon?
At what point does any of those lines follow the contour of that circle?
Or.
Do those lines gain in elevation as they move forward, horizontally? You know, the 8 inches per mile squared equation, which we don't need to use. You could use anything but remember that, what you use, it will always be a declining curvature downwards from that level line of sight.
It's one hell of a simple basic proof of Earth NOT being a globe we walk upon.
You cannot have any horizon below eye level.
Rather than just repeating the same assertion, can you justify that at all, and actually deal with the logical implications.
Your eyes do not magically converge light. They just see outwards at angles.
The horizon can be anywhere, just like the edge of a ball can be anywhere.
No. The horizon is specific to the viewer. The horizon is not a physical thing. It's your own imaginary line created to match your visioned distance of reflected light convergence.
Likewise, you repeatedly asserting Earth is not a globe, while you reject the evidence that shows it is, and cling to a strawman which in no way matches the globe, doesn't help your case at all and just shows how much you reject reality.
I don't see any evidence that shows Earth is a globe we walk upon. I seriously do not.
If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
You mean they would lean back by an imperceptible amount, with the curvature of Earth hiding them from the bottom up, just like we observe, as if Earth actually is a globe?
No...they do not lean back. If they did they would be totally gone at a short distance if Earth was a globe we walk upon.
If Earth was flat, we would see them standing upright, from their base to their tip, without any hidden by the water below them.
It's not the water that hides them (assuming calm)...it's the lessened reflective light back to the eye from the denser ground/water, leaving the better reflective light higher up, which determines what amount of building/object you see.
If it was just us not seeing the light, it would be a region of darkness. It wouldn't magically join the sea to the land removing part of it.
Here's something so simple it almost sounds so silly...but is absolutely pertinent.
Use your finger to block the reflective light from the bottom of your eye. Slowly lift up your finger from below to mid point of your eye lens and you'll notice you have your very own horizon line.
Why?
Because you shut down a lot of reflected light to the bottom half but not the top.
This is what happens from distance with light as it fades below against the bigger reflection above. This is why you lose a lot of the bottom of anything you view.
Silly and simple?
Yep...but that's all that is needed to destroy the global myth.
-
Septimatic, you are smaller than you think, compared to the surface of the earth.
Makes no difference as long as your view is not obscured, which I've already mentioned.
You say every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on the globe, yes?
Yep.....as long as it's not obstructed.
The earth curves an average of 1 inch per 200 meters. That's half an inch per 100 meters. That means the earth curves an average of 0.0001270003 of an inch every inch.
It doesn't matter. It would have to curve down and away from your vision. The issue is not by how much....the issue is, it would curve down and this is an issue for what we observe.
Unless you are a germ living on the earth' surface, Septic, (and I'm not saying you're not) chances are you are not going to notice the curvature.
If you do not notice a curvature it's because there isn't one. To understand a curvature would be to notice no horizon.
We do notice eye level horizon, which means convergence...and anyone should understand that, you cannot converge a sky with the ground/water if the Earth is curving away and down.
If the Earth was flat with a downward curve of the sky, then we have a match. We can have that convergence to horizon line because we have reflective light differences of land/sea to sky.
-
Once more an interesting question gets derailed by completely unrelated misconceptions.
It's such a simple question but it's now just a big argument about triangles and what the definition of a flat patio is, and whatever sceptimatic is talking about with his misunderstanding of how perspective works.
Why can't any flat earthers answer this? The rest of us seem to have no problem with the question.
I guess it's just one of the third rails of flat earth believers.
I keep imagining some lawyer standing behind them yelling, "Don't answer that question!" ;D
-
So Scepti, can you explain and include a diagram of how a telescope works?
-
So Scepti, can you explain and include a diagram of how a telescope works?
No need to. You can use a toilet roll tube as your scope if you want.
You still get your horizon all the same, only you see less up to it.
What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only, when the scope/toilet roll tube is horizontally level.
Earth is not a globe that we're told we supposedly walk upon.
-
So Scepti, can you explain and include a diagram of how a telescope works?
No need to. You can use a toilet roll tube as your scope if you want.
You still get your horizon all the same, only you see less up to it.
What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only, when the scope/toilet roll tube is horizontally level.
Earth is not a globe that we're told we supposedly walk upon.
Incorrect.
-
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.
Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.
The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.
So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.
Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.
On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.
If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.
The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.
Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?
-
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.
Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.
The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.
So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.
Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.
Yep, altitude certainly does change the viewing distance, but to view anything in that sea you have to alter your level and actually angle your view to the object. Your horizon has altered way past that identity of the object, because your reflected light back to your eyes is now more distant to that vanishing point....but.... you will only ever see it by reverting to a level sight.
Guess what?
Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.
On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.
No you couldn't. The atmospheric stack puts paid to that.
If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..
The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.
The sky is curved/concave..but the sea is level and flat when calm. We do not live on any giant ball.
Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?
You should be asking yourself that because it's you that is indoctrinated into that global belief. Does it make you feel special?
-
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..
How does it? Since you would observe exactly the same thing if the Earth was (is) a globe.
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.
I agree with this point because if there's one other thing you flat Earthers also seem to believe it is that you are never wrong. REers on the other hand (including myself) are willing to accept we are only human and sometimes are wrong. Difference is we are also willing to be corrected if we are wrong about something.
-
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..
How does it? Since you would observe exactly the same thing if the Earth was (is) a globe.
No, you wouldn't observe exactly the same thing if Earth was a globe. You believe so because you actually believe that's what you're witnessing right now, because (argue it if you want) you've been heavily indoctrinated into that belief system like most were at one stage.......including myself. I changed due to varying reasons...some of which I've just explained and these are the things that changed my mind.
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.
I agree with this point because if there's one other thing you flat Earthers also seem to believe it is that you are never wrong.
That's just a fallacy you want to hang onto. Feel free to do so.
REers on the other hand (including myself) are willing to accept we are only human and sometimes are wrong.
Really? What is it that you ended up wrong about?
Difference is we are also willing to be corrected if we are wrong about something.
What have you been corrected about?
-
I've noticed how FEers love using that word 'indoctorinated'. Another word for that is brainwashing and such like. Well unlike members of cults or whatever who are brainwashed into a particular belief system by some supreme leader or whatever, those with a scientific mind are a bit more independent than that. Over the years I have learned to observe things around me and then investigate the most logical reasons for it.
For example I see the Sun rise and set every day. FE account for that my using various manipulations of perspective (since obviously the Sun cannot set if the Earth was flat). On the other hand you could explain that by supposing that the Earth is rotating and for so many hours out of 24 the part of the world I am standing on turns towards the Sun and then away from it again.
Believing to me is evaluating the possible causes of a particular event and then forming a judgement about what you think is the best solution. Clearly you and me have come to different conclusions. On my side I have reached the conclusion I have because so far I haven't see one iota of evidence that shows me conclusively that the Earth is anything but a sphere. Maybe you could offer me some?
If we didn't have all the sources of data that are available to us today then I could understand the dilemma. But in the 21st century... still believing the Earth is flat? We've moved on a bit since then. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth is round.
Let me just ask you one thing if you are so sure your beliefs are true. How far away is the Sun in your opinion and why?
-
With your claims you need to also say by what margin. E.g., At what distance would the globe earth dip away where one would only be able to see sky and why. If you don't have a firm grasp on the theory you rail against I can help you. But your arguments thus far here make it seem you never even got a chance to be indoctrinated like the rest of us because you're talking like you don't understand them at all.
All I need to know is what should be logical. Global Earth shows nothing logical....especially the very basic observations of which I've just explained.
With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).
In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.). Now we can still only see the top sail, only magnified. The bottom hull is still missing somewhere behind the horizon. Why? Curiouser still.
(https://i.imgur.com/HChJFrS.jpg)
On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.
Why do we observe the RE explanation, hull slipping below the horizon and obscured, and not the FE explanation of the entirety of the sailboat, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon getting smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon?
-
The ground doesn't magically fly up to eye level.
But it has to with your claims, as otherwise, the RE could also raise up, and do the same.
If you accept that there is some effect which causes the ground to appear higher, to cause something physically below you to appear at eye level (or just higher than below you), that means for a RE there are 2 competing effects and you need to determine the magnitude of both and cannot simply rely upon while ignoring the other to make false claims about what you would expect.
This is why you can bring things into view with a telescope that can magnify that light back to your eyes and you can see what is within that horizon line convergence.
Except, you can't.
When an object is obscured by the horizon, no telescope can magically bring it into view.
It isn't. It never is and never will be.
The photos I provided clearly show it is.
You rejecting reality will not help your case.
The ground is denser than the air. the sea is denser than the air.
You can see farther into the air than you can looking directly level and because of this your eyes lose the light from the denser ground quite early and this is where the light from the sky converges to form your exact eye level horizon line. It cannot ever be anything else.
All that in no way addresses the question.
It it was due to magical convergence, then the horizon should appear regardless of where you are looking. As it does not, it is clearly not due to that and instead there must be another cause, such as the physical edge of a RE.
We cannot see infinitely. We have a limit of what our eyes can reflect back. Once that limit is reached, your horizon line is set for that particular view.
Our eyes don't need to reflect back. They collect light reflected or emitted from other objects. That light is absorbed by your eyes. The limits on your vision are based upon how bright that light is relative to the surrounding regions (including for the different colours), and physical phenomenon such as refraction and diffraction and light scattering off the air.
When the middle of your vision contains an object that is obscured by one of those phenomenon, you don't see it magically join together.
The photos of fog I provided clearly shows that. Instead of a clear horizon you have a blur, where the ground blurs into the sky because the fog limits your visibility so much that you cannot see the edge of Earth (i.e. the horizon).
Another simple example is the night sky with stars. Notice how your eyes don't magically join together the stars, and instead you have large regions of darkness?
If it was a case of your eyes magically joining together regions when you can't see anything between them, the sky would be bright all over.
See, back in reality, our eyes collect light from a particular direction. They don't magically change what direction the light is coming from. If something prevents you seeing from a particular direction, you don't see that direction, your eyes do not magically join the surrounding regions together.
This is pointless. It's a hall and you see a wall at the end...or a door.
You will never see any horizon, so this is pointless to argue.
So your comparison appealing to a floor and ceiling is pointless?
Using this is pointless as well.
No, it isn't.
It clearly shows what you actually get when your visibility is limited. You don't magically get a closer horizon. Instead you have it fade to a blur.
And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.
Except you have already admitted you see the horizon, which is the edge of that ball, no matter how much you wish to deny it.
But that is still dodging the question.
Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?
The only way for you to maintain your false position that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
It's absolutely not.
It is equivalent.
Again, you are claiming that on Earth you would see nothing but sky.
That is equivalent to saying you will not see the ball.
The only way to see the ball is if you admit it takes up a portion of your FOV, in which case Earth should do the same.
Then it is a question of where the edge of Earth will appear.
Again, if you do the math for someone standing 2 m above the surface, that works out to be ~2.7 arc minutes below level.
Thus if you are standing on Earth, with your eyes 2 m above sea level, looking out to sea, the horizon, the edge of Earth, will appear 2.7 arc minutes below level.
Thus, unless your FOV is smaller than 2.7 arc minutes, YOU WILL SEE THE HORIZON ON A ROUND EARTH!
That is why it is equivalent.
For simplicity we will start with your FOV being 360 degrees in a plane that is perpendicular to the surface, this includes, straight up, straight down, straight out in front and straight behind you. Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Do you accept that it takes up a portion of your FOV?
Nope.
So you are literally saying that Earth is invisible, that if you were to look at a ball, it would not take up any of your FOV at all?
That is the level of insanity you wish take?
That all spherical objects, like balls, are invisible?
In which case, what is this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Basketball_%28Ball%29.jpg)
How is such a photo possible if balls do not take up any portion of your FOV?
If you wish to claim that balls do take up a portion of that 360 degree FOV, why should Earth not?
I'm trying to be honest and I'm giving my honest views on your global Earth.
No you are not. If you are genuinely trying to be honest, you are also trying to be insane.
You are saying the equivalent of balls are invisible.
Unless your position is actually that balls are invisible, you are not being honest at all.
If your position is that all balls are invisible, in spite of the available evidence to the contrary, you are being insane.
So do you claim that balls are invisible?
-
Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.
With what FOV?
Just to point out why you can't just use a FOV of 0, here is a diagram for a FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/WRA6G2K.png)
Notice how that level sight never touches the horizon?
But here is a too scale diagram of someone standing 2 m above the surface of Earth, all the way past the horizon up to 6 km.
(https://i.imgur.com/E2LXOaR.png)
Here is a much closer view:
(https://i.imgur.com/WHpVQ6c.png)
Notice how at this scale, Earth is basically the same as flat.
So if you wish to claim magical convergence will magically make the horizon rise to eye level for a FE, why shouldn't it for a RE, considering the height of the horizon is quite comparable?
Again, if there are 2 competing effects, you need to know the magnitude of each to determine which wins.
Why should the insignificant (at this scale) downwards curvature of Earth trump the magical convergence? Why shouldn't the magical convergence be able to overcome that downwards curvature and still make the RE have a horizon?
It's one hell of a simple basic proof of Earth NOT being a globe we walk upon.
You mean it is yet more deflection from simple math that shows you are wrong, and simple questions which show you are wrong?
No. The horizon is specific to the viewer. The horizon is not a physical thing. It's your own imaginary line created to match your visioned distance of reflected light convergence.
All the evidence shows that the horizon is a physical thing, on Earth, a certain distance away.
Again, if it was a magical line due to convergence, it would appear regardless of where you look.
The fact that it only appears in a specific orientation relative to Earth shows that it is certainly something to do with the physical Earth.
I don't see any evidence that shows Earth is a globe we walk upon. I seriously do not.
You do, you just dismiss it. For example, the picture I provided earlier with the water level, showing the horizon below eye level, completely destroying all your claims, which you just dismissed.
No...they do not lean back. If they did they would be totally gone at a short distance if Earth was a globe we walk upon.
And another baseless, insane assertion.
Why would they be totally gone at a short distance?
I already provided the math showing just how insignificant that lean is.
But like everything that shows you are wrong, you just ignore it.
It's not the water that hides them
No, it quite clearly is.
If you were to superimpose an image of the building without the base obstructed, scaled such that it matches what is observed, you will notice the base is where the water is, showing that the water is getting in the way of the line of sight to the base.
That means the water is obstructing the view.
No need for any other BS to deflect from this fact.
Here's something so simple it almost sounds so silly...but is absolutely pertinent.
Use your finger to block the reflective light from the bottom of your eye. Slowly lift up your finger from below to mid point of your eye lens and you'll notice you have your very own horizon line.
You mean I will see my finger obstructing the view to objects, just like the real round Earth obstructs the view?
Where if you were to take a photo like that, and superimpose a photo without that, they appear the same except where your finger is? Instead of magically having above your finger join with below it?
Silly and simple?
Yes, extremely silly, so silly that it doesn't describe reality at all and in no way destroys the reality of the RE.
Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.
It has been repeatedly explained how the globe provides that horizon, and also explained why it isn't always at eye level.
Stop repeating the same lie.
Again, saying the RE would only result in seeing sky and saying the RE cannot produce a horizon is equivalent to saying balls are invisible.
If not, why should a RE be invisible?
Note: Not taking up any portion of your FOV is the same as invisible.
-
I've noticed how FEers love using that word 'indoctorinated'. Another word for that is brainwashing and such like. Well unlike members of cults or whatever who are brainwashed into a particular belief system by some supreme leader or whatever, those with a scientific mind are a bit more independent than that. Over the years I have learned to observe things around me and then investigate the most logical reasons for it.
For example I see the Sun rise and set every day. FE account for that my using various manipulations of perspective (since obviously the Sun cannot set if the Earth was flat). On the other hand you could explain that by supposing that the Earth is rotating and for so many hours out of 24 the part of the world I am standing on turns towards the Sun and then away from it again.
Just like buildings lose light from below before above, in distance, so does the suns reflective light back to our eyes as it moves away.
This creates the supposed setting effect that you see....in my opinion.
The way your sun works creates a massive problem when observed after setting by using a high tower to bring it back. This cannot work on a globe we supposedly walk upon but certainly can looking through less dense atmosphere at height to bring back more reflective light.
The tower on a globe would be tilted away with the so called rotation and destroying any chance of bringing any sun back into view, in that so called scenario.
Believing to me is evaluating the possible causes of a particular event and then forming a judgement about what you think is the best solution. Clearly you and me have come to different conclusions. On my side I have reached the conclusion I have because so far I haven't see one iota of evidence that shows me conclusively that the Earth is anything but a sphere. Maybe you could offer me some?
You can evaluate possible causes and that's all you can do, other than to follow what has been handed to you, on a plate.....and the mass adherence to those views, for no other reason (for many...in my opinion) than peer pressure policing of each other to merely follow what is deemed, acceptable without the fear of ridicule.
Evidence has been offered against your globe and obviously you don't want to bother with it. Fair enough.Stick with what you feel is right for you.
If we didn't have all the sources of data that are available to us today then I could understand the dilemma. But in the 21st century... still believing the Earth is flat? We've moved on a bit since then. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth is round.
Using this to supposedly prove something, is pointless....it really is.
It all comes down to the very same thing. Reliance on what's indoctrinated.
If we had all the data to prove this so called globe then why do people keep harking back to so called ancient people who supposedly knew the script of Earth?
There's no point other than to try and say " if they knew then, then you should know it's got to be true."
Not so.
Let me just ask you one thing if you are so sure your beliefs are true. How far away is the Sun in your opinion and why?
I don't know how far away the reflection is. I'd say, not far at all.
I have to know the size of the Earth and what not to have a true estimate of the size of reflection.
Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
-
With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).
(https://i.imgur.com/HChJFrS.jpg)
In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed.
I explained this.
The farther your eye can see, the less light it can reflect back to it.
Your eye lens is convex. It sees a small wider view around you, but the prime focus if centralised on that convex lens, which is the very reason you see your horizon at eye level...always.
Why?
Because the rest of the eye takes in light from left to right and up and down.
The up and down vision is key to the observation of objects within that focused light reflection back to the lens, because it's this part where the sky meets the denser ground/sea...meaning the sky gives back more reflective light than the ground/sea can.
Basically, if an object (boat in this instance) moves away from your eye it also loses reflective light from the bottom as opposed to the top for reasons I've just given, above.
We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.). Now we can still only see the top sail, only magnified. The bottom hull is still missing somewhere behind the horizon. Why? Curiouser still.
A telescope can only magnify your sight. It does not see into distance...it magnifies the distance you see with your naked eye.
It can bring up whatever object is in that eye distance which is too small for your eye to see and it magnifies it. That's it.
A telescope is a large microscope.
If you look at a tiny speck on a microscope plate with your naked eye,you'd likely say you cannot see it or what it is. If you look through the scope,you see the object.
But the plate has never moved any distance with that object on it...you've simply magnified it.
Same thing with your telescope.
On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.
No you wouldn't.
On a flat Earth you'd expect the horizontal atmospheric stack to create a bigger and bigger barrier to your vision as you look through it horizontally level.
This will ensure your lens of your eye loses light back to it, more from below than above due to different densities of matter....meaning land/water against less dense sky.
I've explained all this in this post. Take some time to get what I'm saying.
Why do we observe the RE explanation, hull slipping below the horizon and obscured, and not the FE explanation of the entirety of the sailboat, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon getting smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon?
You don't observe the RE explanation. You follow the RE explanation as if you were observing it.
You are observing the flat Earth explanation (from my side, at least) and rejecting it (obviously) because you're told and believe you are stood atop a globe. So going by that, it's no shock to me why you or anyone would be of the belief that a globe can produce what you observe.
However, like I said earlier. If the globe was a reality, you would have no horizon...at all from a level view. I'm 100%on this.
I'm happy to go further with you.
-
This is why you can bring things into view with a telescope that can magnify that light back to your eyes and you can see what is within that horizon line convergence.
Except, you can't.
When an object is obscured by the horizon, no telescope can magically bring it into view.
Nothing is obscured by your horizon. Your horizon is the end of your ability to see. There is nothing behind it, obviously.
But what is before that horizon line, you can magnify and bring into view what your naked eye cannot make out properly.
-
Another simple example is the night sky with stars. Notice how your eyes don't magically join together the stars, and instead you have large regions of darkness?
If it was a case of your eyes magically joining together regions when you can't see anything between them, the sky would be bright all over.
Why would your eyes join dots of light together?
You are looking up into the sky with a bunch of lights and absolutely no reference point for any horizon line...only darkness or little to zero light back to your eyes.
What stands out among that are dots of reflected light. It's a strange thing to use in this argument.
-
And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.
Except you have already admitted you see the horizon, which is the edge of that ball, no matter how much you wish to deny it.
I admit to seeing my horizon because I see it on a flat Earth....not your global Earth.
Nice try though.
-
Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?
Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.
-
The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.
-
Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
Well I know the method that shows these figures are true but I don't have the facilities to do it myself. So does that mean (in your view) that I should not believe anything that I cannot do or check for myself or any of the information in my books that I cannot verify for myself as being true?
If that were the case it is a complete waste of time on 'your' flat Earth going to school, college or university because you will be 'indoctorinated' with information which according to you is not true. Good luck with that.
Just out of interest what causes aurora displays and the Earths magnetic field in 'your' flat Earth and how do you know your version is correct and the RE version wrong? Have you personally carried out the tests and the measurements and the experiments? I have just read through the section of the FE wiki about auroras and to a large extent what is said there could have been simply copied and pasted from any other website which describes how auroras are produced. It mentions about magnetic field interaction but not how the magnetic field is created in the first place.
-
Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.
Let's assume it is a kitchen roll holder you are looking through, just to make this much simpler.
-
Just like buildings lose light from below before above, in distance, so does the suns reflective light back to our eyes as it moves away.
So just like something else you can't explain.
That doesn't explain why it appears to go below the horizon.
If it was a case of the light not getting to us due to distance (rather than Earth obstructing the view) it would disappear still high in the sky, with a large band of darkness between Earth and the sky.
The way your sun works creates a massive problem when observed after setting by using a high tower to bring it back. This cannot work on a globe we supposedly walk upon but certainly can looking through less dense atmosphere at height to bring back more reflective light.
And yet another insane assertion from you.
It is trivially explained on a globe.
As repeatedly explained, there is a dip angle to the horizon.
At 2 m it is 2.7 arc minutes.
At 500 m it is ~43 arc minutes.
That means the sun would need to move an extra ~40 arc minutes down to vanish.
The tower on a globe would be tilted away with the so called rotation
Only if you climb it slowly.
Earth rotates at roughly 15 degrees an hour, or 15 arc minutes a minute.
That means in order to obscure the top of that tower you would need to wait 2.6 minutes.
FE has a similar issue with the sun magically moving away and magic causing it to not be seen, even at that altitude.
Both models have the question of if you can get up fast enough.
Evidence has been offered against your globe
No, it hasn't.
Pathetic stawmen which in no way actually represent what is expected for a RE have been offered and destroyed.
That is not evidence against the globe.
The existence of the horizon is evidence for the globe, not against it.
If you actually have evidence, then provide it, otherwise stop claiming it has been provided.
It all comes down to the very same thing.
Yes, which side actually has evidence vs which sides needs to strawman the other and repeatedly accuse them of just blindly following what they have been told.
It is the RE side with evidence.
If we had all the data to prove this so called globe then why do people keep harking back to so called ancient people who supposedly knew the script of Earth?
So they can claim to be better than the "indoctrinated fools", so they can so seeds of distrust in the government, so they can sell books and the like.
Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
Determining the distance to such a distant sun is quite challenging. It also depends on what level of accuracy you need.
It's near constant angular size requires it to be very distant.
It appearing to rise due east on the equinox, for basically everyone, requires it to be very distant. (Many many times the size of Earth)
This allows you to use the difference in angle to the sun to determine the radius of Earth, (as well as other techniques such as the angle of dip to the horizon from a known altitude).
Using that, along with measurements from distant positions on Earth you can measure the parallax of the moon and thus determine its distance.
You can then use the angular separation between the moon and the sun, when 50% of the moon is illuminated to calculate the distance to the sun using trig (a right angle triangle from You, to the moon to the sun, with the right angle at the moon).
Then, if you want a more accurate method, you can make an approximation of circular orbits, measure the maximum angular distance of Venus to the sun, to determine the relative sizes of the orbits, and then use a transit of Venus to calculate the distance with more complex trig.
Alternatively, accurately measure the speed of light, then measure stellar aberration over a year. Use that to calculate the velocity of Earth in its orbit around the sun, then use that velocity along with the period of the orbit to determine the size of the orbit and thus the distance to the sun (again, with a circular approximation).
I explained this.
And that explanation was refuted.
It has nothing to do with how far your eyes can see. If it was, you would have a band of darkness, like that separating the stars in the sky. It doesn't explain why the boat has magically lowered or why the sea has magically raised.
However, like I said earlier. If the globe was a reality, you would have no horizon
And you repeating the same lie again and again doesn't magically make it true.
Why would your eyes join dots of light together?
That's the point. They wouldn't!
So if you couldn't see the bottom of the distant object, why would your eyes magically glue the top section you can see to the water?
Likewise, it wouldn't. Instead you would have a band of darkness.
Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.
No, the exact same situation.
You are looking towards a ball, and you claim that in one case you can see it but in another case you can't.
That makes no sense at all.
Why should a ball be visible, but not Earth?
How about this, stop avoiding the questions, and tell us what is the relationship between how large (in terms of degrees) a ball of radius r should be, if you are a distance h away from the surface?
-
With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).
(https://i.imgur.com/HChJFrS.jpg)
In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed.
I explained this.
The farther your eye can see, the less light it can reflect back to it.
Your eye lens is convex. It sees a small wider view around you, but the prime focus if centralised on that convex lens, which is the very reason you see your horizon at eye level...always.
Why?
Because the rest of the eye takes in light from left to right and up and down.
The up and down vision is key to the observation of objects within that focused light reflection back to the lens, because it's this part where the sky meets the denser ground/sea...meaning the sky gives back more reflective light than the ground/sea can.
Basically, if an object (boat in this instance) moves away from your eye it also loses reflective light from the bottom as opposed to the top for reasons I've just given, above.
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.
No you wouldn't.
On a flat Earth you'd expect the horizontal atmospheric stack to create a bigger and bigger barrier to your vision as you look through it horizontally level.
This will ensure your lens of your eye loses light back to it, more from below than above due to different densities of matter....meaning land/water against less dense sky.
I've explained all this in this post. Take some time to get what I'm saying.
Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:
(https://i.imgur.com/HXbVKwG.gif)
-
Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
Well I know the method that shows these figures are true but I don't have the facilities to do it myself. So does that mean (in your view) that I should not believe anything that I cannot do or check for myself or any of the information in my books that I cannot verify for myself as being true?
Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.
Let's go through this to see if you can verify it through the, on the plate method.
-
I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.
Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.
From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?
All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.
If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.
-
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:
(https://i.imgur.com/HXbVKwG.gif)
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
Seriously?
If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?
Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely, not to mention the person would also be tilted up that gradient..
It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
The light at the base of those buildings is massively omitted by the inability of the light to get back to the person's lens.Basically it's the vanishing point behind the horizon line.
Pretty simple really.
-
I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.
Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.
From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?
All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.
If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.
I've just explained why you can see what you can see on a flat Earth and why you would never see what you see on a globe.
Read through it carefully.
-
Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.
First explain to me why you find it so hard to accept that the Sun is 865,000 mile across and 93 million miles away. What do you know about the Sun which makes you think those figures are false.
-
Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.
First explain to me why you find it so hard to accept that the Sun is 865,000 mile across and 93 million miles away. What do you know about the Sun which makes you think those figures are false.
Considering I have my own alternate Earth theory it's not hard to figure out why I think what I think.
However, how about you show me how you came to accept the sun as you are told.
Very basically, tell me how the distance and size was arrived at......based on whatever.
-
Yes but you must have grounds for having an 'alternate Earth theory' and reasons for why you think an alternative theory is necessary. I would be interested to know what those are.
Is it because you have your own figures from your own research which conflict with existing 'Earth theories' and so yours must be right and the figures quoted by conventional science are wrong.
We cannot limit our beliefs or understanding to what we can verify for ourselves. That would be ridiculous and I'm sure you understand the reasons why.
The information about how the distance between the Earth and the Sun has been determined is freely out there for everyone to read and understand. For that reason I don't need to repeat it. The difference between you and me is that I learn from what I read and accept the methods described as true and genuine while you obviously don't. That's down to personal choice.
So if you think you can do better and provide valid reasons why you think that then go for it.
-
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
This is because you don't understand how perspective works.
What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.
Read his post. He is following the perspective lines of the building. A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point. This works no matter where the camera is pointed.
How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.
-
I don't think it is always a case of not understanding something - perspective for example. It is rather more a case of 're-inventing' or manipulating the law of perspective so that it fits in better with their flat Earth belief.
-
Yes but you must have grounds for having an 'alternate Earth theory' and reasons for why you think an alternative theory is necessary. I would be interested to know what those are.
Is it because you have your own figures from your own research which conflict with existing 'Earth theories' and so yours must be right and the figures quoted by conventional science are wrong.
We cannot limit our beliefs or understanding to what we can verify for ourselves. That would be ridiculous and I'm sure you understand the reasons why.
The information about how the distance between the Earth and the Sun has been determined is freely out there for everyone to read and understand. For that reason I don't need to repeat it. The difference between you and me is that I learn from what I read and accept the methods described as true and genuine while you obviously don't. That's down to personal choice.
So if you think you can do better and provide valid reasons why you think that then go for it.
The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.
You seem to have accepted everything based on peer pressure and indoctrination.
You won't tell me how you know the sun is the size it supposedly is and the distance it supposedly is, because it makes no sense to you but you have accepted it.
If you think it makes sense then simply tell me how and why.
-
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
This is because you don't understand how perspective works.
What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.
Read his post. He is following the perspective lines of the building. A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point. This works no matter where the camera is pointed.
How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.
Understand that your horizon is your very own central point of your eye lens and nothing other than that.
You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.
-
I don't think it is always a case of not understanding something - perspective for example. It is rather more a case of 're-inventing' or manipulating the law of perspective so that it fits in better with their flat Earth belief.
The manipulation is geared to push a global mindset which is a total untruth.
-
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
This is because you don't understand how perspective works.
What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.
Read his post. He is following the perspective lines of the building. A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point. This works no matter where the camera is pointed.
How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.
Understand that your horizon is your very own central point of your eye lens and nothing other than that.
You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.
Your word salad makes no sense. I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.
Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball? Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
-
I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.
Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.
From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?
All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.
If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.
I've just explained why you can see what you can see on a flat Earth and why you would never see what you see on a globe.
Read through it carefully.
Well that's the problem. I've read it through carefully and I don't see anything convincing at all. You claim for example, if I stood on a ball, I wouldn't ever see an edge. Completely disagree. If I don't see an edge, what do I see instead? If I hold a ball up in front of me, I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?
-
The manipulation is geared to push a global mindset which is a total untruth.
Well you would say that wouldn't you. In your mind the world is flat (about the only place where it is). Tell me... why is the Earth flat in your view?
According to FE Wiki the Earth is not a planet. OK so what is it then?
I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?
Yes that edge that we see is called the horizon. It's just that from ground level the amount of surface we can see is far too small a fraction of the Earths surface as whole that we cannot directly see any curvature at all. This seems to be evidence enough that the Earth is flat.
As we move away from the Earth surface (in other words increase our altitude) so the amount of surface we see increases. Eventually the horizon starts to appear curved in all directions and that is the first point when we say we can see the true edge of the sphere that is Earth.
The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.
You talk about 'global nonsense' yet you don't seem to be able to provide any evidence that shows how it is nonsense. I know you do but that is just your opinion at the end of the day. If the Earth really is flat then perhaps you could explain to me how equatorial mounts work perfectly well in the southern hemisphere. I will assume you know what an equatorial mount is and how it works.
So go on then.. I challenge you. If you can convince me that it really is nonsense to think the Earth is a sphere then I will bow to your better knowledge. But I doubt very much you will. And don't go on about going out and finding out for myself etc etc... you tell me why you think I (and presumably everyone else) should start thinking the Earth is flat.
After all this is what this discussion is all about isn't it. Providing evidence that will change our minds.
-
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.
Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.
The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.
So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.
Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.
Yep, altitude certainly does change the viewing distance, but to view anything in that sea you have to alter your level and actually angle your view to the object. Your horizon has altered way past that identity of the object, because your reflected light back to your eyes is now more distant to that vanishing point....but.... you will only ever see it by reverting to a level sight.
Guess what?
Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.
On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.
No you couldn't. The atmospheric stack puts paid to that.
If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..
The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.
The sky is curved/concave..but the sea is level and flat when calm. We do not live on any giant ball.
Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?
You should be asking yourself that because it's you that is indoctrinated into that global belief. Does it make you feel special?
You make for a fascinating psychology study, Septic! You come up with a convenient reason for everything, don't you, which falls quickly apart when applying the smallest degree of logic.
It's really amazing how your "atmospheric stack" puts paid to a person on the east coast of Australia not being able see Los Angeles, if using a powerful enough telescope. Yet, anyone can see the sun or stars crystal clear as they peak over the horizon - through the same "atmospheric stack." :-[
The beach experiment at sunrise, verifies a flat earth and destroys the globe??? Oh, do tell! I'm looking forward to hearing your pseudo scientific explanation for this one!
When you say the earth is flat but the sky is curved / concave what do you mean? Is it curved or is it concave? Are you alluding to the mysterious dome you crazy cats worship? If concave, you've lost me. You do realise the sea is level on a curved surface being the earth, thanks to Earth's gravity?
Being on a globe Earth does make me feel special. Being on a flat earth, does make you look special.
Reading your posts is like reading comic book physics from the 1890's, where the writer makes it up as he goes along.
I'll tell ya what though. Post up your photos of you standing on the edge of the Earth, looking over the side. ;D
-
Flat Earthers are good at making comments like 'global nonsense' or as Wise would say 'angry globalists' but they have yet to provide one grain of verifiable evidence that a flat Earth exists anywhere other than in their minds.
Sure you can think what you like but all the evidence up to now tells me that we live on a sphere. We all see the same evidence of course so it all comes down to how we interpret that evidence. Show ten different people the same painting and ask them independently and anonymously what they see and you will get ten different answers.
-
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
It was already explained to you before.
Unless you have significant distortion, straight lines remain straight.
As you continually appeal to convergence, that is showing the point of convergence.
The point where parallel appear to meet.
The only reason to not pay attention to them is if you wish to claim they aren't level, and instead they all point up.
But to any honest, rational individual, these lines are almost certainly level, and thus point to the convergence point, aka eye-level.
So this picture, just like the ones provided earlier by me, show that the horizon is not at eye level.
Meanwhile, the centre of the lens could point in any direction.
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
I wouldn't put it like that.
I would say from the horizon, Earth curves downwards 603 ft (equivalent to 30 miles), thus obscuring 603 ft of the tower.
There is no magical raising of it before him.
Can't you see this?
No, we can't see your strawman because your strawman in no way reflects what you would expect for a RE.
Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely
You mean imperceptibly, not severely.
For 39 miles, i.e. ~63 km, the angle it is tilted away if ~0.6 degrees.
Nothing sever about that.
You are yet to explain just how you expect to notice this imperceptible tilt.
(Note: it is imperceptible as it is tilting away from you, not to the side).
It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
It makes perfect sense, and you are unable to show any actual problem and instead just repeatedly make loads of pathetic strawmen.
What makes no sense is for this to happen on a FE.
For a FE, you would have the base of the tower at the water level, not 603 ft below it.
If there was some magic preventing you seeing it, you would have a region of darkness.
It would be like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
Again, the fact that we observe the night sky with large regions of darkness shows that your eyes shouldn't just magically glue the 2 regions together and remove the dark portion.
So yes, it is pretty simple, and the FE idea you are putting forward doesn't match reality.
What does match reality is the RE, something you are yet to refute nor provide any evidence against and instead just repeatedly attack with strawmen and insane claims like claiming such an Earth would be invisible (i.e. not take up any portion of a 360 degree FOV including up, down, front and back).
The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.
You mean you dismiss it as nonsense and repeatedly ridicule it as you have no rational argument against it, while we actually understand it and know that it matches what we observe and thus accept it.
That isn't peer pressure and indoctrination. It is actual genuine understanding rather than an attempt to dismiss it using whatever dishonest BS you can come up with.
You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.
Again, that is equivalent to saying you can never see the edge of a ball.
It is pure nonsense.
Stop just asserting the same lie and actually answer the questions raised because of that lie.
The questions you have been avoiding as the show you are wrong; as they show that a RE does have a horizon and for the most part it will be visible even when you are looking out level due to just how small the difference is between level and the angle to the horizon.
The questions that are so damaging you had to take the path of claiming balls are invisible.
So nice and simple question 1, which can be expressed in a few different, but basically equivalent ways:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.
-
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
Center of the lens makes no difference. In fact a lens itself makes no difference. Eye level is eye level.
As pointed out, the converging perspective lines meet at the vanishing point at eye level. Notice how the horizon line is below eye level. It is observably below yet you claim it is not. How can that be? This is all literally taught in art class right after you've graduated from finger painting.
Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:
(https://i.imgur.com/HXbVKwG.gif)
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
Seriously?
Nope. This is what I referred to before as you not being familiar with conventional science you rail against.
If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?
Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.
(http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction.png)
Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely, not to mention the person would also be tilted up that gradient..
How severely? My calculation says an infinitesimal 0.564454° given the distance and earth size and dip. What does your calculation say that adds up to severely?
It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
The light at the base of those buildings is massively omitted by the inability of the light to get back to the person's lens.Basically it's the vanishing point behind the horizon line.
Pretty simple really.
Talk about making no sense. What's this light business you're on about? What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
-
It's not only simple sunsets, sunrises, and curvature of the sea, Septic has to ignore in his belief. He also has to ignore sea currents, the proven shape of Antarctica, the proven shape of each country and each sea and ocean, air currents, weather patterns, etc.
Where oh where is his photo of himself standing on the edge of the earth peering over the side? I'm not asking for much.
Also, on flat snow globe earth, is the sun inside or outside the perspex dome?
(Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Septic, I'm trying to flush Wise out of retirement)
-
The problem is that there is literally so much data and so much evidence available now about the precise shape of the planet. Such data and information is gathered by all sorts of organisation both publicly and privately owned.
Of course conspiracy theorists will never go away no matter what but we now live in an age when serious flat Earth believers are just burying their heads in the sand by choosing to dismiss all the mountains of evidence that shows that they are wrong. But then that's what they thrive on isn't it - denying the evidence presented by the majority view.
That is not to say of course that science has never been wrong. Of course it has and science will never (I hope) reach a position where all the questions we have about the Universe have been answered. It is the challenge to discover the unknown that makes it exciting. But certain things like the shape of the Earth and all the other planets we have conquered.
So the incentive for continuing the belief in flat Earth quest is certainly not science based. Which is why it is a bit of a fallacy for some flat Earthers here to describe themselves and flat Earth 'scientists'. Their belief has got nothing to do with science.
I'm still waiting for sceptic to explain to me how an equatorial mount could possibly work in the southern hemisphere.
-
The shape of the earth isn't a question of science first. It's a question of geography first. The science came second, and complemented what geographers had already confirmed.
This site will continue to have its flat earth threads ofcourse, but the best kept secret is it's the threads that have nothing to do with flat earth, that are the best threads.
-
Your word salad makes no sense. I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.
Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball? Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.
-
Well that's the problem. I've read it through carefully and I don't see anything convincing at all. You claim for example, if I stood on a ball, I wouldn't ever see an edge. Completely disagree. If I don't see an edge, what do I see instead?
What you would see instead would be the sky, if you were living on top of a globe. No horizon would be possible.
You claim you would see an edge because you see your horizon and it goes with your belief that you are actually standing on a globe, so naturally you're going to massively reject anything else.
What you'd be better doing is putting your own mind to work and having a real serious think about it, without any sidetracking peer pressure involved.
If I hold a ball up in front of me, I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?
You must have read up on this topic and seen my many many posts. You will surely understand that I'm talking about being on a ball, not looking at a ball that you are not standing on.
-
As we move away from the Earth surface (in other words increase our altitude) so the amount of surface we see increases. Eventually the horizon starts to appear curved in all directions and that is the first point when we say we can see the true edge of the sphere that is Earth.
The higher you go on your ball and looking out horizontally level, you see sky, no different than you standing on that ball.
You will never see any edge because your ball is always running downwards from your level view. The curve simply gets farther and farther away.You can not, ever see an edge to a bally you are part of.
Of course you can see a curved line of a ball against background if you had one on a table or a floor away from you....but that's not what we are dealing with on this Earth, physically.
So go on then.. I challenge you. If you can convince me that it really is nonsense to think the Earth is a sphere then I will bow to your better knowledge. But I doubt very much you will. And don't go on about going out and finding out for myself etc etc... you tell me why you think I (and presumably everyone else) should start thinking the Earth is flat.
After all this is what this discussion is all about isn't it. Providing evidence that will change our minds.
I've given you some easy one's. If you decide it's hogwash then feel free to do so. I have no wish to change your mind.That wish has to be yours.
-
You make for a fascinating psychology study, Septic! You come up with a convenient reason for everything, don't you, which falls quickly apart when applying the smallest degree of logic.
I seriously don't see anything falling apart. I do see people trying to tell me it is without knowing why.
It's really amazing how your "atmospheric stack" puts paid to a person on the east coast of Australia not being able see Los Angeles, if using a powerful enough telescope. Yet, anyone can see the sun or stars crystal clear as they peak over the horizon - through the same "atmospheric stack." :-[
You're looking at eye level, horizontally through the part of the stack your eyes are focused through.You have dense atmosphere that kills off light to the underside of your eye lens, due to the upper reflected light hitting your upper part of your lens, meaning you see what can be seen in that upper part as light against the lower part of fading light, creating your horizon line or anything in that upper light, which could be a building, depending on distance.
As for the so called stars. They're points of reflected light.You're bound to see them because not only does your upper lens catch that reflected light(s),you are also looking off level ,meaning you start to see through a less densely packed atmospheric stacking system that lessens in amount as your angled elevation increases in view.
When you say the earth is flat but the sky is curved / concave what do you mean? Is it curved or is it concave?
Let's go with concavely curved if you're having issues with it.
If concave, you've lost me. You do realise the sea is level on a curved surface being the earth, thanks to Earth's gravity?
Yep, sea level is possible because the water sits inside a sort of concave/curved Earth scoop out where it fills a lot of it and is held.
This would never happen if that water was sitting on a convex curve. Your logic should absolutely tell you this but you decide to go with gravity somehow pulling it level. It makes no sense....at all.
If gravity was supposedly pulling it all level all the way around your supposed global Earth, then it stands to reason your global Earth would cease to be, global.It would be flattened out.
Senseless in the extreme.
Reading your posts is like reading comic book physics from the 1890's, where the writer makes it up as he goes along.
I think that applies to the so called mainstream pseudo-science books that are placed on the fact shelf instead of the fiction.
I do understand your thought process about me, though. I'm the same with the global nonsense, reading like fictional story books and comic like descriptions.
I'll tell ya what though. Post up your photos of you standing on the edge of the Earth, looking over the side. ;D
What side? There is no side.
-
Flat Earthers are good at making comments like 'global nonsense' or as Wise would say 'angry globalists' but they have yet to provide one grain of verifiable evidence that a flat Earth exists anywhere other than in their minds.
Sure you can think what you like but all the evidence up to now tells me that we live on a sphere. We all see the same evidence of course so it all comes down to how we interpret that evidence. Show ten different people the same painting and ask them independently and anonymously what they see and you will get ten different answers.
It's all about opinions.
-
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
It was already explained to you before.
Unless you have significant distortion, straight lines remain straight.
As you continually appeal to convergence, that is showing the point of convergence.
The point where parallel appear to meet.
The only reason to not pay attention to them is if you wish to claim they aren't level, and instead they all point up.
But to any honest, rational individual, these lines are almost certainly level, and thus point to the convergence point, aka eye-level.
So this picture, just like the ones provided earlier by me, show that the horizon is not at eye level.
Meanwhile, the centre of the lens could point in any direction.
The centre of any lens points in the direction it is focused on...pinpoint.
It is the convergence of the entirety of that lens to the focal point (centre)
It's the very reason you hit a vanishing point of anything you see in the distance where the lions share of light reaches to that point from all angles of the entire lens.
-
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
I wouldn't put it like that.
I would say from the horizon, Earth curves downwards 603 ft (equivalent to 30 miles), thus obscuring 603 ft of the tower.
There is no magical raising of it before him.
If the buildings are supposedly 603 feet below the supposed curved horizon then the person on the other side has to be 603 feet below the other side of that horizon if looked at from the foundation of the buildings on the other side.
It makes no sense.
Not to mention the curve downwards to that 603 fee would see those buildings lean back......and a massive key to this would be the person would equally be leaning back down that convex curve, meaning his scope would be looking into the sky....off level.
Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.
-
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Ah, this I like! Concrete evidence. Yet, I dread, dismissed as fake as photographic evidence only works in favour of FE. (Like, no stars visible from the Moon and such.)
-
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
And there should be no difference between standing on it or standing away from it, meaning you are effectively claiming all balls are visible.
The fact that they aren't shows you are wrong.
If you want to claim it is different you need to explain why. Just what magically causes a RE to be invisible but not balls?
Or again, ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU KEEP AVOIDING!
How about this, I'll just focus on this question and keep bringing it up until you either answer or admit your strawman in no way represents the RE?
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at?
Can you just answer it? Or do you know that doing so will destroy your argument?
-
What makes no sense is for this to happen on a FE.
For a FE, you would have the base of the tower at the water level, not 603 ft below it.
If there was some magic preventing you seeing it, you would have a region of darkness.
It would be like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
Again, the fact that we observe the night sky with large regions of darkness shows that your eyes shouldn't just magically glue the 2 regions together and remove the dark portion.
It doesn't need to magically glue both regions together. I explained your eye lens and this is the key.
Your eye loses light reflection to it depending on the light source managing to get back to it.
Your centre of your lens is your pin point for light reaching above and below as well as left to right.
It now comes down to what light can reflect and off of what. The denser matter...water, for instance against less dense matter of atmosphere will change the reflective properties back to your eye lens....hence why you do not see whole objects in that distance because reflection gains from ground up and diminishes from sky down due to change in atmospheric stack.
-
So nice and simple question 1, which can be expressed in a few different, but basically equivalent ways:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.
Deal with what we are dealing with, which is your global Earth sphere.
It's pointless using a ball that you just sit back and look at in the distance.
Deal with what I mentioned.
On your globe, looking horizontally level all around your vantage point.
You have to accept that it curves downwards from your level view......always, at every point in your 360 degree turn and focus.
-
Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.
Again this is just your opinion. And currently there is very little evidence to back up your claim. Once again, how are equatorial mounts supposed to work in the southern hemisphere if the Earth is (as you continue to insist) flat?
-
If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?
Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.
(http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction.png)
You should be aware enough to understand that, if you were living on a globe like you think then that globe would always curve downwards from your vision.
You would never ever be looking up a bulge.
You have a massive problem. And that diagram is complete and utter nonsense.
Your eye level is right. The rest is your reasoning that you have to dip your eyes. You would have to look down from level and you think that would create your horizon when it would create a ground view....nothing else.
As for the bulge...it's the same thing as your pretentious horizon. You would be looking at the ground,not a bulge.
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that your view of Earth with you on it looking horizontally level.
The second diagram I have zero clue what that is or what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you can explain it.
-
It's not only simple sunsets, sunrises, and curvature of the sea, Septic has to ignore in his belief. He also has to ignore sea currents, the proven shape of Antarctica, the proven shape of each country and each sea and ocean, air currents, weather patterns, etc.
Where oh where is his photo of himself standing on the edge of the earth peering over the side? I'm not asking for much.
Reference this and it'll save you repeating yourself.
There is no edge, so I can't be looking over any edge of Earth.
Also, on flat snow globe earth, is the sun inside or outside the perspex dome?
In my Earth cell the lot is inside.
Anything we see, is inside.
That's my theory. It's well documented so look it all up if you want to. I won't be answering anything about it on this topic.
(Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Septic, I'm trying to flush Wise out of retirement)
You Are not giving me any hard time.
-
I'm still waiting for sceptic to explain to me how an equatorial mount could possibly work in the southern hemisphere.
There is no southern hemisphere.
-
The shape of the earth isn't a question of science first. It's a question of geography first. The science came second, and complemented what geographers had already confirmed.
This site will continue to have its flat earth threads ofcourse, but the best kept secret is it's the threads that have nothing to do with flat earth, that are the best threads.
Nothing stopping you from sticking to those best threads and leaving those you dislike or don;t suit your mindset.
I stay out of lots of topics.
-
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.
-
Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.
Again this is just your opinion. And currently there is very little evidence to back up your claim. Once again, how are equatorial mounts supposed to work in the southern hemisphere if the Earth is (as you continue to insist) flat?
What exactly is your equatorial mount supposed to be doing?
-
You don't know what an equatorial mount for a telescope does? Obviously not because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.
My question is more to do with how would you set one up (polar alignment) in the southern hemisphere.
-
You don't know what an equatorial mount for a telescope does? Obviously not because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.
My question is more to do with how would you set one up (polar alignment) in the southern hemisphere.
How about you explain to me what happens. If you can't do it then don't use this stuff to argue with with.
-
Happy to..
An equatorial mount is designed to allow tracking of the stars, Moon or Sun by using rotation in just one axis (RA). As it rises, transits the meridian and then sets, a stars altitude and azimuth varies constantly due to the Earths rotation.
That means if we use an ordinary alt-az mount which (such as a standard photographic tripod) which is aligned with the observers horizon and zenith we will need to continually move the mount in two directions to keep a star centred in the telescope FOV.
However if we tilt the mount so it is aligned with the Earths polar axis instead then the telescope is now aligned with the stars direction of movement. This means the polar axis of the mount has to be aimed directly and exactly with the celestial pole. I use a special camera to to this (QHY PoleMaster) which allows polar alignment to an accuracy of 30" in just a few minutes.
Now for the northern hemisphere that is easy because the star Polaris (currently) lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) away from the NCP. According to flat Earthers the north pole lies directly in the middle of the flat Earth and the north celestial pole would therefore be directly overhead if you were standing at the north pole. This is also true for RE as well. Effectively then an equatorial mount becomes an alt-az mount if used at the north pole.
However lines (or rather circles) of latitude on a flat Earth would simply become wider and wider as you move away from the north pole until you eventually get to the Antarctica where the south pole lies. According to FE models that I have seen thus far, Antarctica is the circumference of the flat Earth 'disc'. However on the RE the south pole lies at a point where all lines of longitude converge and which also corresponds to 90deg south. In other words the south pole on RE is a point just like the north pole is.
Astronomers in the southern hemisphere see a point in the sky where all the stars appear to rotate (clockwise) around. So they aim their equatorial mounts at the SCP so it is also aligned with the Earths polar axis but pointing to the SCP rather than the NCP. That way the telescope tracks the stars just as would in the northern hemisphere.
But if there is no single point on a flat Earth to represent the south pole then there cannot be a point in the sky which corresponds with the south celestial pole can there. If that were true then how would you know where to point your equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere so it can track the stars?
Yet equatorial mounts work perfectly fine in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
https://rogergroom.com/polar-alignment-information-southern-hemisphere/
If you can draw a similar diagram to the one shown in the above link that would work just as well for a flat Earth then you are better than me.
I have been using equatorial mounts of all shapes and sizes for over 30 years now so if there are any other questions you have about then ask away.
-
Your word salad makes no sense. I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.
Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball? Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.
And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works. And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?
So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.
According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.
So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?
How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?
-
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
Hey, why don’t you take the picture, and explain it to us? You have camera on your phone, surely? Do a bit of work instead of shouting nonsense with nothing to back it up.
-
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.
I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.
So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right? If you were to stand on that line, wouldn't your head be butted up against this dome? Or are you an infinite flat earther? Flat earth incorporates such a myriad of deviations on the theme!
Good to hear I haven't been giving you a hard time. This topic has entered my mindset so, I'll stick with it for a few days, if you dont mind?
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.
-
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.
He still hasn't explained how equatorial mounts can work in the southern hemisphere either. Having been asked to explain how they work I have done so in detail but without a south celestial pole according to FE models, I can't see how they would work south of the equator. At least not without some serious bending of light etc which would put any Olympic standard contortionist to shame.
So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right? If you were to stand on that line, wouldn't your head be butted up against this dome?
Please tell me that modern flat Earthers don't still believe that!
-
If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?
Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.
(http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction.png)
You should be aware enough to understand that, if you were living on a globe like you think then that globe would always curve downwards from your vision.
You would never ever be looking up a bulge.
You have a massive problem. And that diagram is complete and utter nonsense.
Your eye level is right. The rest is your reasoning that you have to dip your eyes. You would have to look down from level and you think that would create your horizon when it would create a ground view....nothing else.
As for the bulge...it's the same thing as your pretentious horizon. You would be looking at the ground,not a bulge.
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that your view of Earth with you on it looking horizontally level.
The second diagram I have zero clue what that is or what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you can explain it.
Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:
(https://i.imgur.com/mkIuNm4.jpg?1)
Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.
And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
-
Big numbers are the bane of FE. Ditto for distances. They just do not comprehend those.
-
Or indeed very small numbers. Not sure why they have a problem as it they are all quite easy to manage once you get used to them. For instance if you take the Sun to Earth distance of 92,960,000 and being equal to 1 then using ratios we can reduce the distances of Mercury and Venus to 0.3 and 0.7 respectively and using this same scale the distance to Pluto becomes 40 in round figures. What is so hard about that.
Then of course we have lightyears. Now of course the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and there are 31,536,000 second in a year so 1 lightyear is equal to 9,454,254,955,488,000 metres. Lets call that 9.454 x 10^15 m which is a bit easier to manage. The diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 lots of that 9.454x10^15 metres so lets just use lightyears instead. 100,000 lightyears.
I don't really think in terms of actual distance. Just numbers.
-
Happy to..
An equatorial mount is designed to allow tracking of the stars, Moon or Sun by using rotation in just one axis (RA). As it rises, transits the meridian and then sets, a stars altitude and azimuth varies constantly due to the Earths rotation.
That means if we use an ordinary alt-az mount which (such as a standard photographic tripod) which is aligned with the observers horizon and zenith we will need to continually move the mount in two directions to keep a star centred in the telescope FOV.
However if we tilt the mount so it is aligned with the Earths polar axis instead then the telescope is now aligned with the stars direction of movement. This means the polar axis of the mount has to be aimed directly and exactly with the celestial pole. I use a special camera to to this (QHY PoleMaster) which allows polar alignment to an accuracy of 30" in just a few minutes.
Now for the northern hemisphere that is easy because the star Polaris (currently) lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) away from the NCP. According to flat Earthers the north pole lies directly in the middle of the flat Earth and the north celestial pole would therefore be directly overhead if you were standing at the north pole. This is also true for RE as well. Effectively then an equatorial mount becomes an alt-az mount if used at the north pole.
However lines (or rather circles) of latitude on a flat Earth would simply become wider and wider as you move away from the north pole until you eventually get to the Antarctica where the south pole lies. According to FE models that I have seen thus far, Antarctica is the circumference of the flat Earth 'disc'. However on the RE the south pole lies at a point where all lines of longitude converge and which also corresponds to 90deg south. In other words the south pole on RE is a point just like the north pole is.
Astronomers in the southern hemisphere see a point in the sky where all the stars appear to rotate (clockwise) around. So they aim their equatorial mounts at the SCP so it is also aligned with the Earths polar axis but pointing to the SCP rather than the NCP. That way the telescope tracks the stars just as would in the northern hemisphere.
But if there is no single point on a flat Earth to represent the south pole then there cannot be a point in the sky which corresponds with the south celestial pole can there. If that were true then how would you know where to point your equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere so it can track the stars?
Yet equatorial mounts work perfectly fine in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
https://rogergroom.com/polar-alignment-information-southern-hemisphere/
If you can draw a similar diagram to the one shown in the above link that would work just as well for a flat Earth then you are better than me.
I have been using equatorial mounts of all shapes and sizes for over 30 years now so if there are any other questions you have about then ask away.
So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them and you believe this is on a globe and not tracking moving lights over and around a concave dome?
It proves nothing from either side, to be fair.
-
Your word salad makes no sense. I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.
Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball? Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.
And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works. And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?
Draw a cross hair on an replica eye lens and you will see you have a convex cross hair and your focal point is the dead centre of that lens.
If you were behind that, it would be your level focal point.
If you placed a cross hair over the opposite end of your kitchen roll holder and looked through the other end, with that roll being on a level set up, looking out to sea. You will see your horizon.
If you saw just sky, you would have a great argument for your globe.
But you don't see that.
So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.
When you argue Earth being a basketball and I see that basket ball and edges, I'll change my stance.
Do we see this?
According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.
We are shrunk down and we are a dot against Earth and we do not see any edge.
What we do see is our own horizon line of conflicting light reflection back to our eyes.
So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?
There is never any edge if you live on a globe. All your level sight would see, would be sky.
This does not happen.
How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?
Try it and see. Considering we are not talking about the convex edge of a small basket ball.
-
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
Hey, why don’t you take the picture, and explain it to us? You have camera on your phone, surely? Do a bit of work instead of shouting nonsense with nothing to back it up.
Sit your camera level on your ball and tell me where your horizon is.
-
No, you do it. Get off your ass.
It ain't us trying to write the rules anew, here.
-
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.
I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.
So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right?
The sky always physically meets the ground or water all over the Earth.
If you mean where is my physical horizon. There is no physical horizon that we can touch. Your horizon is your reflected distance of light back to your eye lens.
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.
That's because they have not be found to form a sphere.
If you really believe this then show me the reality.
-
Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:
(https://i.imgur.com/mkIuNm4.jpg?1)
Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.
And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zxnWLns/s4l9nY3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Big numbers are the bane of FE. Ditto for distances. They just do not comprehend those.
No need to. You don't need numbers to see through the global nonsense.
-
Or indeed very small numbers. Not sure why they have a problem as it they are all quite easy to manage once you get used to them. For instance if you take the Sun to Earth distance of 92,960,000 and being equal to 1 then using ratios we can reduce the distances of Mercury and Venus to 0.3 and 0.7 respectively and using this same scale the distance to Pluto becomes 40 in round figures. What is so hard about that.
Then of course we have lightyears. Now of course the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and there are 31,536,000 second in a year so 1 lightyear is equal to 9,454,254,955,488,000 metres. Lets call that 9.454 x 10^15 m which is a bit easier to manage. The diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 lots of that 9.454x10^15 metres so lets just use lightyears instead. 100,000 lightyears.
I don't really think in terms of actual distance. Just numbers.
First of all you need to show where you get a 93 million mile sun with a 860,000 mile diameter.
How did you arrive at that?
-
No, you do it. Get off your ass.
It ain't us trying to write the rules anew, here.
I'm doing a very good job of proving the Earth is not a globe.
If you believe I am not then you're welcome to that thought.
-
So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them
Lets take that part of what you say and forget about the rest. Yes you are right. We observe points of light in the sky (we call them stars) and we align our telescopes with the north and south celestial poles which also happen to be 180 degrees apart. 180 degrees as you probably know represents a straight line.
In the northern hemisphere we see the stars surrounding the NCP moving anticlockwise around it. In the southern hemisphere we see the stars around the SCP rotating clockwise around it.
The stars themselves are so far away that we can only see them as points of light in the sky. We know they are very distant through analysis of the light from them. I will happily go into all that if you are interested but I suspect you won't be because you already have your own preconceived beliefs about the nature of the stars.
So given that we only ever see them as points of light we have have no direct means of knowing what their distances are. We can therefore (for astrometric purposes) assume that they are all the same distance from us. This means we can 'visualise' the stars as being attached to the inside surface of an indefinitely large sphere. The shape of the Earth and the size of the celestial 'sphere' are irrelevant when it comes to describing, measuring and defining the positions of the stars on the 'sphere'.
The celestial sphere is tilted at the same angle as the Earths polar axis (for obvious reasons) and so regardless of where we are located on the Earth we can always see at least one of the celestial poles. But once again given the way FE models work I haven't a clue how you could have a south celestial pole which is a point of rotation. Perhaps you could enlighten on that.
I would underline the point that astronomers know there is no physical celestial sphere. We do know that because we can now use various methods to measure the distances of a lot of stars and we know they vary significantly.
I could go on and on about this but I'm sure you have already fallen asleep because you don't accept or believe a word of it so I won't waste any more time. You have your alternative Earth theory and it follows from that that you no doubt have your alternative celestial theory as well. How much evidence you have to support that is another matter.
-
First of all you need to show where you get a 93 million mile sun with a 860,000 mile diameter.
How did you arrive at that?
Ok let me first ask you a question. Have you ever seen Venus in the sky? A straight yes or no will do.
What do you suggest the distance and diameter of the Sun is then? I will use your answers and my figures to compare our methods and then decide which is most likely to be correct.
-
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.
If you believe I am not then you're welcome to that thought.
No, you really aren’t. Trust me on this.
But still, I thank you for allowing me the freedom.
-
It's fun arguing the points made though don't you think?!?
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.
Not really. You can't prove something is true that isn't. Even if you think it is.
-
Your word salad makes no sense. I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.
Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball? Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.
And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works. And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?
Draw a cross hair on an replica eye lens and you will see you have a convex cross hair and your focal point is the dead centre of that lens.
If you were behind that, it would be your level focal point.
If you placed a cross hair over the opposite end of your kitchen roll holder and looked through the other end, with that roll being on a level set up, looking out to sea. You will see your horizon.
If you saw just sky, you would have a great argument for your globe.
But you don't see that.
You need to take a refresher course in optics and art, you don't need a lens, I don't know why you are so focused on that. Learn how perspective works.
I can see the horizon with or without a paper towel holder, with or without a lens, with or without a crosshair drawn on it.
This is basic geometry, you have been shown many pictures and diagrams but can't explain why they are wrong.
So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.
When you argue Earth being a basketball and I see that basket ball and edges, I'll change my stance.
Do we see this?
Yes we do, we see a horizon, which is the edge of the sphere we live on. What do you think that line is? We se it with out eyes, and with cameras with or without a lens.
According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.
We are shrunk down and we are a dot against Earth and we do not see any edge.
What we do see is our own horizon line of conflicting light reflection back to our eyes.
Reflecting back from what?
So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?
There is never any edge if you live on a globe. All your level sight would see, would be sky.
This does not happen.
Yes it does. I can see it right now.
How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?
Try it and see. Considering we are not talking about the convex edge of a small basket ball.
Big or small it doesn't matter, you can always see the edge of an object you are standing on, unless it's an infinite plain.
If you start shrinking that camera above a basketball, you think the edge suddenly vanishes? Why would this be? You can't explain any of this.
-
It doesn't need to magically glue both regions together.
In order to produce what is observed, IT DOES!
That is due to the direction of the object.
Merely not be able to see it due to losing light or whatever nonsense you want to appeal to would result in a region of darkness, like shown in the image provided.
Again, the night sky is an example of this, where you seen small points of light with large regions of darkness between them.
Deal with what we are dealing with, which is your global Earth sphere.
Yes, good advice. Care to follow it?
Deal with how a ball appears, rather than continually deflecting and making excuses.
Deal with just how large a portion of a full 360 degree FOV a ball would take up.
Until you actually deal with this, every time you claim you would not see a horizon on the RE you are blatantly lying, as you have no rational response to the refutation of that claim.
looking horizontally
We aren't talking about looking out horizontally any more, as you continually ignore the basic math which shows just how insignificantly it is below level.
We are talking about looking in a full 360 degrees, including looking directly at the ball.
That would be looking straight down, on the very real round Earth.
Do you still think you wont see Earth? Do you still think Earth will magically be invisible, even when looking straight at it?
If it isn't, that means somewhere between looking straight down and straight in front you will see the edge of Earth (unless you want to switch to claiming you will see Earth regardless of where you look.
Now again, answer the simple question:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.
Again, if that is the case, how are photos like this produced:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Basketball_%28Ball%29.jpg)
According to you this should be impossible, because you claim round objects like a RE should be invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of this?
You are literally claiming that balls are invisible and that every photo of a ball like a basketball is fake, because they should be invisible.
Again, if you want to claim that that is magically different to looking at the very real round Earth, you need to explain why it should be different, why standing on the ball magically makes it invisible.
Sit your camera level on your ball and tell me where your horizon is.
I already told you, for an elevation of 2 m, it is 2.7 arc minutes below level.
You have also been provided with plenty of photos showing it isn't at eye level, and instead is below.
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.
No, you are continually repeating the same few lies and refusing to engage in any form of rational debate to discuss why those lies are wrong.
Continually repeating the same false assertions in no way disproves the globe.
This also isn't a matter of belief. It is a fact that you are not disproving the globe.
In order to disprove the globe you need to justify why we wouldn't see a horizon on a RE, not simply that it isn't perfectly level, but that we wouldn't see it.
The closest you have done is claiming such a round object would be invisible. But that would apply to every round object including balls. We have photos of balls clearly showing that is not the case.
That means Earth should be visible, and there is no reason to think otherwise until you can actually justify why Earth should be invisible.
Based upon Earth being visible, and not completely surrounding you, then looking straight down, you see Earth, looking straight up, you see sky. Somewhere between those 2 extremes you will see the edge of Earth, the boundary between Earth and sky, below which you see Earth and above which you see sky.
The question is then where does this occur?
I have already done the math for you and shown that for a height of 2 m, it is a mere ~2.7 arc minutes below the horizon, which is pretty much indistinguishable from the horizon.
This means that even when looking straight out (i.e. looking out level), you would need to have a FOV less than 5.4 arc minutes to see just sky.
And you have been provided with photos from a higher altitude that clearly show the horizon is below eye level.
So no, objectively, factually speaking, you have not disproven the globe. Instead you have continually repeated a strawman of the globe to pretend you have disproven it. This strawman is not what is expected for the RE you live on.
(and all that is just focusing on your alleged disproof and doesn't address the other evidence showing Earth is a globe, which you likewise haven't refuted)
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones.
I wouldn't call repeatedly avoiding simple questions as "answering", nor just repeating what he had already said while basically ignoring the content of the posts. Responding is not the same as answering.
-
Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:
(https://i.imgur.com/mkIuNm4.jpg?1)
Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.
And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zxnWLns/s4l9nY3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
First off, thanks for attempting a diagram. Secondly, can you learn how to post an image at the proper size? It came through as tiny almost unreadable. I blew it up.
Thirdly, you're not making any sense at all. Do we only see a straight laser line through the dead center of our eyes? Meaning we have no peripheral vision?
Here's a human FOV:
(https://i.imgur.com/XLb1kW4.png)
Are you saying we can only see through the center of our lens meaning just only inside the blue circle in the FOV image?
And again, appreciate your attempt at a diagram. But you are literally just continuing to appeal to you can't see a horizon on a globe. With no rational optical reason why. And you don't seem too get the very basics of perspective, FOV and the immense size of earth. 3 strikes right there. You argument amounts to, "Well the earth is not a globe." That's it.
And, why won't you answer my other question: What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
-
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.
I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.
So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right?
The sky always physically meets the ground or water all over the Earth.
If you mean where is my physical horizon. There is no physical horizon that we can touch. Your horizon is your reflected distance of light back to your eye lens.
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.
That's because they have not be found to form a sphere.
If you really believe this then show me the reality.
Septic, you are where you belong - the flat earth society. But I've almost read enough. You're burying yourself and I don't even have to lend you a shovel.
It intrigues me your view of earth seems to be it is flat on top, and finite, but does not have an edge or a physical horizon line. So, your flat earth belief is the air just sits over the dish and there is no physical barrier keeping it contained and nothing beyond the atmosphere?
"Your horizon is your reflected distance of light back to your eye lens." What the hell does that sentence mean????? Reflected light off what? The horizon is the line where land or sea meets sky. What pseudo discipline are you ascribing to here?
-
So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them
Lets take that part of what you say and forget about the rest. Yes you are right. We observe points of light in the sky (we call them stars) and we align our telescopes with the north and south celestial poles which also happen to be 180 degrees apart. 180 degrees as you probably know represents a straight line.
In the northern hemisphere we see the stars surrounding the NCP moving anticlockwise around it. In the southern hemisphere we see the stars around the SCP rotating clockwise around it.
The stars themselves are so far away that we can only see them as points of light in the sky. We know they are very distant through analysis of the light from them. I will happily go into all that if you are interested but I suspect you won't be because you already have your own preconceived beliefs about the nature of the stars.
So given that we only ever see them as points of light we have have no direct means of knowing what their distances are. We can therefore (for astrometric purposes) assume that they are all the same distance from us. This means we can 'visualise' the stars as being attached to the inside surface of an indefinitely large sphere. The shape of the Earth and the size of the celestial 'sphere' are irrelevant when it comes to describing, measuring and defining the positions of the stars on the 'sphere'.
The celestial sphere is tilted at the same angle as the Earths polar axis (for obvious reasons) and so regardless of where we are located on the Earth we can always see at least one of the celestial poles. But once again given the way FE models work I haven't a clue how you could have a south celestial pole which is a point of rotation. Perhaps you could enlighten on that.
I would underline the point that astronomers know there is no physical celestial sphere. We do know that because we can now use various methods to measure the distances of a lot of stars and we know they vary significantly.
I could go on and on about this but I'm sure you have already fallen asleep because you don't accept or believe a word of it so I won't waste any more time. You have your alternative Earth theory and it follows from that that you no doubt have your alternative celestial theory as well. How much evidence you have to support that is another matter.
You seem to be able to follow and pinpoint dots of light and you visualise them being inside a dome for ease of purpose.
You visualise a pole due to a certain point of light.
Be totally honest with me.
You have zero clue what those points of light actually are and you also have zero clue from this whole explanation, what Earth is.
It could quite simply be a dome and you are actually not stood on a globe, at all.
Nothing of what you say, in any way shape or form proves a globe. You know this....but fair play to you if you study the points of light and what not.
-
First of all you need to show where you get a 93 million mile sun with a 860,000 mile diameter.
How did you arrive at that?
Ok let me first ask you a question. Have you ever seen Venus in the sky? A straight yes or no will do.
What do you suggest the distance and diameter of the Sun is then? I will use your answers and my figures to compare our methods and then decide which is most likely to be correct.
I've seen points of light in the sky. Some more clear than others and some of varying colours to our vision.
So let's say I've seen this point of light you call venus.
Tell me why this is relevant to the size and distance of your sun and show me how you came to it....or why you believed the story of how someone came to this conclusion.
Also I have no clue what the distance and diameter of what we see in the sky, is. They are dome reflections in my theory.
However, this isn't about my theory, this is about how you come to verify the sun to be 93 million miles away and 860,000 miles in diameter.
If you can't answer it, just say so.
-
It's fun arguing the points made though don't you think?!?
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.
Not really. You can't prove something is true that isn't. Even if you think it is.
It's not for me to prove, it's for people like yourself to accept there is evidence that puts your globe into massive question.....or deny it. I'm not in charge of your thoughts.
However, I am in charge of mine and I believe I've proved it to myself that....at he very least...we do not live on a rotating globe.
I've given the basic reasons which to me are way more than enough to destroy the global nonsense.....but that's just me.
It's up to people to sit back and start thinking for themselves and using their own logic to determine whether what they've been indoctrinated into, is a reality.....or something else.
-
You need to take a refresher course in optics and art, you don't need a lens, I don't know why you are so focused on that. Learn how perspective works.
I can see the horizon with or without a paper towel holder, with or without a lens, with or without a crosshair drawn on it.
As long as you have eyes to see...of course you can.I'm not arguing any other.
What I am arguing....and I'm sure you know this, by now........is........ you are seeing an eye level horizon and because of this you are seeing it because you do not live on a globe.
You see it because the sky meets the water to the distance your eye lens can focus on.
Your globe model cannot provide you with any horizon for reasons I've stated.
-
You are literally claiming that balls are invisible and that every photo of a ball like a basketball is fake, because they should be invisible.
No I'm not.
-
Be totally honest with me.
You have zero clue what those points of light actually are and you also have zero clue from this whole explanation, what Earth is.
OK I will be totally honest with you. I have been an amateur astronomer for over 40 years and in the next couple of years I will be completing a degree in astrophysics. So whether you believe it or not I do know one or two things about your 'lights in the sky'. No doubt a hell of a lot more than you. So please stop the assuming and patronising. Just because you don't know what I am talking about doesn't mean I am wrong and you suddenly know everything.
If there's anyone around here who has zero clue about anything here is is you.. so please stop pretending you do. The comments from the others in this discussion seem to back me up.
If you can explain to me how equatorial mounts can possibly work in the southern hemisphere according to your belief system then please explain. They do work I can assure you from any point on Earth. Northern or southern hemisphere. The problem with flat Earthers is that their belief system says one thing but real life tells a completely different story. But that doesn't seem to matter to them.
I realise that part of being a conspiracy theorist is the 'buzz' they get from arguing with those who don't agree with whatever beliefs they hold. The more they get challenged about them the more it feeds their belief and they love that. I have read that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change the belief of a conspiracy theorist so in that sense, I (we) are wasting our time trying to discuss anything here aren't we. Neither side will change their minds and so that is a classic recipe for stalemate.
-
First off, thanks for attempting a diagram. Secondly, can you learn how to post an image at the proper size? It came through as tiny almost unreadable. I blew it up.
I can size and resize images just fine.
The issue its at your end with what you are using to view it with.
It's absolutely fine at my end on the forum.
Thirdly, you're not making any sense at all. Do we only see a straight laser line through the dead center of our eyes? Meaning we have no peripheral vision?
Nope. You see a wide view over distance. You perceive light all around the convex lens of your eye.
However, your focus is directly centered like a cross hair is on a lens of a camera or anything else centralised.
Here's a human FOV:
(https://i.imgur.com/XLb1kW4.png)
Are you saying we can only see through the center of our lens meaning just only inside the blue circle in the FOV image?
Nope. I'm saying your focus is centred, hence why you can determine your horizon. You cannot have any horizon other than centre focus to bring that imaginary line into view.
And again, appreciate your attempt at a diagram. But you are literally just continuing to appeal to you can't see a horizon on a globe. With no rational optical reason why. And you don't seem too get the very basics of perspective, FOV and the immense size of earth. 3 strikes right there. You argument amounts to, "Well the earth is not a globe." That's it.
Your globe cannot give rise to any horizon....ever. The fact we observe one is proof to me it is not a globe, for the very reasons I've stated.
No matter how it's dressed up....Earth does not curve downwards and if it did, you would see sky and nothing would ever rise up to meet your eye level.
And, why won't you answer my other question: What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
I have answered. Your refusal to accept it doesn't mean it wasn't explained.
Light to the lens of your eyes. Your horizon is your sky to sea convergence point because the sky above shows more reflected light back to the top part of your eye than the bottom which finishes at your lens focus point (centre).
What you see above and below is determined by distance to any objects within that line.
-
Be totally honest with me.
You have zero clue what those points of light actually are and you also have zero clue from this whole explanation, what Earth is.
OK I will be totally honest with you. I have been an amateur astronomer for over 40 years and in the next couple of years I will be completing a degree in astrophysics. So whether you believe it or not I do know one or two things about your 'lights in the sky'. No doubt a hell of a lot more than you. So please stop the assuming and patronising. Just because you don't know what I am talking about doesn't mean I am wrong and you suddenly know everything.
If there's anyone around here who has zero clue about anything here is is you.. so please stop pretending you do. The comments from the others in this discussion seem to back me up.
If you can explain to me how equatorial mounts can possibly work in the southern hemisphere according to your belief system then please explain. They do work I can assure you from any point on Earth. Northern or southern hemisphere. The problem with flat Earthers is that their belief system says one thing but real life tells a completely different story. But that doesn't seem to matter to them.
I realise that part of being a conspiracy theorist is the 'buzz' they get from arguing with those who don't agree with whatever beliefs they hold. The more they get challenged about them the more it feeds their belief and they love that. I have read that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change the belief of a conspiracy theorist so in that sense, I (we) are wasting our time trying to discuss anything here aren't we. Neither side will change their minds and so that is a classic recipe for stalemate.
Just remember one simple and basic thing.
Telescopes are nothing more than a magnifying optic to magnify what your eye cannot make out of light reflecting back to it.
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see...it can only enlarge that focal point.
Do you know what that means?
It means you are not looking at millions of mile distant lights in any way shape or form.
Sizes cannot be accounted for and neither can the distances we are told about.
My belief is very simple.
What you view is what is reflected from Earth....not external to it.
What it is you're viewing, is points of light and Earth's own holographic images.
You being able to map those reflections is fine.
If you want to believe you are viewing light year stars/balls of fire and planets with man made vehicles/equipment on them....then fine also.
You're certainly not doing any of it from a global Earth vantage point.....in my opinion.
-
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see...it can only enlarge that focal point.
So based on your logic then I shouldn't be able to see further out into space with my telescope than I can with my eyes alone. Is that what you are saying? You do realise that telescopes collect more light than the human eye can on its own and that is the main function of telescopes in astronomy.
Distance is pretty irrelevant to telescopes in astronomy. I can see galaxies which are millions (or even billions) of lightyears away and too faint to be seen with the naked eye but I can see them with my telescopes. I have several ranging from 77mm aperture through to 500mm.
-
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.
So just to make sure I understand this. Here's a picture of Colmer Hill, Dorset UK. It's pretty round, certainly near the very top. If I've understood what you're saying, if I stand on the top of this hill, I should not be able to see it at all because it's curving away from me, just like a RE would do. Have I got that right? I stand on top of this hill and I won't be able to see it? What do I see instead then?
(https://i.imgur.com/26LeaIz.png)
So what's happening here? This is taken from the top of Colmer Hill. Not only do we see a clear edge, but we see the vertical fence posts disappearing over that edge. What's your explanation?
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
-
First off, thanks for attempting a diagram. Secondly, can you learn how to post an image at the proper size? It came through as tiny almost unreadable. I blew it up.
I can size and resize images just fine.
The issue its at your end with what you are using to view it with.
It's absolutely fine at my end on the forum.
I wasn't meaning to be a dick about it. I was just excited that you actually attempted to diagram something. For some reason, and only for this one image, it's tiny in a regular old browser. Properly scaled in mobile. Never had this problem with anyone elses images ever. So I do't know what's going on.
Thirdly, you're not making any sense at all. Do we only see a straight laser line through the dead center of our eyes? Meaning we have no peripheral vision?
Nope. You see a wide view over distance. You perceive light all around the convex lens of your eye.
However, your focus is directly centered like a cross hair is on a lens of a camera or anything else centralised.
If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?
Here's a human FOV:
(https://i.imgur.com/XLb1kW4.png)
Are you saying we can only see through the center of our lens meaning just only inside the blue circle in the FOV image?
Nope. I'm saying your focus is centred, hence why you can determine your horizon. You cannot have any horizon other than centre focus to bring that imaginary line into view.
I have no idea what that sentence means. Can you point to some reference that explains these optic qualities in greater depth?
And again, appreciate your attempt at a diagram. But you are literally just continuing to appeal to you can't see a horizon on a globe. With no rational optical reason why. And you don't seem too get the very basics of perspective, FOV and the immense size of earth. 3 strikes right there. You argument amounts to, "Well the earth is not a globe." That's it.
Your globe cannot give rise to any horizon....ever. The fact we observe one is proof to me it is not a globe, for the very reasons I've stated.
No matter how it's dressed up....Earth does not curve downwards and if it did, you would see sky and nothing would ever rise up to meet your eye level.
Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?
And, why won't you answer my other question: What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
I have answered. Your refusal to accept it doesn't mean it wasn't explained.
Light to the lens of your eyes. Your horizon is your sky to sea convergence point because the sky above shows more reflected light back to the top part of your eye than the bottom which finishes at your lens focus point (centre).
What you see above and below is determined by distance to any objects within that line.
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.
(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)
And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.
-
You are literally claiming that balls are invisible and that every photo of a ball like a basketball is fake, because they should be invisible.
No I'm not.
Then why are you claiming that Earth, a round object, would be invisible?
That even when looking straight down at Earth, you see nothing but sky?
Again, if you wish to claim that you see nothing but sky, even when looking straight at Earth, you need to explain why a RE behaves so differently to a basketball, or other roughly spherical objects where that is clearly not the case.
Not just appeal to them superficially being different, but actually provide the explanation of why basketballs are visible, but a RE would be invisible.
Or do you finally accept that you can see a round Earth? That it wouldn't be invisible, and that looking you down you do see it and it takes up some amount of a full 360 degree FOV including up, down, front and back?
-
You need to take a refresher course in optics and art, you don't need a lens, I don't know why you are so focused on that. Learn how perspective works.
I can see the horizon with or without a paper towel holder, with or without a lens, with or without a crosshair drawn on it.
As long as you have eyes to see...of course you can.I'm not arguing any other.
What I am arguing....and I'm sure you know this, by now........is........ you are seeing an eye level horizon and because of this you are seeing it because you do not live on a globe.
You see it because the sky meets the water to the distance your eye lens can focus on.
Your globe model cannot provide you with any horizon for reasons I've stated.
You are not arguing or debating because you haven't stated any reasons, you are just making unfounded claims.
you are seeing an eye level horizon... - You are just saying this, it's not proof of anything.
...and because of this you are seeing it because you do not live on a globe. - Again, this is just you claiming it's true.
You see it because the sky meets the water... - At least we can agree on one thing.
...to the distance your eye lens can focus on. - No, we can focus to infinity. You don't understand how light works.
Your globe model cannot provide you with any horizon for reasons I've stated. - Sa you see, you have not given any reasons, just a bunch of baseless claims.
-
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see...it can only enlarge that focal point.
So based on your logic then I shouldn't be able to see further out into space with my telescope than I can with my eyes alone. Is that what you are saying?
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.....but....if you mean, do I mean...would you not be able to see further into the sky or over Earth, then yes, that's what I mean.
You do realise that telescopes collect more light than the human eye can on its own and that is the main function of telescopes in astronomy.
Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.
Distance is pretty irrelevant to telescopes in astronomy. I can see galaxies which are millions (or even billions) of lightyears away and too faint to be seen with the naked eye but I can see them with my telescopes.
I have several ranging from 77mm aperture through to 500mm.
You think you can but, if you're honest you can never prove it..
-
So just to make sure I understand this. Here's a picture of Colmer Hill, Dorset UK. It's pretty round, certainly near the very top. If I've understood what you're saying, if I stand on the top of this hill, I should not be able to see it at all because it's curving away from me, just like a RE would do. Have I got that right? I stand on top of this hill and I won't be able to see it? What do I see instead then?
(https://i.imgur.com/26LeaIz.png)
If you were stood on the top of that hill as your Earth....not as a hill on Earth and looking out level, you would see sky. You would have no horizon line.
So what's happening here? This is taken from the top of Colmer Hill. Not only do we see a clear edge, but we see the vertical fence posts disappearing over that edge. What's your explanation?
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.
-
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.
You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use. :)
Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.
Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.
You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!
-
If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?
I highly doubt I'll get references to scupper a global Earth with this...do you?
Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?
It makes no difference what size it is.
If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.
Not by me it hasn't.
And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.
It's your eyes that lose the light. The bottom of your eye lens.
The top receives more light due to less dense atmosphere.
-
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.
You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use. :)
Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.
Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.
You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!
Maybe someone can help you out.
-
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Care to share a link?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.
You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use. :)
Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.
Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.
You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!
Maybe someone can help you out.
I really don't think JJA needs any help from me or anyone else.
You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.
This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
-
Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.
You really don't get it do you. Our eyes are light detectors. The pupil is the 'aperture' of the eye and reaches a maximum diameter of around 6mm when fully dilated such as when it is dark adapted.
A telescope increases this aperture to whatever the diameter of the primary lens or mirror is. So the telescope gathers more light than the human eye is capable of on its own. It does this by increasing the size of the light gathering area. Very distant objects such as galaxies are absolutely huge but they are also very faint because they are a long, long way away. Only two external galaxies are visible with the naked eye but countless more are visible with telescopes. Take M81/M82 for example. M82 has a size of 9 x 4 arc minutes on the sky but is also 12 million light years from Earth. I cannot see it with the naked but I can see it with a telescope. So the telescope is allowing me to see deeper into space.
So the telescope most certainly is allowing me to see objects which are further away that I can see with the naked eye alone. Nothing to do with the size of the image or magnifying power. It is to do with the additional light gathering power of the telescope. If an object is too faint for me to detect it with a telescope then no amount of magnifying power will make it visible.
The resolving power and light gathering power are fixed properties of a telescope. You can vary the power (by using eyepieces of different focal lengths) but no amount of magnifying power will allow me to see an object if my telescope is not picking up any photons from it.
-
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Care to share a link?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0
-
You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.
This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.
I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.
-
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Care to share a link?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0
Thank you.
-
Maybe someone can help you out.
You're the only one claiming that you can't see an object if your standing on it. ::)
You need all the help here, in basic geometry, optics and general common sense. Sadly I don't think they teach a class in the last one.
-
You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.
This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.
I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.
I can't believe you don't understand you can stand on a hill AND a globe at the same time. I suppose you think it's impossible to take a picture of two objects at once or see them with our eyeball lenses.
-
Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.
You really don't get it do you. Our eyes are light detectors. The pupil is the 'aperture' of the eye and reaches a maximum diameter of around 6mm when fully dilated such as when it is dark adapted.
A telescope increases this aperture to whatever the diameter of the primary lens or mirror is. So the telescope gathers more light than the human eye is capable of on its own. It does this by increasing the size of the light gathering area. Very distant objects such as galaxies are absolutely huge but they are also very faint because they are a long, long way away. Only two external galaxies are visible with the naked eye but countless more are visible with telescopes. Take M81/M82 for example. M82 has a size of 9 x 4 arc minutes on the sky but is also 12 million light years from Earth. I cannot see it with the naked but I can see it with a telescope. So the telescope is allowing me to see deeper into space.
So the telescope most certainly is allowing me to see objects which are further away that I can see with the naked eye alone. Nothing to do with the size of the image or magnifying power. It is to do with the additional light gathering power of the telescope. If an object is too faint for me to detect it with a telescope then no amount of magnifying power will make it visible.
The resolving power and light gathering power are fixed properties of a telescope. You can vary the power (by using eyepieces of different focal lengths) but no amount of magnifying power will allow me to see an object if my telescope is not picking up any photons from it.
Let me make this a bit more clearer for you.
A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.
What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.
-
Maybe someone can help you out.
You're the only one claiming that you can't see an object if your standing on it. ::)
You need all the help here, in basic geometry, optics and general common sense. Sadly I don't think they teach a class in the last one.
I'm fine. I'm more than happy with what I'm saying.
-
You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.
This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.
I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.
I can't believe you don't understand you can stand on a hill AND a globe at the same time. I suppose you think it's impossible to take a picture of two objects at once or see them with our eyeball lenses.
Get back to me when you can address the issue.
-
Can I prove this.?Of course not.
Scepti, you realize you are relying on theories you cannot prove, instead of sciences that has been proven over and over through years and years of experiments, and you do this just because you think every scientist in the world is lying..
This is a real problem. Sceptimatic, your version holds about as much water as New Earth's flavour of month model.
And, actually, what do you think of those? Can't remember you telling New they are wrong...?
-
Can I prove this.?Of course not.
Scepti, you realize you are relying on theories you cannot prove, instead of sciences that has been proven over and over through years and years of experiments, and you do this just because you think every scientist in the world is lying..
This is a real problem. Sceptimatic, your version holds about as much water as New Earth's flavour of month model.
And, actually, what do you think of those? Can't remember you telling New they are wrong...?
I don't have any problem. When I do, I'll let you know.
-
So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?
The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?
-
So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?
The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?
Make up as many words as you feel you need.
I've never said any of that so leave it off here or your posts get bypassed.
-
So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?
The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?
Make up as many words as you feel you need.
I've never said any of that so leave it off here or your posts get bypassed.
I see. You do not have the proverbial balls to tell them they are wrong because they are not RE.
It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist, yet, for some odd reason, they get a pass while RE does not, even though the status is the same.
You lack spine.
-
It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.
There can only be one correct model.
-
It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.
There can only be one correct model.
And it is the 4D cylinder, right?
-
It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.
There can only be one correct model.
That would be the globe, yes. ;D
-
You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.
This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.
I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
Basically you can never see any horizon line. It would be impossible on your globe.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.
What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only
Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?
Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.
The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.
Your word salad makes no sense. I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.
Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball? Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.
So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.
And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?
Is it my turn to sit back and laugh now?
-
So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball Earth, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.
And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?
Absolutely not.
-
A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.
What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.
Yes you are quite right. Telescopes do magnify distant objects. I only have to look at the Moon or any of the major planets to realise that. For example when you look through a telescope at Saturn you can see the rings clearly and when you look at Venus you can see the various phases as it orbits the Sun just like the Earth does. Simple, basic concepts.
You said earlier (unless I misunderstood exactly what you meant - in which case my apologies are sent) that a telescope doesn't allow you to see further then you can see with the naked eye. That simply isn't true. I cannot see Pluto with my naked eye but I can see it with a telescope. Therefore the telescope does allow me to see more distant objects. That has nothing to do with magnification though. The angular size of Pluto on the sky is less than the resolution limit of my 4 inch telescope. Piling on more and more magnification is not going to change that so that particular telescope will not allow me to see Pluto visually.
However if I replace the eyepiece with a camera and then aim my telescope in the direction of Pluto and take an exposure of a minute or and so then I will be able to detect Pluto. Because I am now able to record all the photons of light arriving from Pluto over the course of that minute and that is enough to bring it into view. The only way I can see Pluto visually is by using a larger aperture which also has greater light gathering power and a better resolution.
So yes telescopes do magnify so they will show targets which are visible to the naked eye larger and with better resolution. The details we see in the planets are due to a combination of these. But they also allow us to see objects which are too distant and faint to see with the naked eye. Not because of magnifying power but because of their better light gathering power and better resolution.
-
level sight.
Stop appealing to level sight. It just confuses you.
Deal with if the edge is visible first, and then deal with where that edge is.
Then we can discuss if it is seen with a level sight.
Again, tell us exactly why a round Earth (like the one you live on, unless you don't live on this planet) should be invisible; why if you are looking directly at this ball, you see nothing but sky.
Once more, this is not about looking straight out level. This is about looking directly at Earth.
Because if you can see Earth, that means there will be a horizon for this round Earth (unless it is placed so far away that limited visibility through the atmosphere would render it a blur) as there will be a border between where you can look towards Earth and where you cannot.
Everything available shows you are wrong.
Simple pictures of balls show you are wrong.
Basic math shows you are wrong.
The picture of the hill shows you are wrong.
Your continued avoidance of the questions show you are wrong.
You are a clinging to a strawman so you can pretend Earth isn't round.
-
A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.
What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.
Yes you are quite right. Telescopes do magnify distant objects. I only have to look at the Moon or any of the major planets to realise that. For example when you look through a telescope at Saturn you can see the rings clearly and when you look at Venus you can see the various phases as it orbits the Sun just like the Earth does. Simple, basic concepts.
You said earlier (unless I misunderstood exactly what you meant - in which case my apologies are sent) that a telescope doesn't allow you to see further then you can see with the naked eye. That simply isn't true. I cannot see Pluto with my naked eye but I can see it with a telescope. Therefore the telescope does allow me to see more distant objects. That has nothing to do with magnification though. The angular size of Pluto on the sky is less than the resolution limit of my 4 inch telescope. Piling on more and more magnification is not going to change that so that particular telescope will not allow me to see Pluto visually.
However if I replace the eyepiece with a camera and then aim my telescope in the direction of Pluto and take an exposure of a minute or and so then I will be able to detect Pluto. Because I am now able to record all the photons of light arriving from Pluto over the course of that minute and that is enough to bring it into view. The only way I can see Pluto visually is by using a larger aperture which also has greater light gathering power and a better resolution.
So yes telescopes do magnify so they will show targets which are visible to the naked eye larger and with better resolution. The details we see in the planets are due to a combination of these. But they also allow us to see objects which are too distant and faint to see with the naked eye. Not because of magnifying power but because of their better light gathering power and better resolution.
Do you accept that a telescope is just a large version of a microscope.
I'll await your answer before I carry on.
If you don't think a telescope is just a large version of a microscope, then tell me why.
-
If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?
I highly doubt I'll get references to scupper a global Earth with this...do you?
It doesn't have anything to do with a globe earth. It's merely how human optics work regardless of the shape of the earth. Do you have a reference for how you describe human optics to work?
Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?
It makes no difference what size it is.
If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.
I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.
Not by me it hasn't.
I understand "not by you". But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:
(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)
If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.
And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.
It's your eyes that lose the light. The bottom of your eye lens.
The top receives more light due to less dense atmosphere.
And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?
-
level sight.
Stop appealing to level sight. It just confuses you.
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
-
Again, tell us exactly why a round Earth (like the one you live on, unless you don't live on this planet) should be invisible; why if you are looking directly at this ball, you see nothing but sky.
Once more, this is not about looking straight out level. This is about looking directly at Earth.
This all about looking out horizontally level. It is my argument that kills off your globe.
You trying to alter that to claim looking at a basket ball from distance proves edges, is pointless.
Deal with what you believe you are stood upon, which is your global Earth.
Let's see you address this.
-
Because if you can see Earth, that means there will be a horizon for this round Earth (unless it is placed so far away that limited visibility through the atmosphere would render it a blur) as there will be a border between where you can look towards Earth and where you cannot.
Everything available shows you are wrong.
Simple pictures of balls show you are wrong.
Basic math shows you are wrong.
The picture of the hill shows you are wrong.
None of it shows I'm wrong.
-
I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?
And once again, it does not matter how big it is.
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
If you're looking up or down,you lose your horizon.
But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:
(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)
If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.
No need to counter. It's already been done.
The horizon is there in the picture. That's your true horizon.
The liquid in the tubes are a level liquid that are not part of the horizon line.
I can't even understand why this is used.
Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.
On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.
It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.
And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?
Your question was answered. You chose to overlook it because it doesn't suit you.
-
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.
That is not intrinsically tied to level sight.
It has also already been dealt with, repeatedly, with you ignoring it repeatedly.
Once more, at an elevation of 2 m, the horizon would be ~2.7 arc minutes below level. That is pretty much indistinguishable from level, and kills your argument.
The fact that it is observed to be lower the higher you go further kills your argument.
But you moved on from simply claiming that the horizon wouldn't be dead level for a RE, and instead started falsely claiming you would not see the edge at all, that a horizon would not exist on a RE at all as you would see nothing but sky. You repeatedly refused to answer where such a horizon would appear on a RE other than saying that it wouldn't exist. As otherwise, your arguments are all dead.
That is because once you admit there is an edge of a RE, a division between where you can look at the land/sea and where you can't and instead only get sky, the question then becomes where is it. And when you do the math, that turns out to be very close to level and thus would likely be seen when looking level.
So this is well beyond just talking about level.
This is now talking about if a round object, like the very real round Earth, has a horizon, if it has an edge between where you see it and where you see what surrounds it (e.g. the sky). And that is not tied to level.
And that means I am dealing with what I KNOW I am standing on. A round, roughly spherical, visible object.
I see no reason why a RE should be invisible.
I see no reason why a RE should magically behave differently to a basketball and magically not have an edge.
I provided the math to calculate where the horizon would appear. I pointed out just how close that would put it to level, and thus match what is observed. I provided pictures showing that it drops as you get higher.
So I have dealt with it.
Your straw-man of the RE has been refuted.
Unless you are looking at with an extremely small FOV, or from very far away, if you are looking level, you will see the horizon on the RE. All you have offered in response to back up your strawman is repeatedly asserting the same strawman.
Your nonsense has been dealt with, and not just by me. Your claims have been addressed, and not just by me.
Now it is time for you to start justifying your claims, to start answering the questions that are asked of you instead of continually deflecting.
So, when you are looking straight down at a round Earth, do you think you see it, or is it invisible?
Can you actually answer that question, or do you need to continually dishonestly deflect to pretend you can disprove the RE, when in reality you have nothing.
So again, looking straight down towards a RE, do you see Earth, or do you just see sky?
If you think the latter, then why doesn't the same apply to a basketball.
-
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.
So that means before you even get to doing the experiment you need to calculate where the horizon should be for a RE, something you refuse to do as you know it destroys your argument.
For example, if you have a cylinder that is 30 cm long and 1 cm in radius, then the FOV (assuming your eye is right on it) is 3.8 degrees. Many times larger than the ~5.4 arc minutes. In order to get it to 5.4 arc minutes, you would need to view it from over 12 m away.
You then also start running into issues of the limit of human vision.
If you honestly wanted to do it, the simplest way is to get a water level, and go to a high mountain, like the pictures you have already been provided with which clearly show the horizon below level.
-
I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?
And once again, it does not matter how big it is.
I'm not asking why or why not it matters. I'm simply asking, how big your earth is in your theory? Why won't you answer this?
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
If you're looking up or down,you lose your horizon.
Still not answering the full question: How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye?
But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:
If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.
No need to counter. It's already been done.
The horizon is there in the picture. That's your true horizon.
The liquid in the tubes are a level liquid that are not part of the horizon line.
I can't even understand why this is used.
It is right there in the picture, the horizon is below the eye level line. Thanks for recognizing that:
(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)
Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.
On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.
It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.
I'll do you one better, even though it's already been shown to you and directly refutes your notions, how about an image on a ball surface that shows a horizon line? Would that settle it?
And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?
Your question was answered. You chose to overlook it because it doesn't suit you.
Sorry, I may have missed it. Maybe you can type the few characters again. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the CN tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. A simple 3-2 character response requested. Yes or No.
I'll make it even easier, a one character answer:
1 = Yes
2 = No
-
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.
No we are not.
Twist is anyway you like but you simply waste your posts.
We are dealing with level sight On Earth against sea and sky, with no obstructions.
Don't waste your time trying to use anything that you can't correlate with your global Earth.
-
So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball Earth, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.
And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?
Absolutely not.
So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size? Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size? Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:
It makes no difference what size it is.
If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.
OK, well if size is not the problem, it must be something else. Something special about the earth which makes it different to other balls? Nope, because according to you:
The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.
This is a general statement about balls. You're claiming if you stand on a ball, any ball, any size, you don't have edges. So it's nothing to do with size and the edge issue applies to balls in general, not specifically the earth.
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
-
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.
I've never denied FOV.
But your sight is now tunnelled to that FOV.
Your horizon line is your field of vision from as far as you can see, top to bottom in that FOV,horizontally converged.......hence your horizon line.
Impossible. Absolutely impossible on a globe Earth.
-
I'm not asking why or why not it matters. I'm simply asking, how big your earth is in your theory? Why won't you answer this?
I don't know how big Earth is.
It also does not matter.
What does matter, is what's observed and the simple logic of that.
Still not answering the full question: How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye?
It is right there in the picture, the horizon is below the eye level line. Thanks for recognizing that:
(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)
[/quote]I recognise a true distant horizon to the eye and 2 tubes with level liquid in.
You're proving nothing otherthan cementing the reality of Earth absolutely not being a globe.
Whoever used these tubes and liquid level and focusing them under the true horizon,made a massive error.
Why?
You see....if you wanted to prove a globe Earth that showed a reality...those two tubes with level liquid would need to be above any edge/line.
This so called experiment is an absolute abomination.
Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.
On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.
It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.
I'll do you one better, even though it's already been shown to you and directly refutes your notions, how about an image on a ball surface that shows a horizon line? Would that settle it?
Yep, as long as the image being taken is actually on the ball and levelled, using a wall or closed in background that would be your space.
Make absolutely sure you make the focus......level on that ball.
Let's see if you can produce this in an honest way.
-
So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?
It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.
Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size?
They do if you're stood on one.
Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:
It isn't a problem.
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.
-
So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?
It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.
This is a completely circular argument. Your reasoning why the earth can't be a globe is because it's flat? Seriously?
Water is level. Level is not flat.
Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size?
They do if you're stood on one.
Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?
Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:
It isn't a problem.
You just agreed that balls vanish beyond a certain size. Now size doesn't matter. Which is it? Can we have just a little bit of consistency please.
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.
Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?
-
Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?
Any ball you can stand on.
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.
Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?
No need to post anything.
Just understand what I said.
The picture is a nonsense for the reasons I stated.
-
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.
No we are not.
Yes, we are, as you are claiming on a RE you wouldn't see any horizon.
That claim is an outright lie, as repeatedly explained to you.
So now, to get to the bottom of the lie you are being asked an extremely simple question you repeatedly refuse to answer as you know it will expose your lies.
Or do you now accept that the a round Earth would have an edge, a visual line below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky?
If so, WHERE IS IT? At what angle below eye level?
If not, then answer the question:
When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?
We are dealing with level sight On Earth against sea and sky, with no obstructions.
And as we have already been over countless times, what is observed matches with what is expected for a RE.
When close to sea level you have a horizon which is imperceptibly below eye level, with it appearing to get further below eye level as you get higher.
So if you just want to deal with that, then accept that a RE WOULD have a horizon and when close to sea level it would basically at eye level, and thus what is observed matches reality.
If you wish to claim you only see sky then tell us how far below eye level the horizon is on this round Earth you live on.
If you cannot answer that simple question then tell us if looking straight down you would see a RE or not.
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.
I've never denied FOV.
But your sight is now tunnelled to that FOV.
Your horizon line is your field of vision from as far as you can see, top to bottom in that FOV
Like I said, you don't understand. If the horizon was as far as you can see, top to bottom, that requires a FOV of 0.
You are denying the fact that that tube would still produce a FOV which is not 0 and thus allow the horizon to appear in that FOV for a round Earth.
So good job showing yet again you either don't understand or are just lying.
So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?
It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.
It is quite clear what that question was asking.
You are claiming a RE has no visible edge, that all you see is sky. Yet we observe plenty of balls where that isn't the case.
So why would a RE be so vastly different to all the balls we have seen?
-
Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?
Any ball you can stand on.
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.
Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?
No need to post anything.
Just understand what I said.
The picture is a nonsense for the reasons I stated.
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
-
When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?
Define what you mean by straight down and also define what you mean by, round Earth.
-
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
Totally pointless.
Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.
Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.
-
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
Totally pointless.
Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.
Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.
OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)
So, to repeat:
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
Can you see the sky? - No
Can you see the earth's horizon? - No
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
-
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
Totally pointless.
Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.
Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.
OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)
So, to repeat:
Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.
-
Lol, a photo of a hill is fake?
Poor sceptitank.
-
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
Totally pointless.
Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.
Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.
OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)
So, to repeat:
Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.
I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)
Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.
Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
-
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
-
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
-
When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?
Define what you mean by straight down and also define what you mean by, round Earth.
And more avoidance of a simple question.
You didn't seem to have any issues with making bold proclamations before without any clear definition. Why change now?
For simplicity:
By round Earth, I mean an Earth which is perfectly spherical (we can deal with hills and oblateness and the like later, especially as you continually claim it is this curvature which causes an issue).
As for looking "straight down", hold a camera 2 m above the surface of this round Earth, having the camera pointing down, that is towards the centre of Earth, such that the centre of Earth, if it was visible, would be directly in the centre of the camera's FOV. Have nothing between the camera and Earth to obstruct the view.
Then, if this camera takes a picture, is Earth visible? Or do you only see sky?
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
No he isn't.
In effect the photo has 2 "horizons". One is the edge of the hill, the other is the edge of the round Earth.
For the first "horizon", below (visually) it you see the hill and things directly on the hill. Above (visually) it you see the land and sky surrounding the hill.
This photo shows that a round Earth would have a horizon, and thus the question is where it is.
Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.
Try following your own advice, rather than repeatedly clinging to a refuted strawman.
-
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see..
This evening I have been looking at a number of galaxies through my telescope. I cannot see them without a telescope. How do you explain that based on your earlier comment above?
-
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
Totally pointless.
Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.
Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.
OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)
So, to repeat:
Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.
I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)
Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.
Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.
-
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.
-
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.
-
For simplicity:
By round Earth, I mean an Earth which is perfectly spherical (we can deal with hills and oblateness and the like later, especially as you continually claim it is this curvature which causes an issue).
As for looking "straight down", hold a camera 2 m above the surface of this round Earth, having the camera pointing down, that is towards the centre of Earth, such that the centre of Earth, if it was visible, would be directly in the centre of the camera's FOV. Have nothing between the camera and Earth to obstruct the view.
Then, if this camera takes a picture, is Earth visible? Or do you only see sky?
.
Let me make this crystal crystal crystal clear for the last time.
Stand upright with your scope and set it level, then look out to sea.
You see your horizon.
You would not see this on your supposed globe.
Having a camera pointed down to the ground will ensure you see the ground.....nothing else.
The issue you are having isin trying to convince me that what we see on Earth, is due to it being the globe you believe it is, so you are using it when you should really know it's impossible.
Basic observations totally destroy the fictional globe model.
You and others attempts to twist it away is pointless with me buit feel free to keep doing so and I'll respond accordingly.
-
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see..
This evening I have been looking at a number of galaxies through my telescope. I cannot see them without a telescope. How do you explain that based on your earlier comment above?
Look at a microscope plate with a speck of dust on it. You may not see it with your naked eye but you will see it with your microscope.
Does the plate sink into distance or does the scope simply magnify it?
That should answer your telescope issue.
However....if you want to believe you're looking at light year stars/suns/galaxies....et.....etc.....etc, then fair enough as far as I'm concerned.
I just simply think it's nonsense.
-
I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)
Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.
Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.
Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.
OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.
-
I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)
Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.
Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.
Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.
OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.
I don't need to repeat myself on this.
The post should tell you. Now rectify it or deck out.
-
I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)
Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.
Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.
Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.
OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.
I don't need to repeat myself on this.
The post should tell you. Now rectify it or deck out.
So when challenged to back up your statement that I've been dishonest, you come up with precisely nothing at all. What a surprise. Yes, I've re-read the post. Tells me nothing, you're going to have to do better than that.
And no, I'll decide when I'm done, you don't get to dictate to me thank you very much.
-
Care to explain why you think it nonsense that I can see galaxies through a telescope? As I said you can see two other galaxies with the naked eye. (actually no, make that four because I forgot about the Magellanic Clouds which are satellite galaxies of our own Galaxy). Which could the other two be then??? (a little quiz for you).
If you really think that then it is obvious to me and doubtless a few others that your knowledge and understanding of modern astronomy is pretty limited.
We have ways of measuring the distance of galaxies. It doesn't just come down to guesswork as I'm sure you believe.
-
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.
Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.
Well, at least you admit you don't judge anything based on facts or evidence or reality, just your preconceived beliefs.
Always knew that, but nice to have it confirmed.
-
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.
Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you.
But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn. It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe. I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.
-
Care to explain why you think it nonsense that I can see galaxies through a telescope? As I said you can see two other galaxies with the naked eye. (actually no, make that four because I forgot about the Magellanic Clouds which are satellite galaxies of our own Galaxy). Which could the other two be then??? (a little quiz for you).
If you really think that then it is obvious to me and doubtless a few others that your knowledge and understanding of modern astronomy is pretty limited.
We have ways of measuring the distance of galaxies. It doesn't just come down to guesswork as I'm sure you believe.
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it....unless you want to brush it off.
-
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.
Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you.
But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn. It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe. I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.
None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.
-
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...
I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated. Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter. I guess modern science is not good enough for you.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.
OK then enlighten us.
-
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...
I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated. Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter. I guess modern science is not good enough for you.
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?
-
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.
Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you.
But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn. It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe. I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.
None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.
I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.
Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
-
I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.
-
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
How have you managed to verify that the Earth is flat? This takes me back to a point I made earlier. Are you saying that we should only believe something if we can verify it ourselves?
So you probably don't own or read any books or magazines because you can't verify for yourself any of the information in them. Neither then must you accept as true or real virtually anything you read on the Internet (except from Flat Earth websites of course) and therefore you don't accept any of the information that is featured on TV documentaries. Again because you can't verify for yourself that any of the information they give you is true.
Why should I believe then that electricity is a flow of electrons. I can't see the little tiny electrons flowing through the wire can I. I am told it is a flow of electrons but how am I supposed to verify that for myself. I could try I suppose and verify everything that I have been told or that I have read in the past but before I have done that, unfortunately I will probably die.
So a better option to me is to accept that some people who write books or articles for magazines or produce TV documentaries are in a better position than me to verify things that I can't personally verify. They actually do know what they are talking about and are not deliberately lying to or trying to deceive their audience. That way I learn.
Or you could simply take the view that nothing is true unless you can personally verify that it is. Which takes me back to point of how have you proved to yourself that the Earth is flat. You can believe it is of course. But believing something does not automatically mean it is true.
-
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...
I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated. Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter. I guess modern science is not good enough for you.
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?
I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.
-
A few years back there was a supernova event in the galaxy M82. I have the equipment that allows me to obtain spectra of stars through telescopes and so I was able to obtain the spectra of the supernova. I was using the Star Analyser 100 diffraction filter and Tom Fields excellent RSpec software.
There is a distinct line which appears in the spectra associated with type 1a supernovae and I was able to identify this line almost straight away. I then calibrated my software by using a classic A type star which has the strongest hydrogen balmer lines. I then looked up (without verifying it for myself first) the quoted laboratory standard wavelength of the line I had observed in the supernova spectra. In my spectra the line was visibly blue shifted which is what I predicted because the line came from the shockwave 'shell' of gas which was rapidly expanding out into space. The shell was expanding faster then the recession velocity of the galaxy itself.
By plugging in the numbers I had measured with other standard figures I was able to calculate (posh term for verify) that the shell was expanding at 5% of the speed of light. A typical speed for a supernova just a few weeks after the event itself.
I also measured redshift of the core of the galaxy and used that to verify the distance to the galaxy. I got a figure of 10.95 million lightyears. Very close to the modern accepted figure of 11.5 million lightyears.
-
I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.
I think the crystal on a tower at the north pole generates the light which reflecting off the ice dome is what we call the sun. The moon is a reflection of the sun reflection.
As I remember anyway, it's been a while.
-
I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.
I think the crystal on a tower at the north pole generates the light which reflecting off the ice dome is what we call the sun. The moon is a reflection of the sun reflection.
As I remember anyway, it's been a while.
Something like that. One would think it would be easy to see.
-
I've asked and answered this question before. I've never heard a Flat Earther answer, but maybe someone will respond this time. I'm not a Flat Earther, but to change my mind it could be any number of things.
Touching the dome.
Looking over the edge.
Flying out into the endless ice plain.
Reporters discovering an ISS set in Hollywood, complete with the actors and all the real ISS feeds showing reporters walking around in space on the set.
An explanation or theory that actually made any kind of sense at all. :)
The only entrance to the hollywood set is in New York!
just kidding
Also, maybe we can't understand the whole world...?
-
Stand upright with your scope and set it level, then look out to sea.
And again you repeat the same refuted nonsense.
The point of asking these questions is to show that your claim in no way matches what you would expect for a globe.
The entire point is that you would see the horizon when looking out level on a globe, unless you were very far away from the globe, or your FOV was tiny.
Having a camera pointed down to the ground will ensure you see the ground.....nothing else.
Good, now we are making progress.
So you accept that when looking straight down, you see ground, and when looking perfectly level at 0 degrees, with nothing below that, you see sky.
That means at some point it must change.
If you start looking straight down, and bring your head up towards level, at some point you will see an imaginary line below which there is ground/sea and above which there is sky, i.e. you will see a horizon. Just like the example of the basketball and hill, but instead of sky you have the regions surrounding them.
Now the next question is where does it change?
Looking straight down is ground. Now we tilt the camera up, towards level. At what point does it change to sky?
i.e. at what angle would this horizon be on a round Earth?
For simplicity, you can start with the camera being 2 m above the surface.
But even better, can you provide a formula which relates the height above the surface, the radius of the ball, and this angle?
Feel free to have the angle be from level or from straight down, just clarify which you are using.
Basic observations totally destroy the fictional globe model.
You mean they destroy the fictional FE model and support the globe.
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
You mean reality, not nonsense, not indoctrination. In fact, you seem to be clinging to those while you reject reality.
This also shows just how close minded you are and how dishonest you were when presenting what would change your mind.
Your mind is set, and you refuse to change. Even if you are shown evidence which conclusively shows Earth is a globe, you still wont accept it.
None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I am for changing, but not just for the hell of it.
I am set with the globe because so far it is the only model I know of that actually matches reality, the only model I know of that is supported by evidence and can explain what is being observed in reality.
If you can present a FE model which works better than the RE model I will happily change.
The problem is that no FEer does that. Instead they make completely false misrepresentations about what "should" happen on a globe to pretend the globe doesn't match reality, while repeatedly avoiding simple questions and ignoring all the problems with a FE or just coming up with nonsense to pretend it works, even if it contradicts the alleged evidence for a FE.
-
I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.
Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Come back to me when you want to engage.
-
Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.
Thank you.
-
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
How have you managed to verify that the Earth is flat? This takes me back to a point I made earlier. Are you saying that we should only believe something if we can verify it ourselves?
So you probably don't own or read any books or magazines because you can't verify for yourself any of the information in them. Neither then must you accept as true or real virtually anything you read on the Internet (except from Flat Earth websites of course) and therefore you don't accept any of the information that is featured on TV documentaries. Again because you can't verify for yourself that any of the information they give you is true.
Why should I believe then that electricity is a flow of electrons. I can't see the little tiny electrons flowing through the wire can I. I am told it is a flow of electrons but how am I supposed to verify that for myself. I could try I suppose and verify everything that I have been told or that I have read in the past but before I have done that, unfortunately I will probably die.
So a better option to me is to accept that some people who write books or articles for magazines or produce TV documentaries are in a better position than me to verify things that I can't personally verify. They actually do know what they are talking about and are not deliberately lying to or trying to deceive their audience. That way I learn.
Or you could simply take the view that nothing is true unless you can personally verify that it is. Which takes me back to point of how have you proved to yourself that the Earth is flat. You can believe it is of course. But believing something does not automatically mean it is true.
I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.
I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.
-
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...
I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated. Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter. I guess modern science is not good enough for you.
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?
I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.
How did you start this and what did you use?
And what do you mean by, accepted value?
-
Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.
Thank you.
Your input is worthless. Put some effort in.
-
Well, he is not wrong asking for evidence.
-
Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.
Thank you.
Your input is worthless. Put some effort in.
Evidence would help. You've already been presented with evidence that the horizon and eye level are not always the same and that on a ball/rounded hill, a horizon line can be seen. And so far, you have presented zero evidence for your claims that have been refuted with actual evidence. So yeah, evidence would be a good thing to back up what you say at this point.
-
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...
I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated. Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter. I guess modern science is not good enough for you.
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?
I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.
How did you start this and what did you use?
And what do you mean by, accepted value?
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.
My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.
The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.
They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.
Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.
As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
-
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.
Well that doesn't include you. You seem to just want to reject it for no good reason at all, and continually avoid simple arguments/questions which show your claims to be wrong, like you have done yet again.
Once more, you have accepted that for a round Earth straight down is ground, yet looking level there is sky.
That means that if you start looking straight down and bring your head up towards level you must reach a point where it transitions, you must get an imaginary line below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.
Do you accept this fact, or do you reject it?
-
I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.
I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.
So you are going on and on and on about us simply accepting as true what we have been told or what we have read etc etc and whether we have 'verified' it for ourselves or whatever.
Are you not simply doing the same with regards to your belief that the Earth is flat? Or have you personally verified it as being true and if so how did you do it? I would love to know.
-
I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.
Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Come back to me when you want to engage.
I would, but your entire argument is based on some random book you read. And you continue to ignore most of what I say, so I'm not the one refusing to engage here.
If you are so sure all this land exists, why not fly out there and discover it yourself? Be famous.
There are infinite worlds out there.. why are you so afraid to go look for one?
-
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.
My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.
The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.
They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.
Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.
As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.
-
Once more, you have accepted that for a potential round (global) Earth straight down is ground, yet looking level there is sky.
Yep, absolutely.
That means that if you start looking straight down and bring your head up towards level (on a flat/level sea/water/liquid on Earth with concave sky) you must reach a point where it transitions, you must get an imaginary line below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.
Do you accept this fact, or do you reject it?
I fully accept what is put in bold.
Do you fully accept what is in bold?
-
I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.
I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.
So you are going on and on and on about us simply accepting as true what we have been told or what we have read etc etc and whether we have 'verified' it for ourselves or whatever.
Are you not simply doing the same with regards to your belief that the Earth is flat? Or have you personally verified it as being true and if so how did you do it? I would love to know.
I do not know what the Earth is in it's entirety.
I do know what it is not....and it is not, a globe.
My theory/hypothesis/thought process is what I've put forward.
I can't physically prove a lot of it....but then again I'm not asking anyone to follow it.
You or others ask what my Earth is like and I answer. That's it.
You can shout and scream from the rooftops about not accepting it and pushing your indoctrinated model forward. It's fine with me....but don't be shocked when I dismiss it as I have done and use basic logic to destroy it as far as I am concerned with it.
-
I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.
Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Come back to me when you want to engage.
I would, but your entire argument is based on some random book you read. And you continue to ignore most of what I say, so I'm not the one refusing to engage here.
If you are so sure all this land exists, why not fly out there and discover it yourself? Be famous.
There are infinite worlds out there.. why are you so afraid to go look for one?
What book is this?
-
Scep, why do you know it is not a globe?
Unless you can provide evidence, I'd like to point out that you believe it is not a globe, but you dont know it. Big difference.
-
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.
My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.
The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.
They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.
Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.
As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.
I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.
I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.
I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
-
Scott Manly used this technique to get the distance to the moon using smart phones.
-
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.
I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.
I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.
I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?
Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?
-
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.
I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.
I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.
I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?
Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?
It's all explained in the Wikipedia article I linked. Look I'm not teaching basic astronomy to a class here, I'm just telling you that I did an experiment years ago to verify the distance to a galaxy and explained how I did it. Go read the article, it explains how you do it. Come back to me with any part requiring further explanation.
-
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.
I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.
I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.
I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?
Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?
Look up the details yourself, it's all out there. Several ways.
But basically you can use two people observing the moon at the same time from far apart. Knowing the distances between them, and measuring the moons position against the background stars you can use parallax to determine the distance to the moon. When the moon is half illuminated it forms a right angle triangle with the sun, and basic trigonometry gives you the answer.
A more accurate method is by using the transit of Venus across the sun, watched from multiple locations. Timing the transits will give you everything you need to calculate the distance, which was done back in the 1700s.
But the modern method is using radar. We can bounce radar signals off of Venus, and using the known speed of light we can determine it's distance very precisely. Again, it's just trigonometry to then calculate the distance to the Sun which is at the center of both planet's orbits.
Once you know the size of Earths orbit, using parallax and trigonometry to find the distance to nearby stars is simple.
-
It's all explained in the Wikipedia article I linked. Look I'm not teaching basic astronomy to a class here, I'm just telling you that I did an experiment years ago to verify the distance to a galaxy and explained how I did it. Go read the article, it explains how you do it. Come back to me with any part requiring further explanation.
I'm not asking you to teach anything. I'm asking you to explain your first reference point of distance to your star, sun or whatever to gauge size and distance to be accurate or close to.
If you can't explain it then fine, just say it.
-
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.
I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.
I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.
I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?
Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?
Look up the details yourself, it's all out there. Several ways.
But basically you can use two people observing the moon at the same time from far apart. Knowing the distances between them, and measuring the moons position against the background stars you can use parallax to determine the distance to the moon. When the moon is half illuminated it forms a right angle triangle with the sun, and basic trigonometry gives you the answer.
A more accurate method is by using the transit of Venus across the sun, watched from multiple locations. Timing the transits will give you everything you need to calculate the distance, which was done back in the 1700s.
But the modern method is using radar. We can bounce radar signals off of Venus, and using the known speed of light we can determine it's distance very precisely. Again, it's just trigonometry to then calculate the distance to the Sun which is at the center of both planet's orbits.
Once you know the size of Earths orbit, using parallax and trigonometry to find the distance to nearby stars is simple.
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
-
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.
I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.
I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.
I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?
Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?
Look up the details yourself, it's all out there. Several ways.
But basically you can use two people observing the moon at the same time from far apart. Knowing the distances between them, and measuring the moons position against the background stars you can use parallax to determine the distance to the moon. When the moon is half illuminated it forms a right angle triangle with the sun, and basic trigonometry gives you the answer.
A more accurate method is by using the transit of Venus across the sun, watched from multiple locations. Timing the transits will give you everything you need to calculate the distance, which was done back in the 1700s.
But the modern method is using radar. We can bounce radar signals off of Venus, and using the known speed of light we can determine it's distance very precisely. Again, it's just trigonometry to then calculate the distance to the Sun which is at the center of both planet's orbits.
Once you know the size of Earths orbit, using parallax and trigonometry to find the distance to nearby stars is simple.
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
-
I will second what JJA has said. None of this is about a genuine debate about what shape the Earth is because we figured that out using a variety of methods a long, long time ago. Call it what you like Scepti it won't change the truth.
These 'discussions' are simply an opportunity for conspiracy theory loving people to pass some time in their lives arguing with anyone who doesn't go along with their beliefs. In their view they will always win the arguments put to them because in their view they think they know differently to everyone else and obviously makes them feel good. Fair enough. If that's what you need to do to feel good about yourself then feel free.
Scepti has demanded explanations about how we have personally 'verified' the points we have made and we have done that. Perhaps not to his satisfaction but then would we expect anything else?!?. He simply replies by talking about global 'nonsense' without apparently being able to be more specific about what made him change his mind and how he personally verified whatever it was that made him change his mind. All we have had so far is that he is 'well aware' of what it was that made him change his mind. In that case, please... share it with the rest of us.
There are many websites out there which talk about the psychology of conspiracy theorists and all of them say it is a waste of time arguing with them. Often the comments they make are deliberately phrased or worded to provoke a response from those who don't agree with them. When they do get a response that simply strengthens their own beliefs. In short they enjoy arguing until those who don't agree with them simply give up. That gives them the psychological boost of having the last word and in their view winning the argument.
So the best thing we (the globe knowing people) can do really is to fall silent and not take the bait that the conspiracy theorists cast out to us. Take away the fuel source and the fire dies.
-
So the best thing we (the globe knowing people) can do really is to fall silent and not take the bait that the conspiracy theorists cast out to us. Take away the fuel source and the fire dies.
There has been a lot of talk about Flat Earth regulars leaving and making the forum dead, but I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's really the non-flat earthers that really drive the conversation.
Just look at the True Believers section. Completely dead. A few threads where people archive their theories, and maybe once a year two of them will get into a discussion about something for a day.
Imagine the entire forum like that.
Of course that's true for almost any discussion. If you don't have opposing viewpoints, what is there to talk about?
-
That gives them the psychological boost of having the last word and in their view winning the argument.
Does that actually work? It's a thing? Do people feel they need 'the last word' in order to feel a victory? Seems ridiculous.
-
I fully accept what is put in bold.
So again you avoid an extremely simple question.
This is about what you would expect for a RE, to see if your claim about it is valid or pure nonsense.
Why try switching back to a FE?
Why avoid the question yet again?
Is it because you know your argument is wrong and that this line of reasoning will clearly show why so you avoid it at all costs?
So, try sticking to what is expected for a RE for this one.
One more, you have accepted that when you look straight down, you see ground (and presumably that if you were over water you would accept you see that); and you have accepted (in fact you claimed this) that if you look straight out level, then directly at the centre of your FOV you would see sky.
The logical consequence of this is that if you start looking straight down on top of this round Earth, and raise your head, as you do so you will reach a point where you can see both ground/sea and sky, where there would be an imaginary line dividing your vision, below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky.
Do you accept this fact?
I do know what it is not....and it is not, a globe.
How?
You are yet to provide a single thing that shows that and repeatedly avoid things which show the opposite or show your arguments to be horrible flawed?
It seems more like you falsely believe it is flat and will do whatever you can to pretend that false belief is justified.
You have never used basic logic to disprove a globe. You have avoided basic logic at all costs.
Even now you avoid simple logic and extremely basic questions which show your argument to be pure nonsense.
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.
My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.
The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.
They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.
Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.
As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.
Did you miss the part right before it?
As for more, you have already been told how the distance to the sun is determined and thus the size of Earth's orbit, and thus how far Earth would have travelled in 6 months.
-
Well that's for you to decide isn't it. You will never hear a committed conspiracy theorist admit they are wrong no matter how compelling the evidence against their beliefs become. For them that makes the challenge more attractive to them and increases their commitment to their cause.
So yes I agree it does seem ridiculous in this day and age to still believe (or claim to believe) the Earth is flat.
-
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
-
Scepti has demanded explanations about how we have personally 'verified' the points we have made and we have done that.
Perhaps not to his satisfaction but then would we expect anything else?!?.
Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.
So the best thing we (the globe knowing people) can do really is to fall silent and not take the bait that the conspiracy theorists cast out to us. Take away the fuel source and the fire dies.
Let's see if you can stick to it. I'm fine with it.
-
As for more, you have already been told how the distance to the sun is determined and thus the size of Earth's orbit, and thus how far Earth would have travelled in 6 months.
How did the measurements first come about to be close to what people like yourself believe to be accurate.
None of you can explain it from your own minds.
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
-
Granted, yes, the answer provided deals with astronomical objects. Which I believe is more challenging than a terrestrial object.
There are ways to gauge the size from a picture too, but even that is not enough for you, I am quite sure.
"To work out the size of the object on the sensor, work out it's height in pixels, divide by the image height in pixels and multiply by the physical height of the sensor."
Pretty pointless to try to provide you with answers, as in your opinion none of them hold any water, yet you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for your, quite inane, ramblings.
EDIT: As someone already wrote you:
"You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else."
-
Actually, what came first: the Earth is flat, or there is no space (as RE sees it)? Might help to unravel things, because if there is no space, then, of course, the measuring of astronomical objects cannot happen, right?
Do you believe we have been to the Moon? How far does the conspiracy go? Or are you of the opinion there is no conspiracy, but the Earth is still flat, it's just that everyone is dumb, and cannot see it, the maps work for some odd reason and so on?
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
-
Oh yeah, true.
There was and is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder)
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.
We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.
You asked how I worked out the distance to a galaxy, I told you how. It relies on other peoples' discoveries about the nature of cepheids , it relies on other people having used the parallax method to measure distances to cepheids and that relies on other people having determined the distance to the sun and that the earth orbits around it.
Nobody is going to start from first principles, re-invent calculus, re-invent trigonometry, re-invent radar, re-discover cepheids etc. etc. just to satisfy you.
If you weren't willing to even take the first step and accept the method of parallax, then what on earth was the point in asking about the distance to a galaxy?
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).
Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
-
I doubt he is.
-
I doubt he is.
I think I'm picking up the odd hint here and there to suggest you may be right.
-
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed
All while dodging the questions posed to you to point out why your claim about the horizon is factually incorrect.
And yet again, you avoid those simple questions.
WHY?
Is it because you know that they will expose your dishonesty? That they will show that your claim is completely wrong and your justification for why you think Earth is flat does not hold at all?
How did the measurements first come about to be close to what people like yourself believe to be accurate.
Already explained that, now how about sticking to the topic of the thread and answering the questions posed to you?
Once more, for a round (globe) Earth, you accept that if you look directly down, you see Earth. You claim that looking directly level you see sky, (which holds for a FOV near 0).
So do you accept the logical consequence of this, that if you start looking straight down and raise your head up, as you do so you reach a point where there is an imaginary line across your vision which divides the land below from the sky above?
You have avoided this very simple question repeatedly.
The only reason why is if you know it will show that you are wrong.
So can you answer it this time, or at least say why you refuse?
, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
[/quote]
-
Granted, yes, the answer provided deals with astronomical objects. Which I believe is more challenging than a terrestrial object.
There are ways to gauge the size from a picture too, but even that is not enough for you, I am quite sure.
"To work out the size of the object on the sensor, work out it's height in pixels, divide by the image height in pixels and multiply by the physical height of the sensor."
Pretty pointless to try to provide you with answers, as in your opinion none of them hold any water, yet you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for your, quite inane, ramblings.
EDIT: As someone already wrote you:
"You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else."
Rather than accept you cannot do my experiment and get any accurate reading,you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.
-
Actually, what came first: the Earth is flat, or there is no space (as RE sees it)? Might help to unravel things, because if there is no space, then, of course, the measuring of astronomical objects cannot happen, right?
Do you believe we have been to the Moon? How far does the conspiracy go? Or are you of the opinion there is no conspiracy, but the Earth is still flat, it's just that everyone is dumb, and cannot see it, the maps work for some odd reason and so on?
Can you answer my question?
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
This means nothing and you know it.
-
Can you answer my question?
I did. And others answered it, too.
You choose to disregard it.
-
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.
We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).
Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.
-
Can you answer my question?
I did. And others answered it, too.
You choose to disregard it.
Because you don't explain it. You just shoot a copy/paste in and expect me to accept it.
Show me exactly how you can calculate my ball at distance.
Explain it and why you get to the answer.
I see mountains being used and trigonometry from ball diameters and angular diameters.
What do they all mean to get back to a end calculated point?
-
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1
The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!
EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.
Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
-
You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.
-
Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.
Well I can honestly say that I haven't copied any pasted any of my explanations. You don't need to when you know what you are talking about. I can't speak for others obviously. I guess your 'satisfaction' is controlled mainly by your beliefs so if that is anything to go by I have got no chance of that. Nor has anyone else I doubt.
As regards to your other comment. I will stop replying when I get bored with this particular verbal tennis match. At the moment it is still quite fun so I might just carry on for now and see what other nonsense you can come up with as a way of trying to defend yourself.
-
You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.
But you can't prove it shows a reality.
-
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1
The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!
EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.
Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
All of that is based on knowing the size of something.
How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?
-
You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.
But you can't prove it shows a reality.
Well, I consider what we have real. You have another opinion. "Our" reality works, your exists only in your head.
-
Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.
Well I can honestly say that I haven't copied any pasted any of my explanations. You don't need to when you know what you are talking about. I can't speak for others obviously. I guess your 'satisfaction' is controlled mainly by your beliefs so if that is anything to go by I have got no chance of that. Nor has anyone else I doubt.
As regards to your other comment. I will stop replying when I get bored with this particular verbal tennis match. At the moment it is still quite fun so I might just carry on for now and see what other nonsense you can come up with as a way of trying to defend yourself.
Feel free but you've never answered the question.
-
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1
The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!
EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.
Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
All of that is based on knowing the size of something.
How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?
Well, yes. It is true. We need to know something first. How far do we need to go?
-
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1
The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!
EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.
Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
All of that is based on knowing the size of something.
How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?
Well, yes. It is true. We need to know something first. How far do we need to go?
You need to go as far as you need to.
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.
-
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.
Fine, lets play your game.
To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.
Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.
Simple.
-
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.
Fine, lets play your game.
To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.
Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.
Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
-
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.
Again, not that it matters, but it would appear it was done around 250 BC (or BCE). Some Greek dude measured the distance to the Moon. He used parallax to do so. Then another Greek used that to gauge the size and distance of the Sun. He was off, but it was a starting point.
-
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
Oh please. He answered you with everything you need to know.
EDIT: You can buy Steiner binocs with laser rangefinder:
https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder (https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder)
-
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.
Fine, lets play your game.
To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.
Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.
Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
I said radar, not laser. Try again.
This is how trigonometry works. If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math. Study on your own time.
(https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/step-up/sect4/ratbig.gif)
-
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.
We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).
Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.
Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.
Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.
Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.
The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).
So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.
Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.
(https://i.imgur.com/8foddqv.png)
-
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.
Again, not that it matters, but it would appear it was done around 250 BC (or BCE). Some Greek dude measured the distance to the Moon. He used parallax to do so. Then another Greek used that to gauge the size and distance of the Sun. He was off, but it was a starting point.
Ok, we'll start with this 250 BC (or BCE) carry on and what exactly did the greek dude do to measure the distance to the moon.
Basically explain what went on.
-
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
Oh please. He answered you with everything you need to know.
EDIT: You can buy Steiner binocs with laser rangefinder:
https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder (https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder)
So you believe you can bounce a laser off one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?
You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
Your belief in it all is fine but you are simply trying to tell me it's a truth and you have never tried any of it to get any real feedback.
If you have, then explain it.
-
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.
Fine, lets play your game.
To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.
Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.
Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
I said radar, not laser. Try again.
This is how trigonometry works. If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math. Study on your own time.
(https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/step-up/sect4/ratbig.gif)
I know how trigonometry works. I'm telling you it doesn't work for your fictional stars .
It's great for building walls and such.
It's no good for finding distance to fictional things and equally no good to find sizes of fictional things.
-
Radar was mentioned, too. As were other methods. Just for a change you could tell us what it is with those methods you do not believe works? You ask, you are given answers. We ask, you give nothing.
As I am sure you understand, the majority have no problems operating with the model we have, yet you cannot tell us how that is possible if the Earth really is flat as you claim.
-
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.
We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).
Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.
Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.
Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.
Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.
The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).
So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.
Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.
(https://i.imgur.com/8foddqv.png)
And how big is the ball?
-
So you believe you can bounce a laser off one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?
You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.
-
You accept laser rangefinding works.
What is your issue with the other listed methods?
-
So you believe you can bounce a laser off one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?
You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.
And those different methods are?
I'm waiting for some feedback on the 240 BC greek who managed to gauge distance and size of the moon. Any ideas yourself?
-
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.
You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.
Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?
It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject. Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.
So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.
I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.
I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.
Fine, lets play your game.
To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.
Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.
Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
I said radar, not laser. Try again.
This is how trigonometry works. If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math. Study on your own time.
(https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/step-up/sect4/ratbig.gif)
I know how trigonometry works. I'm telling you it doesn't work for your fictional stars .
It's great for building walls and such.
It's no good for finding distance to fictional things and equally no good to find sizes of fictional things.
I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works. ::)
Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.
What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space? Your denial can't make math stop working. Here's a picture. Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
-
So you believe you can bounce a laser off one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?
You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.
And those different methods are?
I'm waiting for some feedback on the 240 BC greek who managed to gauge distance and size of the moon. Any ideas yourself?
He used parallax, as was stated.
-
You accept laser rangefinding works.
What is your issue with the other listed methods?
I accept a lot of things for reality.
I accept a bounce back laser and radar and such.
I'm just waiting to get answers to my ball and its distance. I've been told a mountain is required and walking to different points to get the diameter and distance.
I still don't get why.
I mean, I get told, right angles. I understand stuff like the 3/4/5 method for a right angle and such.
I'm tying to figure out how it works for stars and moons and what not.
Is it an imaginary line to the edge of a star and another to the other edge by walking a short distance and the two points should add up to something?
Someone can explain it in a simple way so to be clear.
-
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.
We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).
Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.
Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.
Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.
Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.
The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).
So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.
Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.
(https://i.imgur.com/8foddqv.png)
And how big is the ball?
Use a sextant to measure the angular width of the ball φ - that's angle BAC.
Angle DAC is φ/2.
Triangle ADC is a right angled triangle.
Distance to ball is AC or "?" from earlier diagram.
Side DC is the radius of the ball.
DC = AC x Tan(φ/2).
(https://i.imgur.com/7ljMV3x.png)
-
I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works. ::)
Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.
What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space? Your denial can't make math stop working. Here's a picture. Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.
No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.
-
He used parallax, as was stated.
Explain it and how it works for stars/suns...etc.
Explain the reality.
-
Use a sextant to measure the angular width of the ball φ - that's angle BAC.
Angle DAC is φ/2.
Triangle ADC is a right angled triangle.
Distance to ball is AC or "?" from earlier diagram.
Side DC is the radius of the ball.
DC = AC x Tan(φ/2).
(https://i.imgur.com/7ljMV3x.png)
I get that but I want you to explain how you come to get the distance and actual size of what you are observing by using that.
Explain it to this dummy as simple as you can.
-
He used parallax, as was stated.
Explain it and how it works for stars/suns...etc.
Explain the reality.
I, myself, cannot explain it, I admit, but the link should. There is a lot of the history there as well.
https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html (https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html)
Parallax is “the best way to get distance in astronomy,” said Mark Reid, an astronomer at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He described parallax as the “gold standard” for measuring stellar distances because it does not involve physics; rather, it relies solely on geometry.
EDIT: The Greek:
Hipparchus noted that on March 14 of that year there was a total solar eclipse in Hellespont, Turkey, while at the same time farther south in Alexandria, Egypt, the moon covered only four-fifths of the sun. Knowing the baseline distance between Hellespont and Alexandria — 9 degrees of latitude or about 600 miles (965 km), along with the angular displacement of the edge of the moon against the sun (about one-tenth of a degree), he calculated the distance to the moon to be about 350,000 miles (563,300 km), which was nearly 50 percent too far. His mistake was in assuming that the moon was directly overhead, thus miscalculating the angle difference between Hellespont and Alexandria.
-
He used parallax, as was stated.
Explain it and how it works for stars/suns...etc.
Explain the reality.
I, myself, cannot explain it, I admit, but the link should. There is a lot of the history there as well.
https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html (https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html)
Parallax is “the best way to get distance in astronomy,” said Mark Reid, an astronomer at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He described parallax as the “gold standard” for measuring stellar distances because it does not involve physics; rather, it relies solely on geometry.
Thanks for being honest.
-
Thanks for being honest.
I try to. Still, appreciated.
-
Somewhat related, and interesting:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/177/1/012028/pdf (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/177/1/012028/pdf)
The aim of this study is to create a simple algorithm for distance estimation to unknown size objects, using some properties of a bee eye.
-
I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works. ::)
Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.
What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space? Your denial can't make math stop working. Here's a picture. Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.
No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.
Dude, it's been explained to you over and over. Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.
There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.
I'll try and explain. Here is a chart of trig functions.
(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)
Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.
We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.
We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.
Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse
We solve for the hypotenuse:
hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent
This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
This is basic trig.
-
Use a sextant to measure the angular width of the ball φ - that's angle BAC.
Angle DAC is φ/2.
Triangle ADC is a right angled triangle.
Distance to ball is AC or "?" from earlier diagram.
Side DC is the radius of the ball.
DC = AC x Tan(φ/2).
(https://i.imgur.com/7ljMV3x.png)
I get that but I want you to explain how you come to get the distance and actual size of what you are observing by using that.
Explain it to this dummy as simple as you can.
OK well let's try an example. So first step is for the observer to move sideways to line the ball up with the distant mountaintop or other convenient distant object (see first diagram from earlier). The key is the distant object has to be a long way away compared to the distance of the ball.
Move sideways far enough that the ball no longer lines up with the mountain, let's say 5 metres. Now get out your trusty sextant and measure the angle between the ball and the mountain. Let's say this is 7°. Plug these figures into the first equation, and the distance to the ball is 5/Tan(7) = 41 metres.
Now use the sextant to measure the angular diameter of the ball, let's say 1/2 of a degree (see second diagram). Plug the distance and this new angle into the second equation to get the ball radius: 41 x Tan(0.5) = 0.36 metres. Diameter of ball is therefore 0.72 metres, i.e. 72 cm.
Edit: Oops, just spotted that I should have halved the angle for the second equation, so that's 41 x Tan(0.5/2) = 0.18, so diameter of ball is 36 cm, not 72. My bad.
-
Cool!
I thank you for that, too.
-
Feel free but you've never answered the question.
Sorry, remind me what question was that? I will answer any question put to me but whether you choose to accept/believe my answer is something I have no control over.
JJAs explanation for finding a value for the distance of Venus and hence the Sun is perfectly valid and perfectly correct. The maximum elongation of Venus comes to 46 degrees give or take a tiny bit and we can use radar or indeed laser pulses to work out the distance to Venus. Both use electromagnetic waves (i.e. light or radio waves) so the result will be the same. If we plot the position of Venus relative to the stars over the course of either a morning (western) or evening (eastern) elongation we can the join the points to form a nice arc. That arc takes the form of part of an ellipse which is actually the orbit of Venus. The Sun can be seen to mark one of the focii of the ellipse as described by Keplers 1st law. This is an interesting project which has been done successfully by many amateur astronomers across the world. So yes we can verify it for ourselves.
That is perfectly valid science because we are confirming theory by observation. If you look at Venus through a telescope at various times during a western and eastern elongation you will see a phase sequence which exactly matches what we would expect to see according to the heliocentric model which puts Venus as the second planet of the solar system.
All this will be lost on Scepti because he won't accept any of it. No problem - just describe to us a better explanation and be sure to back it up with how you verified it yourself. Then I will give you the email address of the editor of Nature magazine so you can write a paper on it explaining how science has got it all wrong but you have got it right and have it published. I'm sure they would be very keen to read your alternative views.
-
All this will be lost on Scepti because he won't accept any of it. No problem - just describe to us a better explanation and be sure to back it up with how you verified it yourself. Then I will give you the email address of the editor of Nature magazine so you can write a paper on it explaining how science has got it all wrong but you have got it right and have it published.
I've tried the same, but FE rarely bites.
-
That's because FE haven't got any better explanations. They will claim they have and they are very good at their put downs of traditional science. They demand explanations from us and then ignore them without producing any of their own.
If they seriously think the crazy stuff that the FE Wiki is full of offers a better explanation for how the world and the Universe work compared to mainstream science then this whole flat Earth business is even more far fetched than I used to think it was.
Anyone can make meaningless comments like 'globalist nonsense' or 'angry globalists' but until they can come up with anything more convincing than what we already have, the globalists have it in my view.
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
This means nothing and you know it.
They are valid options that someone with the requiered knowledge could use to perform the task in question, and you know it.
-
Rather than accept you cannot do my experiment and get any accurate reading,you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.
Rather than accept your argument is pure nonsense and you cannot answer my simple questions without refuting yourself, you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.
Can you answer my question?
Can you answer mine?
You know, the one directly relating to the topic which shows your argument for why you think Earth is flat is pure nonsense?
Once more, you have admitted that (on a round Earth) looking straight down, you see ground. You claim that looking straight out level you see sky, which is true if your FOV is small enough.
The logical consequence of this is that if you start looking straight down and raise your head up, you will reach a line/division below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.
If you don't agree, tell us how this transition occurs.
As you continually ignore the question, I will just continue with the rest of the logic (something you seem to hate and never want to use as it never supports you).
This division between land/sea and sky is the horizon for a round Earth.
This means the RE does have a horizon, and the only question is where this horizon is.
First we note that the horizon will be at the maximum distance from straight down as possible.
This means your line of site to the horizon would be tangent to Earth at this horizon.
This allows us to construct a right angle triangle (Yes, now we are going into math, something else you seem to despise).
This triangle has a right angle at the horizon.
It then has a line connecting straight down to the centre of Earth (of distance r), and a line connecting the horizon to your eyes.
The final line is the hypotenuse connecting your eyes to the centre of Earth (of distance r+h).
Now we can finally find out where the horizon is.
We can measure it from straight down, using sin(x)=r/(r+h). Or we can measure it from straight out level, noting that straight out level is at 90 degrees to straight down, and thus the angle we are looking for is 90 degrees - x, and that cos(90 degrees - x) = sin(x).
So the angle from straight out level is given by acos(r/(r+h)).
When we plug in 6371 km for r, and 2 m for h we end up with acos(6371/6371.002)=2.72395557 arc minutes, or ~2.7 arc minutes to 2 sig figs.
This shows that when you are looking out level, unless your FOV is tiny (less tan 5.45 arc minutes) YOU WILL SEE THE HORIZON ON A ROUND EARTH!
Your claim that you would see nothing but sky is pure nonsense.
Thus your justification for why you think Earth is flat is nonsense.
Thus the thing you claim would cause you to change your mind is not something you would expect for a RE of this size.
So going to address it?
Or will you continue to dishonestly ignore it so you can dishonestly pretend that your false claim that Earth is flat is justified?
-
Sceptimatic is planning his next attack.
-
I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works. ::)
Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.
What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space? Your denial can't make math stop working. Here's a picture. Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.
No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.
Dude, it's been explained to you over and over. Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.
There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.
I'll try and explain. Here is a chart of trig functions.
(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)
Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.
We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.
We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.
Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse
We solve for the hypotenuse:
hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent
This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
This is basic trig.
I'm fine with basic trig.
I'm simply asking for a reality of the ball of unknown size and unknown distance to be calculated.
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
-
They really give the title of scientist to anyone?
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
-
I'm fine with basic trig.
Really?
So what is your objection to the basic trig that shows where the horizon would be on a round Earth, that shows that unless your FOV is extremely tiny or you are quite far from Earth, you would see the horizon when looking out level?
Then again, why are you rejecting the idea that by measuring the angle to an object at 2 locations and measuring the distance between those 2 locations gives you the distance to that object?
-
Then again, why are you rejecting the idea that by measuring the angle to an object at 2 locations and measuring the distance between those 2 locations gives you the distance to that object?
Yep... the basic principle of parallax which has proved to be a very useful and very accurate tool in astronomy. GAIA has used it to determine the distances of stars across most of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Another way of measuring the distance to Venus is via the observation of transits. As Venus moves across the disk of the Sun its observed position on the disk at a given moment will be slightly different for observers at different geographic locations. So by measuring these differences in position and by knowing the distance separating each observer we can again use some basic trig to work out how far away Venus is. We can then cross check these figures with those obtained by using laser or radar ranging.
We might as well try and reason with a brick wall as reason with Scepti. He is simply completely ignoring everything presented to him which shows his beliefs are wrong.
So be it. That is the typical MO of conspiracy theorists. They shut their eyes and ears and slam the door shut to anything which shows how their beliefs are wrong. By flatly (punn incidental) denying that all the evidence that RE put before them is in anyway a valid argument against what they believe they know that eventually the 'non-believers' will simply give up and move on to prevent them from being driven insane. That way they will seem to have won their argument without actually producing any evidence of their own.
-
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.
I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.
EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
This means nothing and you know it.
They are valid options that someone with the requiered knowledge could use to perform the task in question, and you know it.
-
Sceptimatic, robinofloxley did provide you an example with numbers. And as you know trigonometry, it should be easy for you to verify it.
-
I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works. ::)
Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.
What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space? Your denial can't make math stop working. Here's a picture. Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.
No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.
Dude, it's been explained to you over and over. Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.
There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.
I'll try and explain. Here is a chart of trig functions.
(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)
Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.
We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.
We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.
Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse
We solve for the hypotenuse:
hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent
This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
This is basic trig.
I'm fine with basic trig.
I'm simply asking for a reality of the ball of unknown size and unknown distance to be calculated.
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
So you totally understood all of that, and claim it's all wrong somehow, but can't tell me how it's wrong?
That actually sounds like someone who doesn't understand any of it and is just in denial about it.
Show me where the math is wrong. I even gave you all the steps to make it easy to follow.
-
I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works. ::)
Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.
What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space? Your denial can't make math stop working. Here's a picture. Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.
No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.
Dude, it's been explained to you over and over. Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.
There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.
I'll try and explain. Here is a chart of trig functions.
(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)
Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.
We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.
We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.
Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse
We solve for the hypotenuse:
hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent
This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.
This is basic trig.
I'm fine with basic trig.
I'm simply asking for a reality of the ball of unknown size and unknown distance to be calculated.
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
So you totally understood all of that, and claim it's all wrong somehow, but can't tell me how it's wrong?
That actually sounds like someone who doesn't understand any of it and is just in denial about it.
Show me where the math is wrong. I even gave you all the steps to make it easy to follow.
He agrees with it, but his issue is that there are two balls (sun, venus) instead of one.
But he's too stupid to realize you could use the exactely same method with a single ball by using the angular size of the single ball-shaped object instead of the angle between sun and venus. Then you could solve for the size of said ball (you get the distance with e.g. radar).
But as we all know, scepti is nothing but a troll. He already knows all of this, he just pretends to be stupid for fun and entertainment.
-
I am not sure he pretends. I find that hard to believe.
-
He agrees with it, but his issue is that there are two balls (sun, venus) instead of one.
But he's too stupid to realize you could use the exactely same method with a single ball by using the angular size of the single ball-shaped object instead of the angle between sun and venus. Then you could solve for the size of said ball (you get the distance with e.g. radar).
Yes, I told him I could do exactly that with his ball and radar, using a camera to determine it's size based on the angular projection.
It got lost in his constantly shifting set of demands and attention.
I don't think he understands any of it. It's all a mystery to him as I've not seen him make a single comment that shows even a tiny bity of understanding of angles and how they work.
But as we all know, scepti is nothing but a troll. He already knows all of this, he just pretends to be stupid for fun and entertainment.
If he's lying to anyone about all of this, it's only to himself about his understanding of the world. In his own mind he's smarter than everyone, and confused why nobody else can understand his amazing theories.
-
Sceptimatic, is it true you have been telling people about atmospheric stacking since 2013 or so? And was it your uncle who taught you?
If so, you have had a long time to polish your model. I am also interested in knowing what started you on this path. If it was a person other than yourself, what made you believe that person.
EDIT: Were you young enough to challenge your teachers? Did you do so? Was your beliefs a driver for what you do nowadays?
-
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.
Think of a telescope as being an amplifier of light. An image is formed by light and nothing more. No human being can see the dwarf planet Pluto with their eyes alone. Firstly because it is too small and secondly because it is too faint. Yet despite its size and distance, Pluto is reflecting sunlight back towards Earth. There simply are not enough photons passing through the 28.27mm^2 light collecting area (assuming a dilated pupil diameter of 6mm) of the pupil to register as an image by the brain.
However my 300mm telescope has a light collecting area of 70,685mm^2 which is 2,500 times greater than the pupil of my eye. That means more photons can enter my telescope per unit time than can enter my eye. The telescope, in conjunction with the eyepiece then acts like a light funnel to focus all those photons down into an area which allows them to enter my eye. Hence I can see fainter objects with my telescope than I can without it. Since I cannot see Pluto without a telescope it follows that my 300mm telescope allows me to extend the distance I can see. Not because of the telescopes magnifying power but because of its light gathering power. This can be demonstrated by the fact that a telescope of smaller aperture (say 6 inch) has a correspondingly smaller aperture (light gathering power) and so no matter how much magnification I use it still won't show me Pluto.
Distance though is irrelevant to astronomical telescopes. It is all about light gathering power. An object could be very nearby but if it is also very faint then I wont be able to see it no matter how much magnifying power the telescope can deliver. On the other hand if an object is very distant but is emitting or reflecting a lot of light then I will be able to see it. The stars are so far away that no telescope on Earth will ever be able to resolve a physical disk. That's because the stellar disk is too small to resolve. But light from a given star can travel infinite distances across the Universe. So we can see all those stars the light from which has had time to reach Earth. The physical size and distance of the star doesn't make any difference to whether I can see it or not. The magnify power can increase the resolving power of the telescope however which is why I can resolve a double star better at higher magnification than I can at a lower power. The two stars have to be far enough apart in the first place though for the airy disks to be resolved as separate images. If they are not then no amount of magnification will resolve them.
In that way astronomical telescopes are different to microscopes because microscopes are just about increasing the ability of the eye to resolve detail. An astronomical telescope is primarily a light detector.
-
”If only there was a way to do X.”
”Oh, there is! I can show you an example. Here!”
”It can’t be done.”
-
They really give the title of scientist to anyone?
We're all scientists.
The world and discovering/searching, is all science.
Scientist can apply to all who do it.
So basically we are it, we're not given it.
As long as there's a truthful/honest mindset of a person to search and hypothesise, there's always a scientist.
It's all about accepting what is told, even without real proof's.
And this is where we all differ.
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
-
I'm fine with basic trig.
Really?
So what is your objection to the basic trig that shows where the horizon would be on a round Earth, that shows that unless your FOV is extremely tiny or you are quite far from Earth, you would see the horizon when looking out level?
Then again, why are you rejecting the idea that by measuring the angle to an object at 2 locations and measuring the distance between those 2 locations gives you the distance to that object?
There is not trig that shows where any horizon is on your supposed global Earth.
-
We might as well try and reason with a brick wall as reason with Scepti. He is simply completely ignoring everything presented to him which shows his beliefs are wrong.
Don't show me where my belief's are wrong. Show me where your belief's become your truth's that you can relay to me, without the novel, telling me I'm this and that.
Make it so simple and we may get somewhere.
There seems to be a fear to going right down to the basics for this globe and space stuff you believe in.
-
They are valid options that someone with the requiered knowledge could use to perform the task in question, and you know it.
Can you do it?
You rely on it so you must be able to do it.
Explain it from your own mind.
-
Sceptimatic, robinofloxley did provide you an example with numbers. And as you know trigonometry, it should be easy for you to verify it.
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance.
-
Sceptimatic, is it true you have been telling people about atmospheric stacking since 2013 or so? And was it your uncle who taught you?
If so, you have had a long time to polish your model. I am also interested in knowing what started you on this path. If it was a person other than yourself, what made you believe that person.
EDIT: Were you young enough to challenge your teachers? Did you do so? Was your beliefs a driver for what you do nowadays?
You can ask all these questions in another thread if it bugs you.
-
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.
Think of a telescope as being an amplifier of light. An image is formed by light and nothing more. No human being can see the dwarf planet Pluto with their eyes alone. Firstly because it is too small and secondly because it is too faint. Yet despite its size and distance, Pluto is reflecting sunlight back towards Earth. There simply are not enough photons passing through the 28.27mm^2 light collecting area (assuming a dilated pupil diameter of 6mm) of the pupil to register as an image by the brain.
However my 300mm telescope has a light collecting area of 70,685mm^2 which is 2,500 times greater than the pupil of my eye. That means more photons can enter my telescope per unit time than can enter my eye. The telescope, in conjunction with the eyepiece then acts like a light funnel to focus all those photons down into an area which allows them to enter my eye. Hence I can see fainter objects with my telescope than I can without it. Since I cannot see Pluto without a telescope it follows that my 300mm telescope allows me to extend the distance I can see. Not because of the telescopes magnifying power but because of its light gathering power. This can be demonstrated by the fact that a telescope of smaller aperture (say 6 inch) has a correspondingly smaller aperture (light gathering power) and so no matter how much magnification I use it still won't show me Pluto.
Distance though is irrelevant to astronomical telescopes. It is all about light gathering power. An object could be very nearby but if it is also very faint then I wont be able to see it no matter how much magnifying power the telescope can deliver. On the other hand if an object is very distant but is emitting or reflecting a lot of light then I will be able to see it. The stars are so far away that no telescope on Earth will ever be able to resolve a physical disk. That's because the stellar disk is too small to resolve. But light from a given star can travel infinite distances across the Universe. So we can see all those stars the light from which has had time to reach Earth. The physical size and distance of the star doesn't make any difference to whether I can see it or not. The magnify power can increase the resolving power of the telescope however which is why I can resolve a double star better at higher magnification than I can at a lower power. The two stars have to be far enough apart in the first place though for the airy disks to be resolved as separate images. If they are not then no amount of magnification will resolve them.
In that way astronomical telescopes are different to microscopes because microscopes are just about increasing the ability of the eye to resolve detail. An astronomical telescope is primarily a light detector.
Microscopes are small telescopes. Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Magnification of objects.
They do not see farther than the eye. They magnify what the eye cannot focus on in the set distance the eye can see of reflected light back to it.
It doesn't matter how a telescope is dressed up...it simply magnifies. It does not see farther.
Argue this all you want but you know I'm right.
-
”If only there was a way to do X.”
”Oh, there is! I can show you an example. Here!”
”It can’t be done.”
Show me.
-
Don't show me where my belief's are wrong. Show me where your belief's become your truth's that you can relay to me, without the novel, telling me I'm this and that.
Making comments like this simply reinforces what I said earlier. We have shown you and explained to you where and how your beliefs are wrong. As would be said on the 'other' FE website, it is not up to us to do your homework for you. If you want answers then go and find them yourself. We have explained the basics to you. Whether you choose to accept them or not (clearly not) is your problem not ours.
As you said earlier, you know what you believe in and why.. Same for me and that is all I am going to say in this discussion. I've already wasted too much time on it.
Argue this all you want but you know I'm right.
See that's the problem with FEers. They just plod along thinking they are right all the time.
-
”If only there was a way to do X.”
”Oh, there is! I can show you an example. Here!”
”It can’t be done.”
Show me.
Read the thread.
-
They really give the title of scientist to anyone?
We're all scientists.
As long as there's a truthful/honest mindset of a person to search and hypothesise, there's always a scientist.
And that part rules out you.
Being a scientist involves honestly looking at the evidence and what models would predict to see which models match reality and which models do not.
It also involves following rational arguments and responding to criticism.
Instead of doing that you set up a strawman to dismiss the RE, refuse to justify this strawman and fail to refute the refutations of those strawmen.
It's all about accepting what is told, even without real proof's.
And this is where we all differ.
Yes, you seem to expect people to just accept what you tell them, without any proof at all, while I expect evidence and justification and, for claims of what a model indicates, proof. I accept the RE model due to the abundance of evidence supporting it and reject your model as you have no evidence to support it and there is plenty that contradicts it.
But you don't care about that proof or evidence. That is where we differ.
There is not trig that shows where any horizon is on your supposed global Earth.
Yes there is. I provided it, first just as the conclusion, then as the trig, then as the series of questions leading up to that that trig, which you repeatedly ignored.
I even provided it not too long ago in this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2284231#msg2284231
Once more, you accept that if you look straight down, you see ground. You accept that looking out level you see sky.
That means there must be some point where the centre of your FOV changes from ground/sea to sky. That is the horizon.
And for a sphere of radius r, with an observer at height h, this will be located at either acos(r/(r+h)) or asin(r/(r+h)) depending on if you measure from straight down or from eye level.
With a height of 2 m on this Earth you end up with this horizon being at 2.7 arc minutes below eye level or 89 degrees and 57.3 arc minutes from straight down.
This is something you are yet to refute, nor follow the simple questions through as you seem to know it refutes you.
Basic trig refutes you.
So if you do understand basic trig, you understand that what you are saying is pure nonsense, you are blatantly lying.
So do you understand and thus are lying to us, or do you not understand?
Or perhaps you can finally finish this line of inquiry to show you are wrong.
Once more, you have admitted that, for a RE, looking down you see ground and looking level you see sky.
Does this mean you accept the logical consequence of this, that at some point there will be a transition between the land/sea and the sky, a line below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky?
If not, just how do you think it goes from seeing just land/sea to seeing sky?
-
Sceptimatic, is it true you have been telling people about atmospheric stacking since 2013 or so? And was it your uncle who taught you?
If so, you have had a long time to polish your model. I am also interested in knowing what started you on this path. If it was a person other than yourself, what made you believe that person.
EDIT: Were you young enough to challenge your teachers? Did you do so? Was your beliefs a driver for what you do nowadays?
You can ask all these questions in another thread if it bugs you.
Isn't this thread about that?
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
Oh my word, are you for real?
I've given you a complete tutorial on how to do this, diagrams, all the equations, a full walkthrough of how to go about it and a beginning to end worked example with a 36cm ball at a distance of 41 metres.
I honestly believe if someone put a steak dinner in front of you, you'd rather starve to death than acknowledge it was there.
-
It is infuriating. But goes with being FE. The only means in their arsenal.
-
Conspiracy theorists thrive in the face of adversity. It is what makes them 'tick'. So the more evidence that is put in front of them which contradicts what they believe to be the real 'truth' the more they become adamant that they are correct. That goes for flat Earth belief, the Moon landings, 9/11, Area 51 and so on..
So trying to reason with flat Earth believers or explain to them why their beliefs are wrong is to my mind a fruitless and pointless exercise. I sometimes wonder whether they are even interested in the subject being considered or debated. It is like the school bully who thrives on the reactions they get from whoever they choose to bully because it gives them a sense of power and control.
As what point has any FE ever described in great detail how they have personally verified that the Earth is definitely flat. We all know that before the advent of the 20th century it was actually very difficult to 'prove' that the Earth is round. But there has always been more evidence to support globe model than anything else. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.
I can measure the angular separation of Venus and the Sun and I can measure the size of Venus' disk on the sky using a reticle eyepiece. However I still need information from other sources to reach the determination of Venus' size or distance. We cannot do everything for ourselves. However information that I can't measure for myself I can easily get from a multitude of sources.
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle. If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it. Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why. Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.
Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid. If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".
I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
-
Sceptimatic I don’t think has answered a single question related to how or why, for example, trigonometry does not work.
I trust people would be able to help him understand it all better if he could point out the errors in it.
Sceptimatic:
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance
That is the same as:
”Yeah, sure. You can do 2+2, but can you do 22222+22222?”
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/disapproving_look.jpg)
-
How trig was used to get the suns distance. Skip to 6:05 unless you want to see the build up.
The video calculates the distance to the sun by first finding the distance to mars.
-
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
-
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
Could just be me, but I associate a troll with some guile and wit. Sceptimatic appears to me more like an idiot, pure and simple.
-
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
By the very fact we are posting here shows that we do in fact have time to waste. :)
-
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
By the very fact we are posting here shows that we do in fact have time to waste. :)
Wrong - for example I get paid for posting here.
-
Microscopes are small telescopes. Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Magnification of objects.
Both instruments extend the range of size of objects that the naked eye can perceive. If a telescope cannot allow an observer to see further than is possible with the naked eye on it's own, how then do you account for the fact that with a telescope I can see Pluto but without one I cannot. I have various telescopes ranging in size from a 2in refractor to a 20" reflector. I can set both telescopes to have an effective magnification of 100x by using an eyepiece of the appropriate focal length. With the 20" at 100x I can see Pluto but with the 2in refractor at 100x I can't. How do you explain that?
There is a fundamental difference though in how microscopes and telescope form images. In the case of an astronomical telescope the target object is at optical infinity. The same cannot be said for microscopes. Yes both microscopes and telescopes magnify but they do it in fundamentally different ways.
Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Really. A telescope will never show me structural details in a human hair. A microscope will never show me craters on the Moon or the satellites of Jupiter or the rings of Saturn. All they have in common is that they magnify. Nothing else.
The question I would put to you is how do telescopes create a magnified image of a distant object? If I point my telescope at the Moon I will see more detail on the Moons surface than I can without it. The question is how does it do that? How for example would you explain that to a child who has just looked through a telescope at the Moon for the first time?
Are telescopes and microscopes the same thing?
On the surface, telescopes and microscopes might appear to function the same. They both have lenses, they both magnify objects, and they both bring the invisible world into focus. But underneath, these two devices use opposite mechanics to bring images to your eye.
https://theydiffer.com/difference-between-a-microscope-and-a-telescope/#:~:text=Telescopes%20are%20designed%20to%20see%20things%20that%20are,focal%20point%20while%20microscopes%20often%20use%20artificial%20light.
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
Oh my word, are you for real?
I've given you a complete tutorial on how to do this, diagrams, all the equations, a full walkthrough of how to go about it and a beginning to end worked example with a 36cm ball at a distance of 41 metres.
I honestly believe if someone put a steak dinner in front of you, you'd rather starve to death than acknowledge it was there.
Let's get back to the crux.
I have a ball of unknown size, where you are concerned. I put it at a distance that you do not know.
Tell me what tools you require to calculate the distance and size of the ball.
It's fine telling me you use a mountain but I fail to see how that can do the job.
So.....instead of getting all worked up....just explain it to a dummy like me and show how it all works.
-
Conspiracy theorists thrive in the face of adversity. It is what makes them 'tick'. So the more evidence that is put in front of them which contradicts what they believe to be the real 'truth' the more they become adamant that they are correct. That goes for flat Earth belief, the Moon landings, 9/11, Area 51 and so on..
So trying to reason with flat Earth believers or explain to them why their beliefs are wrong is to my mind a fruitless and pointless exercise. I sometimes wonder whether they are even interested in the subject being considered or debated. It is like the school bully who thrives on the reactions they get from whoever they choose to bully because it gives them a sense of power and control.
As what point has any FE ever described in great detail how they have personally verified that the Earth is definitely flat. We all know that before the advent of the 20th century it was actually very difficult to 'prove' that the Earth is round. But there has always been more evidence to support globe model than anything else. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.
I can measure the angular separation of Venus and the Sun and I can measure the size of Venus' disk on the sky using a reticle eyepiece. However I still need information from other sources to reach the determination of Venus' size or distance. We cannot do everything for ourselves. However information that I can't measure for myself I can easily get from a multitude of sources.
You say you cannot do everything yourselves but apparently someone did it in BC, as I was told. So surely you can show me how you get to your distance and sizes......Right?
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle. If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it. Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why. Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.
Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid. If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".
I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
If you want to tell me you can see a 5 million foot jolly green giant in the distance and I tell you I don't accept that...you need tp prove it or it gets left to the choice of, you believe it and I don't...and you cannot argue for any truth of what you say but I can certainly discount it until I have proof.
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle. If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it. Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why. Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.
Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid. If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".
I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
If you want to tell me you can see a 5 million foot jolly green giant in the distance and I tell you I don't accept that...you need tp prove it or it gets left to the choice of, you believe it and I don't...and you cannot argue for any truth of what you say but I can certainly discount it until I have proof.
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.
I suppose this applies too to your dome and carbonate crystal sun projector?
-
Sceptimatic I don’t think has answered a single question related to how or why, for example, trigonometry does not work.
I trust people would be able to help him understand it all better if he could point out the errors in it.
Sceptimatic:
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance
That is the same as:
”Yeah, sure. You can do 2+2, but can you do 22222+22222?”
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/disapproving_look.jpg)
No it's not and you know it and so do the rest of you who are trying your best to argue your stance..
-
How trig was used to get the suns distance. Skip to 6:05 unless you want to see the build up.
The video calculates the distance to the sun by first finding the distance to mars.
And how was the distance to supposed mars calculated?
-
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
Could just be me, but I associate a troll with some guile and wit. Sceptimatic appears to me more like an idiot, pure and simple.
And yet, here you are, engaging with the idiot.
-
Microscopes are small telescopes. Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Magnification of objects.
Both instruments extend the range of size of objects that the naked eye can perceive. If a telescope cannot allow an observer to see further than is possible with the naked eye on it's own, how then do you account for the fact that with a telescope I can see Pluto but without one I cannot.
I have various telescopes ranging in size from a 2in refractor to a 20" reflector. I can set both telescopes to have an effective magnification of 100x by using an eyepiece of the appropriate focal length. With the 20" at 100x I can see Pluto but with the 2in refractor at 100x I can't. How do you explain that?
You see a dot of light and that's pluto to you....right?
We see all kinds of dots of light with our eyes, never mind bringing more into focus.
The same thing applies as I said before.
All you're doing is magnifying.
Basically you're walking towards the tiny man and as you do this, you see the tiny man get bigger.
Your telescope is like walking towards a tiny light or walking towards, what you thought was nothing, until you see a tiny light....etc.
Your microscope is the same thing.
There is a fundamental difference though in how microscopes and telescope form images. In the case of an astronomical telescope the target object is at optical infinity. The same cannot be said for microscopes. Yes both microscopes and telescopes magnify but they do it in fundamentally different ways.
They appear to work in different ways because of the set up. They actually work the same. The only difference is in the size and the viewed distance the eye can accept magnification of.
Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Really. A telescope will never show me structural details in a human hair. A microscope will never show me craters on the Moon or the satellites of Jupiter or the rings of Saturn. All they have in common is that they magnify. Nothing else.
A telescope will show you structural differences...but on a bigger scale.
The question I would put to you is how do telescopes create a magnified image of a distant object? If I point my telescope at the Moon I will see more detail on the Moons surface than I can without it. The question is how does it do that? How for example would you explain that to a child who has just looked through a telescope at the Moon for the first time?
They simply magnify he light back to your eye from what the object reflects. In simple terms.
Are telescopes and microscopes the same thing?
On the surface, telescopes and microscopes might appear to function the same. They both have lenses, they both magnify objects, and they both bring the invisible world into focus. But underneath, these two devices use opposite mechanics to bring images to your eye.
https://theydiffer.com/difference-between-a-microscope-and-a-telescope/#:~:text=Telescopes%20are%20designed%20to%20see%20things%20that%20are,focal%20point%20while%20microscopes%20often%20use%20artificial%20light.
Dress it up as much as you want but you know they work the same.
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle. If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it. Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why. Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.
Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid. If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".
I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
If you want to tell me you can see a 5 million foot jolly green giant in the distance and I tell you I don't accept that...you need tp prove it or it gets left to the choice of, you believe it and I don't...and you cannot argue for any truth of what you say but I can certainly discount it until I have proof.
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.
I suppose this applies too to your dome and carbonate crystal sun projector?
That's my hypothesis. I'm not handing out books and what not proclaiming it to be truth.
I'm not telling any of you it's the truth.
People ask me about my theory and I give it.
Some then go into a frenzy over it, as if I've just opened a library of fact about scepti's Earth.
You see, the difference is, I have alternate musings/hypotheses/theories. Some I believe are closer to fact than anything a global indoctrination can produce....but that's for me....it's not put out there for anyone else to accept or believe.
All I ask anyone to do, is to look at it all and put their own mind to t.
I'm absolutely 100% sure none of you will bother to look into it and that's fine.
The fact that you and others are hell bent on trying to destroy it is enough for me to carry on, to give genuine people the chance to think.
-
And yet, here you are, engaging with the idiot.
True, I am.
-
Sceptimatic I don’t think has answered a single question related to how or why, for example, trigonometry does not work.
I trust people would be able to help him understand it all better if he could point out the errors in it.
Sceptimatic:
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance
That is the same as:
”Yeah, sure. You can do 2+2, but can you do 22222+22222?”
No it's not and you know it and so do the rest of you who are trying your best to argue your stance..
And how is it not? It's maths and extrapolation.
EDIT: You keep repeating this "you know it is not" without saying what is wrong with it.
-
Well it's been awhile Sceptimatic... are you still completely confused by rockets, inertia, frames of reference, and cameras?
-
The fact that you and others are hell bent on trying to destroy it is enough for me to carry on, to give genuine people the chance to think.
OK Scepti so you have a hypothesis. Good for you. Have you every stopped for a moment to consider the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong? Seems to me that you have already decided it is a bit more than just a hypothesis.
Definition of the word hypothesis:
NOUN
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
You and you alone are proposing you are right. Everyone else is proposing that you are wrong.
You see a dot of light and that's pluto to you....right?
Absolutely right yes. It's called experience. 40 years of it up to now. To you they might be just dots of light in the sky. But when you've studied the subject for long enough you get to know what those dots of light actually are. Anyone else agree?
-
But when you've studied the subject for long enough you get to know what those dots of light actually are. Anyone else agree?
I tend to when something makes sense based on the evidence provided.
-
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
-
I consider it such, yes.
-
Well to be precise what I do is to use some software called Starry Night Pro Plus (v8) which links to my telescope mount via ASCOM so I can use it to aim my telescope. I then aim my telescope at a nearby star, perform a plate solve which syncs my mount with Starry Night precisely and then off set to Plutos labelled position.
I then take two images of the same region of sky over a period of a week or so and then look for the 'star' which has moved. That identifies Pluto for me. I superimpose both image in Photoshop and then use the blink comparison method. None of the fixed stars will have moved so I can align the two image by placing them on top of each other in separate layers.
-
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?
EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
Oh my word, are you for real?
I've given you a complete tutorial on how to do this, diagrams, all the equations, a full walkthrough of how to go about it and a beginning to end worked example with a 36cm ball at a distance of 41 metres.
I honestly believe if someone put a steak dinner in front of you, you'd rather starve to death than acknowledge it was there.
Let's get back to the crux.
I have a ball of unknown size, where you are concerned. I put it at a distance that you do not know.
Tell me what tools you require to calculate the distance and size of the ball.
It's fine telling me you use a mountain but I fail to see how that can do the job.
So.....instead of getting all worked up....just explain it to a dummy like me and show how it all works.
I explained everything and gave you a fully worked example. If you couldn't follow the example, didn't understand the diagrams or didn't understand the maths, that's fine. You could have just told me what part(s) you didn't understand, but no, you didn't respond at all, didn't ask any questions and then later on just claim that nobody's shown you how to do it. You didn't understand the explanation, but that doesn't mean you get to claim you haven't been given one. That's just plain dishonest.
OK, so you didn't understand. Let's take it step by step and you can point out the bits you don't get.
Sextant - do you understand that you can use a sextant to accurately measure the angle between two visible objects? Any issues with the idea of using a sextant? Is there some other method you'd prefer - what is it?
You, the observer, need to move from side to side until the ball lines up with a distant (the further away the better) object. I'm using a mountain in my example. Any problems understanding this step?
You then move to one side or the other (let's go with left) from this starting point and measure how far you have moved. Keep moving until the ball no longer lines up with the distant reference point (e.g. mountain). In my example, this is 5 metres to the left of your original position. OK with this step?
Use the sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the distant reference point (they no longer line up, so there is an angle between them - 7 degrees in my example). OK with this step?
Take the angle and the sideways distance you moved and plug these into the first equation. The result is then the distance to the ball (41 metres in my example), so that's half the problem solved. OK with this step?
Move back to your original position, where the ball lines up with the distant reference object. Use sextant or other device to measure the angular diameter of the ball (0.5 degrees in my example). OK with this step?
Plug this angle (0.5 degrees in my example) and the previously calculated distance to the ball (41 metres in my example) into the second equation and the result is the actual diameter of the ball (36 cm in my example). OK with this step?
That's it, you now know the distance and size of the ball.
-
Let's get back to the crux.
Sure, lets get back to the actual crux.
You claim that for a RE, if you were to look out level, you would see nothing but sky, even though simple trig shows that to be BS.
You offer basically nothing except repeated assertions to back up this nonsense.
You even admit that if you were to look straight down on this RE you see ground.
That means at some point there must be a transition between ground/sea and sky.
You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this fact and its implications for your false claim.
Why?
Conspiracy theorists thrive in the face of adversity. It is what makes them 'tick'. So the more evidence that is put in front of them which contradicts what they believe to be the real 'truth' the more they become adamant that they are correct. That goes for flat Earth belief, the Moon landings, 9/11, Area 51 and so on..
So trying to reason with flat Earth believers or explain to them why their beliefs are wrong is to my mind a fruitless and pointless exercise. I sometimes wonder whether they are even interested in the subject being considered or debated. It is like the school bully who thrives on the reactions they get from whoever they choose to bully because it gives them a sense of power and control.
As what point has any FE ever described in great detail how they have personally verified that the Earth is definitely flat. We all know that before the advent of the 20th century it was actually very difficult to 'prove' that the Earth is round. But there has always been more evidence to support globe model than anything else. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.
I can measure the angular separation of Venus and the Sun and I can measure the size of Venus' disk on the sky using a reticle eyepiece. However I still need information from other sources to reach the determination of Venus' size or distance. We cannot do everything for ourselves. However information that I can't measure for myself I can easily get from a multitude of sources.
You say you cannot do everything yourselves but apparently someone did it in BC, as I was told. So surely you can show me how you get to your distance and sizes......Right?
Completely wrong. The size of EARTH was known BCE. But the distance to the sun just had a lower bound.
It is only in the last few hundred years that we were able to obtain an accurate distance with the help of Venus and other methods.
-
Completely wrong. The size of EARTH was known BCE. But the distance to the sun just had a lower bound.
Exactly. It seems to me the ancient Greeks had a more accurate model or idea about the general relative distances and sizes of the Sun, Moon and Earth than the so-called 'modern' flat Earth theory has. What does that suggest to you? Aristarchus figured out that the Sun was very distant compared to the Moon and therefore it must be much larger. All compliant with modern mainstream science. FE still maintain that the Sun and Moon are the same distance away and the same size!
Obviously the actual figures have improved over the centuries as our methods of measuring the distances involved have improved.
-
How trig was used to get the suns distance. Skip to 6:05 unless you want to see the build up.
The video calculates the distance to the sun by first finding the distance to mars.
And how was the distance to supposed mars calculated?
Trig
It’s in the video.
-
Well it's been awhile Sceptimatic... are you still completely confused by rockets, inertia, frames of reference, and cameras?
Not at all.
-
The fact that you and others are hell bent on trying to destroy it is enough for me to carry on, to give genuine people the chance to think.
OK Scepti so you have a hypothesis. Good for you. Have you every stopped for a moment to consider the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong? Seems to me that you have already decided it is a bit more than just a hypothesis.
Definition of the word hypothesis:
NOUN
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
You and you alone are proposing you are right. Everyone else is proposing that you are wrong.
You see a dot of light and that's pluto to you....right?
Absolutely right yes. It's called experience. 40 years of it up to now. To you they might be just dots of light in the sky. But when you've studied the subject for long enough you get to know what those dots of light actually are. Anyone else agree?
A dot of light is a dot of light. That's it.
You can have a thousand lifetimes and it would still be a dot of light. That's not experience, it's observation of a dot of light.
-
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
A dot moving with other dots of light means it's the picture of supposed pluto that is handed to you and you say "yep, that's it alright."
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.
-
Let's take it step by step and you can point out the bits you don't get.
Sextant - do you understand that you can use a sextant to accurately measure the angle between two visible objects? Any issues with the idea of using a sextant? Is there some other method you'd prefer - what is it?
You, the observer, need to move from side to side until the ball lines up with a distant (the further away the better) object. I'm using a mountain in my example. Any problems understanding this step?
You then move to one side or the other (let's go with left) from this starting point and measure how far you have moved. Keep moving until the ball no longer lines up with the distant reference point (e.g. mountain). In my example, this is 5 metres to the left of your original position. OK with this step?
Use the sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the distant reference point (they no longer line up, so there is an angle between them - 7 degrees in my example). OK with this step?
Take the angle and the sideways distance you moved and plug these into the first equation. The result is then the distance to the ball (41 metres in my example), so that's half the problem solved. OK with this step?
Move back to your original position, where the ball lines up with the distant reference object. Use sextant or other device to measure the angular diameter of the ball (0.5 degrees in my example). OK with this step?
Plug this angle (0.5 degrees in my example) and the previously calculated distance to the ball (41 metres in my example) into the second equation and the result is the actual diameter of the ball (36 cm in my example). OK with this step?
That's it, you now know the distance and size of the ball.
I take it you know the distance to he mountain, already....right?
Where did you set your ball?
-
You said you know trigonometry, no? Did the mountain show up in the numbers?
-
Let's get back to the crux.
Sure, lets get back to the actual crux.
You claim that for a RE, if you were to look out level, you would see nothing but sky, even though simple trig shows that to be BS.
Simple trig does not show it to by bull.
If Earth was the globe you think it is, you would have no horizon.
The fact there is a horizon, is concrete proof that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
Your Earth would curve away and down...always. We do not see this because we see the horizon that our own eyes produce as our meeting line. The convergence of sky to water.
The argument that your Earth bulges up between your view, makes a mockery of it, right there, before any other argument is used.
-
Completely wrong. The size of EARTH was known BCE. But the distance to the sun just had a lower bound.
Exactly. It seems to me the ancient Greeks had a more accurate model or idea about the general relative distances and sizes of the Sun, Moon and Earth than the so-called 'modern' flat Earth theory has. What does that suggest to you? Aristarchus figured out that the Sun was very distant compared to the Moon and therefore it must be much larger. All compliant with modern mainstream science. FE still maintain that the Sun and Moon are the same distance away and the same size!
Obviously the actual figures have improved over the centuries as our methods of measuring the distances involved have improved.
It's a great story of fiction but it should be put back on the fiction shelf.
You can't even explain the reality of how Earth and the sun. moon, stars were calculated. You can reference what supposedly happened but that's it. That's all it is.
-
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.
OK if you want some honesty why don't you just come right out and tell us all it is a complete waste of time any of us telling you anything because you will only ever believe what you want to believe. In other words you only believe what you believe to be true. Your 'alternative' Earth theory. Of which we haven't had a grain of evidence or explanation of from you.
You tell us you have got this ground-breaking all new theory about the Earth, the Universe and everything but I don't think anyone knows anything about it other than you.
You can't even explain the reality of how Earth and the sun. moon, stars were calculated. You can reference what supposedly happened but that's it. That's all it is.
OK then provide us with some references that show how you have got it right and everyone else has got it wrong. Put your cards on the table for a change.
-
You said you know trigonometry, no? Did the mountain show up in the numbers?
Why use a mountain then?
-
Pretty sure it could be a dead uncle, too. But keep on clutching straws.
Again: where does trigonometry get it wrong? You know it, so please tell us.
-
Let's take it step by step and you can point out the bits you don't get.
Sextant - do you understand that you can use a sextant to accurately measure the angle between two visible objects? Any issues with the idea of using a sextant? Is there some other method you'd prefer - what is it?
You, the observer, need to move from side to side until the ball lines up with a distant (the further away the better) object. I'm using a mountain in my example. Any problems understanding this step?
You then move to one side or the other (let's go with left) from this starting point and measure how far you have moved. Keep moving until the ball no longer lines up with the distant reference point (e.g. mountain). In my example, this is 5 metres to the left of your original position. OK with this step?
Use the sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the distant reference point (they no longer line up, so there is an angle between them - 7 degrees in my example). OK with this step?
Take the angle and the sideways distance you moved and plug these into the first equation. The result is then the distance to the ball (41 metres in my example), so that's half the problem solved. OK with this step?
Move back to your original position, where the ball lines up with the distant reference object. Use sextant or other device to measure the angular diameter of the ball (0.5 degrees in my example). OK with this step?
Plug this angle (0.5 degrees in my example) and the previously calculated distance to the ball (41 metres in my example) into the second equation and the result is the actual diameter of the ball (36 cm in my example). OK with this step?
That's it, you now know the distance and size of the ball.
I take it you know the distance to he mountain, already....right?
Where did you set your ball?
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
-
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
-
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
A dot moving with other dots of light means it's the picture of supposed pluto that is handed to you and you say "yep, that's it alright."
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.
The origin of the word planet is the Greek planētēs, which simply meant wandering star. The Greeks noticed they whilst most stars were fixed in place, some wandered. So if an ancient Greek discovered a "wandering" star back in the day, they would just label it as a planet. If they'd had the technology to observe the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), they'd have seen them move and therefore they would be planets. So yes, if you look at the sky and see a moving star, by the old rules, it's by definition a planet.
The fact is that we've discovered a lot more about these objects in the last couple of thousand years and no longer consider every moving solar system object to be a planet by the modern definition. So yeah, a dot moving is a planet to an ancient Greek.
-
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
That and an apparent inability to just answer a straight question - ever.
-
Pretty sure it could be a dead uncle, too. But keep on clutching straws.
Again: where does trigonometry get it wrong? You know it, so please tell us.
Why does it have to be anything?
A ball at a distance.
Why is there a need for anything else?
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
-
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
It depends on how its used and for what.
-
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
A dot moving with other dots of light means it's the picture of supposed pluto that is handed to you and you say "yep, that's it alright."
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.
The origin of the word planet is the Greek planētēs, which simply meant wandering star. The Greeks noticed they whilst most stars were fixed in place, some wandered. So if an ancient Greek discovered a "wandering" star back in the day, they would just label it as a planet. If they'd had the technology to observe the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), they'd have seen them move and therefore they would be planets. So yes, if you look at the sky and see a moving star, by the old rules, it's by definition a planet.
The fact is that we've discovered a lot more about these objects in the last couple of thousand years and no longer consider every moving solar system object to be a planet by the modern definition. So yeah, a dot moving is a planet to an ancient Greek.
So, your reliance is on Greeks seeing a moving dot and calling it a planet, just because the dot is moving?
And tou accept this for no other reason than...well.....it is what it is?
-
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
That and an apparent inability to just answer a straight question - ever.
I do answer.
The issue is with you lot skirting around this stuff.
Basically you're more or less saying " as the story goes."
It's not really any answer is it....in truth I mean. It's a story but that's it.
Unless you can explain the reality of how the story unfolded into reality.
-
Nah, it is mainly you who has nothing else than a story.
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
-
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
That and an apparent inability to just answer a straight question - ever.
I do answer.
The issue is with you lot skirting around this stuff.
Basically you're more or less saying " as the story goes."
It's not really any answer is it....in truth I mean. It's a story but that's it.
Unless you can explain the reality of how the story unfolded into reality.
Of course you do.
"I have a question, how do you do such and such?"
Here's your answer.
"Don't understand the answer."
Which part?
"I have another question..."
-
Nah, it is mainly you who has nothing else than a story.
And a bunch of garden paths he wants to lead you endlessly down.
-
To Scepti I would ask simply this. What sources of information do you use to learn anything from? Because it seems to me that you do not believe anything you would read in any books, from any websites (unless they are flat Earth websites of course) or any TV.
Or do you simply put aside all normal sources of information and reference on the basis that you believe they are all trying to 'indoctorinate' false information into you and instead go purely on what your own senses can tell you?
-
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.
So what do you think the stars are and how have you verified that your belief is correct? Astronomers have got their models and the data to back them up. Obviously you won't agree with any of it so what does your 'alternative' Earth theory propose?
Up to now you have certainly proved to be a true expert. A true expert at dodging questions about how you have come to believe whatever it is you believe in while brushing aside anything tries to explain to you despite making your demands that they do.
So lets turn the record over now shall we. Explain to us fully. What evidence do you have (and where have you got it from) which shows undisputedly that whatever it is that you believe in is a better and more valid explanation for everything than mainstream science. Since you are so sure that you are right then this should be easy for you.
In other words lay all your cards on the table for everyone to see or kindly put them away and shut the door behind you on your way out.
-
Simple trig does not show it to by bull.
If Earth was the globe you think it is, you would have no horizon.
The fact there is a horizon, is concrete proof that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
Yes it does, as already shown multiple times.
You just keep on ignoring it and keep on ignoring a simple line of inquiry which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why?
The only reason is if you know it will show you are wrong and don't want to admit it.
If you truly believe your claims to be true, why not answer the simple questions?
Once more, you have accepted that looking straight down you see ground. You claim that looking straight out you see sky.
So just what do you think would happen if you started looking straight down, and slowly raised your head to look out level?
How do you go from seeing land/sea to seeing sky?
Your Earth would curve away and down...always. We do not see this because we see the horizon that our own eyes produce as our meeting line.
No, we do see this, and see the edge of Earth as the horizon, this horizon is imperceptibly below eye level when close to sea level, but as you get higher, you can tell the difference with even simple tools, as repeatedly shown. So we DO see this curvature. You just refuse to admit it.
The argument that your Earth bulges up between your view, makes a mockery of it, right there, before any other argument is used.
Yes, so why do you make such a strawman rather than dealing with the reality of what should actually happen on the globe?
For example, I said the horizon would be 2.7 arc minutes below level. That doesn't require any bulge up.
Likewise an object being hidden by the horizon doesn't require any bulge up. It just requires the hidden portion to be below the horizon.
This isn't difficult to understand at all.
I do answer.
No, you continually avoid providing answers because you know actually honest answers will show you to be wrong, and providing dishonest ones will show you to either be dishonest or have no idea what you are talking about.
For example, you still haven't answered my question on if you accept that for a RE, there will be a transition between land/sea and sky, and if not what replaces that so that when you look down you see land/sea but when you look up/level you see sky.
That is continually avoiding providing an answer, likely because you know that answering it will show your pathetic straw man of the RE to be complete garbage.
Basically you're more or less saying " as the story goes."
No, that would be you and your model.
Meanwhile, we can and have provided evidence and math to back up the reality of a RE.
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
-
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.
So what do you think the stars are and how have you verified that your belief is correct? Astronomers have got their models and the data to back them up. Obviously you won't agree with any of it so what does your 'alternative' Earth theory propose?
Up to now you have certainly proved to be a true expert. A true expert at dodging questions about how you have come to believe whatever it is you believe in while brushing aside anything tries to explain to you despite making your demands that they do.
So lets turn the record over now shall we. Explain to us fully. What evidence do you have (and where have you got it from) which shows undisputedly that whatever it is that you believe in is a better and more valid explanation for everything than mainstream science. Since you are so sure that you are right then this should be easy for you.
In other words lay all your cards on the table for everyone to see or kindly put them away and shut the door behind you on your way out.
My cards are on the table. Plain and simple.
Lay your cards on the table and show me how you arrive at your facts, without using stories to back up something you cannot explain.
-
What cards do you have? "You can not see the horizon on a globe", and your hypothesis? That is a belief system, if even that.
-
looking straight down (off level) you see ground.
Yep.
You claim that looking straight out (level) you see sky (if Earth was a globe we walked upon).
Yep.
So just what do you think would happen if you started looking straight down, and slowly raised your head to look out level? (on a globe).
You see sky.
How do you go from seeing land/sea to seeing sky?
On your globe you simply would look level, horizontally.
On a flat Earth, you would need to angle your view upwards, losing your level and your horizon line to your eye.
-
What cards do you have? "You can not see the horizon on a globe", and your hypothesis? That is a belief system, if even that.
Everything we are dealing with is a belief system, with your globe, so don't waste your time trying to bring that argument against me, to the table.
-
My cards are on the table. Plain and simple.
But they are not are they. All you have said so far is that you have an 'alternative' Earth theory. Whatever that means. Tell us about it. Share it. Explain why it is better than what you call the 'global nonsense'.
So far it is all claims from you and no substance. Details please of why your 'alternative' Earth theory provides us with a good reason to throw away all our old physics and science books and start over!
-
So just what do you think would happen if you started looking straight down, and slowly raised your head to look out level? (on a globe).
You see sky.
How do you go from seeing land/sea to seeing sky?
On your globe you simply would look level, horizontally.
And more avoidance of an extremely simple question.
You admitted you start out seeing ground, so as you slowly raise your head you don't magically just see sky. This is clearly focusing on what happens AS YOU RAISE your head, not once it is already at level.
Likewise, it is asking what happens visually as you change from seeing ground/sea to sky.
So once again, you start off looking straight down at a round Earth, seeing nothing but ground/sea.
You then slowly raise you head, still looking at whatever you can see, and eventually raise it enough such that you see nothing but sky.
Tell me what happens, what you see, from the moment before you start raising your head until the moment after you see nothing but sky.
For this part, I don't care where your head is (we can move on to that extremely simple step after you deal with this extremely simple step).
What I care about for this part is what you see.
How you go from ground, to sky.
If you need a template for a diagram to fill in, here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
This represents a slice (or if you like the entire FOV) from when you are looking straight down at the ground, represented by green, to when you look up enough to see just sky, represented in blue.
What happens in the white region?
How do you visually transition from seeing just ground/sea to seeing just sky?
Everything we are dealing with is a belief system, with your globe, so don't waste your time trying to bring that argument against me, to the table.
No, we have evidence, math and logic backing up the reality of the globe. You have nothing more than belief and avoidance.
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
-
It is annoying this is not a level playing field. Sceptimatic feels it is not needed for them to answer questions, only present questions. It'd be more fun if they were actually giving us something other than just "you know RE does not work".
-
This is all you will ever get from conspiracy theorists. Claims that anything they don't believe in is nonsense but no evidence from them about what or why what they believe in is better than mainstream science.
It's almost as if the ideas that they claim to have don't actually exist. They just enjoy arguing with people and making comments that they know will provoke a response and thus make them feel superior because they 'know something' no one else does.
I could claim anything I wanted to couldn't I and no one on here could prove I was lying or not. Hopefully the evidence and explanations I have provided previously are detailed enough to show I speak from experience rather than just fantasy.
Scientists don't make any pre-assertions about anything. They observe, they hypothesize, they test and then they test again to gradually develop a theory and then a model that best explains the observations and predict future events.
Flat Earth start with a pre-assertion, i.e. the Earth is flat and then just claim that everything we observe fits in with that pre-assertion. If it does then it proves the Earth is flat. If it doesn't then ignore it.
-
The conspiracy theory is super interesting due to it making no sense.
I don't think anyone has ever managed to state the reason for such a thing to exist. I have read it is to stop Man from seeing God or something like that, but not sure. It is very vague.
EDIT: Someone should change my mind.
-
It's become increasingly evident through this and other discussions/threads/arguments or whatever we choose to call them that flat Earth 'theory' really isn't a theory in the same way that scientific theories are.
So there really isn't any point in trying to reason with those who 'believe'. I have had a natural and lifelong interest in space and astronomy so any line of thinking that is different to that which I have known about all through my life raises my curiosity. Science progresses based on new discoveries. I'm not into conspiracy theories in any way but it has been interesting to try and work out the psychology behind them. Part political and part religious as far as I can make out. Certainly not scientific though.
I haven't come across anything on FES which has caused me to change my mind and I can't see that happening anytime soon if Sceptis claims are anything to go by. The FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
-
FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
Agreed.
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
-
FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
Agreed.
Thing is: It's impossible.
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out whereas FE can only claim things based on... well what exactly?
BTW I have looked through this discussion all the way back to the start a few times now. Apart from making claim that he has an 'alternative' Earth theory a couple of times I cannot find any details about what Sceptis theory involves. Does anyone else know anything about it? By all means describe something as nonsense but at least explain why you think it is nonsense and also explain why you think you have something better.
-
There isn’t any. It’s the ”looks flat”, as usual.
-
Hardly ground breaking. I thought Scepti had got something that is worthy an inclusion in Nature magazine. After all if someone comes up with a viable theory to challenge the conventional view that we all live on a globe then that is surely a 'stop press' article for Nature. Obviously they would have to be a little bit more open with the supporting evidence than is typical for the average FEer before it ever got even considered for print.
If Scepti genuinely believed that he had a theory that could challenge modern science about the Earth and the Universe then he wouldn't be hiding in FE forums. He would want to show the scientific community how wrong they have been all these years and claim his place in the scientific hall of fame. I know I would.
One FEer (might have been Sandokhan or Wise) said they joined a mainstream Physics forum. They apparently got a permanent ban after a couple of weeks. Can't think why.
-
Sandokhan at least got banned or something similar.
The only member of the FE crew I know ever have tried to run with the big dogs. The rest are too weak and scared to try life outside their echo chamber.
-
One FEer (might have been Sandokhan or Wise) said they joined a mainstream Physics forum. They apparently got a permanent ban after a couple of weeks. Can't think why.
That was Sandokhan. It was for a thread he started over on scienceforums.net - Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula
By sandokhan, March 24, 2019
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1101653
After 3 pages it ended with:
"Moderator Note
Since the OP (Sandokhan) appears impervious to reason and genuine scientific rebuttal, this thread is closed."
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Sticks and shadows my friend. Sticks and shadows.
-
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
In the case of bodies like the Moon and Venus we know the distance because we can bounce lasers or radio waves off them. It only takes about 2.5 seconds for a return signal from the Moon for example.
You think it's all nonsense. We've established that. OK fair enough that is your prerogative. You not accepting something because you don't want to believe it does not magically make all that false. Except in your mind.
When Neanderthal man stood outside his cave and saw a bright star in the west after sunset or in the east before sunrise he would have wondered what it was. And with good reason. There was no information available to him to tell him what it was. Now fast forward in time a few 10s of 1000s of years to the 21st century and we now do know what it is. The planet Venus.
Are you asking us all to roleplay as our ancestors all over again and base what we think purely and only on what we can directly see? Ignoring everything we've learned (or in your words indoctrinated) since then? Not going to happen I'm afraid.
I still remember when I first got interested in astronomy at the age of 12 I had no idea what a star was or how far away they were. They were just random points of light in the night sky. My way of learning more about them was to read books. There was no Internet in the early 1980s. At least none that the average person had access to. How would you have learned about them?
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
It doesn't matter how I'm achieving it. What matters is you telling me how you would dine the size and distance of the ball with no known reference point.
Just explain it and if you can't, then fair enough.
If you can and you need a reference point, then tell me why you need it and all the rest of it.
Try not to spend any time on having a dig because they're just wasted words.
-
It is annoying this is not a level playing field. Sceptimatic feels it is not needed for them to answer questions, only present questions. It'd be more fun if they were actually giving us something other than just "you know RE does not work".
You get plenty. Accepting any of it or rejecting any of it, is down to you...but it's all there.
-
What is there to reject?
You have "you could not see the horizon if it were a globe" or your problems with, for example, trigonometry? Aren't those the rock your theory is based on? It's pretty light and weak.
-
This is all you will ever get from conspiracy theorists. Claims that anything they don't believe in is nonsense but no evidence from them about what or why what they believe in is better than mainstream science.
It's almost as if the ideas that they claim to have don't actually exist. They just enjoy arguing with people and making comments that they know will provoke a response and thus make them feel superior because they 'know something' no one else does.
Digs.
I could claim anything I wanted to couldn't I and no one on here could prove I was lying or not. Hopefully the evidence and explanations I have provided previously are detailed enough to show I speak from experience rather than just fantasy.
Experience of what?
You seriously believe you can calculate sizes and distances of so called stars and so called planets that are claimed to be million/billions/trillions....etc.....etc....etc....miles away and you think this can be achieved by using basic trigonometry.
Feel free to believe it but don't expect me to follow that utter utter nonsense.
Scientists don't make any pre-assertions about anything. They observe, they hypothesize, they test and then they test again to gradually develop a theory and then a model that best explains the observations and predict future events.
Genuine scientists will do that.
The issue is in getting that feedback from them, instead of offerings from people professing to be doing scientific work.
It's about finding the truth or finding honesty in the pursuit of it. I do not see that in a hell of a lot of mainstream stuff.
Flat Earth start with a pre-assertion, i.e. the Earth is flat and then just claim that everything we observe fits in with that pre-assertion.
You know that's not true but what is true, is...people like you believe in a globe because you adhere to the story of it with CGI to match...etc.
No ability to think for yourself.
You started it. ;)
If it does then it proves the Earth is flat. If it doesn't then ignore it.
Lots of stuff proves the Earth is flat in terms of water. Land is all kinds of terrain but the water is the key to knowing it is flat.
But...yet....people like to believe it curves around a globe because of magical stuff that can't be explained.....etc.
o which one is the nuts one?
A clue: It isn't flat Earth theories.
-
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/abf5960b6259bb6600bff1b2665fab58cce98964.jpg)
-
It's become increasingly evident through this and other discussions/threads/arguments or whatever we choose to call them that flat Earth 'theory' really isn't a theory in the same way that scientific theories are.
So there really isn't any point in trying to reason with those who 'believe'. I have had a natural and lifelong interest in space and astronomy so any line of thinking that is different to that which I have known about all through my life raises my curiosity. Science progresses based on new discoveries. I'm not into conspiracy theories in any way but it has been interesting to try and work out the psychology behind them. Part political and part religious as far as I can make out. Certainly not scientific though.
Pay more attention and start being honest.
I haven't come across anything on FES which has caused me to change my mind and I can't see that happening anytime soon if Sceptis claims are anything to go by. The FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
I don't care what you believe. I care what I believe.
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out
No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Your own observations and calculations do not exist to verify what you believe is your global Earth.
Just be honest.
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Sticks and shadows my friend. Sticks and shadows.
Words that explain....what?
-
No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Fuck off, man :D
It's a pretty good story as it can be verified. The world runs on it, if you have not noticed. Nothing you have said points to it not being true.
EDIT: For example, if it were flat, how would that affect the flights and shipping?
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out
No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Your own observations and calculations do not exist to verify what you believe is your global Earth.
Just be honest.
Just curious, have you ever flown on a commercial airline? If so, are/were you uncomfortable with the fact that the entire operation, from engineering to maintenance to navigation to piloting are all based solely upon a round earth and a gravity storyline indoctrination? I've always wondered how FEr's reconcile that.
-
Cognitive dissonance?
-
In the case of bodies like the Moon and Venus we know the distance because we can bounce lasers or radio waves off them. It only takes about 2.5 seconds for a return signal from the Moon for example.
You think it's all nonsense. We've established that. OK fair enough that is your prerogative. You not accepting something because you don't want to believe it does not magically make all that false. Except in your mind.
I actually do believe this is nonsense.
We are made to believe we can bounce lasers here and there at distances we're told exist.
There's no way to verify it and you know this.
When Neanderthal man stood outside his cave and saw a bright star in the west after sunset or in the east before sunrise he would have wondered what it was. And with good reason. There was no information available to him to tell him what it was. Now fast forward in time a few 10s of 1000s of years to the 21st century and we now do know what it is. The planet Venus.
No you don't. You're told what it is.
Are you asking us all to roleplay as our ancestors all over again and base what we think purely and only on what we can directly see? Ignoring everything we've learned (or in your words indoctrinated) since then? Not going to happen I'm afraid.
I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do.....but....maybe try not to hark back to times of old to argue a point, as if it somehow validates anything.
I still remember when I first got interested in astronomy at the age of 12 I had no idea what a star was or how far away they were. They were just random points of light in the night sky. My way of learning more about them was to read books.
Yep. We all did.
the thing is, we all read books from all kinds of labelled shelves. Fiction, non-fiction and what not.
You could read a full book on what you regard as, astronomy and eventually understand what's been said.
You could read the famous five books and understand the plots in it.
You could also read books on star trek and understand how and why it all works.
The list is endless and people can become experts on these subjects.
The issue is...which one's can be verified as being true?
There was no Internet in the early 1980s. At least none that the average person had access to. How would you have learned about them?
Nothing wrong with reading and learning. It comes down to what is actually learned in terms of being able to distinguish fact from fiction.
-
What is there to reject?
You have "you could not see the horizon if it were a globe" or your problems with, for example, trigonometry? Aren't those the rock your theory is based on? It's pretty light and weak.
It's pretty strong unless you prove it wrong...which you obviously can't do.
-
What is there to reject?
You have "you could not see the horizon if it were a globe" or your problems with, for example, trigonometry? Aren't those the rock your theory is based on? It's pretty light and weak.
It's pretty strong unless you prove it wrong...which you obviously can't do.
So, how do the flights and shipping work as we have the wrong map?
-
It is annoying this is not a level playing field. Sceptimatic feels it is not needed for them to answer questions, only present questions. It'd be more fun if they were actually giving us something other than just "you know RE does not work".
You get plenty. Accepting any of it or rejecting any of it, is down to you...but it's all there.
Not really.
We get basically nothing from you other than avoidance, ignoring issues and baseless assertions which contradict reality and other baseless assertions made by you.
You still haven't addressed the extremely simple line of logical reasoning which shows your assertion to be pure nonsense.
In order to avoid this inevitable conclusion you are avoiding extremely simple questions at all costs.
Once more, you accept that when you look down on a round Earth, you see ground, and looking up or level you see sky.
Once more, how does your vision transition between these 2?
What do you observe visually if you start with your head looking at the ground and slowly bring it up?
What kind of transition do you see from ground/sea to sky?
We can even compare this to other spherical objects in every day life.
Looking straight at them, we see the ball, but then as we lift our head up we see a division between the ball and the area around it (i.e. the horizon of the ball), and then just the area around it.
This shows your blatant strawman of the RE to be pure nonsense, that we should see a horizon on a RE.
But you refuse to follow this line of reasoning.
Why? Is it just because you know it shows you are wrong?
You seriously believe you can calculate sizes and distances of so called stars and so called planets that are claimed to be million/billions/trillions....etc.....etc....etc....miles away and you think this can be achieved by using basic trigonometry.
Yes, and you are yet to demonstrate why it can't be.
Just what magical property of trigonometry do you think exists which breaks this?
Genuine scientists will do that.
And they have, and found Earth to be round.
Flat Earth start with a pre-assertion, i.e. the Earth is flat and then just claim that everything we observe fits in with that pre-assertion.
You know that's not true but what is true, is...people like you believe in a globe because you adhere to the story of it with CGI to match...etc.
No ability to think for yourself.
No, we know that Solarwind's statement is true.
It is either an assertion that Earth is flat or that mainstream science must be wrong or some other nonsense like that.
It is not based upon an honest evaluation of the evidence.
While plenty of people do just accept Earth is round because that is what they have been taught in school, and they have seen plenty of photos (which you are yet to show are CGI or provide any reason to think they are) that clearly show Earth is round; there are also plenty of others who are capable of thinking for themselves and do so, and guess what they discover? That all the available evidence indicates Earth is round, or is unable to determine the shape of Earth.
Lots of stuff proves the Earth is flat in terms of water.
Like what?
Like water which is below both the observer and a distant object somehow obstructing the view to that distant object or the lower portion of it, as you would expect for a RE, rather than a FE?
If anything indicates Earth is flat, it has not been provided here.
What is there to reject?
You have "you could not see the horizon if it were a globe" or your problems with, for example, trigonometry? Aren't those the rock your theory is based on? It's pretty light and weak.
It's pretty strong unless you prove it wrong...which you obviously can't do.
Why does he have to prove it wrong? I already have and you have done nothing but ignore the arguments and avoid them.
You have provided no rational justification for why Earth is magically special and that you cannot see its edge because of pure magic, while for every other ball observed you can see the edge.
You have done nothing to refute the math showing where the horizon should be on a RE, which makes it pretty indistinguishable from eye-level when you are close to it, and means that you will certainly see it in your FOV unless your FOV is tiny or you are very far from Earth.
You have repeatedly avoided answering simple questions to follow an extremely simple line of reasoning which shows beyond any doubt that a RE WOULD produce a horizon, and combined with some basic trig show it would be at roughly eye level for ordinary circumstances.
So that makes it extremely weak, so weak it may as well have not been said as it doesn't support your FE fantasy at all.
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out
No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Your own observations and calculations do not exist to verify what you believe is your global Earth.
Just be honest.
Just curious, have you ever flown on a commercial airline? If so, are/were you uncomfortable with the fact that the entire operation, from engineering to maintenance to navigation to piloting are all based solely upon a round earth and a gravity storyline indoctrination? I've always wondered how FEr's reconcile that.
I agree, they will be all potentially based on a round Earth...just not a global one.
-
What is there to reject?
You have "you could not see the horizon if it were a globe" or your problems with, for example, trigonometry? Aren't those the rock your theory is based on? It's pretty light and weak.
It's pretty strong unless you prove it wrong...which you obviously can't do.
So, how do the flights and shipping work as we have the wrong map?
Point to point.
-
Well, that was a stupid answer, and you know it.
How does one fly the route from Australia to South America (I think was the difficult one)?
Who has access to the real maps?
EDIT: Santiago to Sydney is the flight.
-
I agree, they will be all potentially based on a round Earth...just not a global one.
Which parts do not match the reality they feed us?
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out
No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Your own observations and calculations do not exist to verify what you believe is your global Earth.
Just be honest.
Just curious, have you ever flown on a commercial airline? If so, are/were you uncomfortable with the fact that the entire operation, from engineering to maintenance to navigation to piloting are all based solely upon a round earth and a gravity storyline indoctrination? I've always wondered how FEr's reconcile that.
I agree, they will be all potentially based on a round Earth...just not a global one.
I'm not following. I will rephrase, If so, are/were you uncomfortable with the fact that the entire operation, from engineering to maintenance to navigation to piloting are all based solely upon a globe earth and a gravity storyline indoctrination?
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
It doesn't matter how I'm achieving it. What matters is you telling me how you would dine the size and distance of the ball with no known reference point.
Just explain it and if you can't, then fair enough.
If you can and you need a reference point, then tell me why you need it and all the rest of it.
Try not to spend any time on having a dig because they're just wasted words.
I'm not attempting to figure out the distance to the ball without a reference point, how have you not worked that out yet?
You asked how and with what tools, you'd determine the size and distance of a ball. You didn't specify any other parameters. You didn't say "oh and you can't use a reference point", you just asked how it could be done. I've shown you one method. This method relies on measuring the angle between two objects, because it uses trigonometry. Clearly you can't measure the angle between two objects when you're only allowing one object.
I'm not interested in wasting my time going down more rabbit holes showing you different methods, you've been given a method, it works, it requires two objects, the ball and a reference object. By all means tell me what's wrong with this method. Or be honest, you've demonstrated over and over again that you can't understand it, it's too much for you. And for the avoidance of doubt, you'll see if you read the post back, that we don't need to know anything about the reference object, where it is, how far away it is, how big it is. All we need to know is that in comparison to the ball, it's a lot further away.
-
What would change my mind?
Nothing.
The mass of the earth is what it is and it is round. If it were flat, imagine the whole underside of the earth we have yet to explore......how exciting!
Two sticks, Septic. Two sticks.
-
It's just debating. Sceptimatic has his side of the debate and knows the strengths of his arguments well.
It must be an ego boost to single handedly infuriate so many people all at once, juggling the constant round earth arguments fired at him.
The difference with a proper debate is there is an adjudicator who Awards points and a winner at the end of an allocated time limit. Here, there is no adjudicator, and the debate has no time limit.
Plus, in all fairness, debating teams usually have equal numbers. Here, it's like Sceptimatic versus the whole world, which is appears unfair in my opinion.
People get emotionally invested that they see sceptimatic and read his answers, and assume these are his personally held views. They may be, due to him having such a grasp on the topic, but it isn't a prerequisite. It could just be the thrill of the battle which spurs him on.
-
You guys are welcome to bring your off topic personal attacks, low content material, and insults to the lower boards where they belong.
-
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out
No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Your own observations and calculations do not exist to verify what you believe is your global Earth.
Just be honest.
Just curious, have you ever flown on a commercial airline? If so, are/were you uncomfortable with the fact that the entire operation, from engineering to maintenance to navigation to piloting are all based solely upon a round earth and a gravity storyline indoctrination? I've always wondered how FEr's reconcile that.
I agree, they will be all potentially based on a round Earth...just not a global one.
I'm not following. I will rephrase, If so, are/were you uncomfortable with the fact that the entire operation, from engineering to maintenance to navigation to piloting are all based solely upon a globe earth and a gravity storyline indoctrination?
Engineering caters for atmospheric usage and resistance....not gravity and not a globe to fly upon.
Unless you know of something that uses a global mindset....and if so, tell me how you know.
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
It doesn't matter how I'm achieving it. What matters is you telling me how you would dine the size and distance of the ball with no known reference point.
Just explain it and if you can't, then fair enough.
If you can and you need a reference point, then tell me why you need it and all the rest of it.
Try not to spend any time on having a dig because they're just wasted words.
I'm not attempting to figure out the distance to the ball without a reference point, how have you not worked that out yet?
You asked how and with what tools, you'd determine the size and distance of a ball. You didn't specify any other parameters. You didn't say "oh and you can't use a reference point", you just asked how it could be done. I've shown you one method. This method relies on measuring the angle between two objects, because it uses trigonometry. Clearly you can't measure the angle between two objects when you're only allowing one object.
I'm not interested in wasting my time going down more rabbit holes showing you different methods, you've been given a method, it works, it requires two objects, the ball and a reference object. By all means tell me what's wrong with this method. Or be honest, you've demonstrated over and over again that you can't understand it, it's too much for you. And for the avoidance of doubt, you'll see if you read the post back, that we don't need to know anything about the reference object, where it is, how far away it is, how big it is. All we need to know is that in comparison to the ball, it's a lot further away.
So let's not pretend you can measure the size of a so called light in the sky by using another light in the sky.
You're leading yourself down the rabbit hole.
-
What would change my mind?
Nothing.
The mass of the earth is what it is and it is round. If it were flat, imagine the whole underside of the earth we have yet to explore......how exciting!
Two sticks, Septic. Two sticks.
Yep, two sticks. Now go and look at what two sticks would really represent.
-
Plus, in all fairness, debating teams usually have equal numbers. Here, it's like Sceptimatic versus the whole world, which is appears unfair in my opinion.
Maybe, but in my opinion that is exactly the situation. It is (a privateer version of) FE against the world (that is RE). The two do not share equal footing. I find the need to discuss the two as being in any way of same worth odd.
I will post this again, as I find it describes the situation very well:
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/abf5960b6259bb6600bff1b2665fab58cce98964.jpg)
That is where we stand, that is the status of FE vs RE. It is an uphill battle of tremendous difficulty for FE, and that method and way of presenting their views is quite sordid.
Change of minds I do not believe will happen, but FE can't continue the way they do they want to appear credible.
-
Engineering caters for atmospheric usage and resistance....not gravity and not a globe to fly upon.
Unless you know of something that uses a global mindset....and if so, tell me how you know.
The flight from Sydney to Santiago, how it fits the flat Earth? Is there something you'd like to tell about the poles, too? I have a hard time picturing the Earth as being flat as you have provided nothing for me to work with.
EDIT: The Earth is flat, so our maps are wrong. How can this be verified? How do people compensate the lack of correct information when sailing and flying?
-
No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.
How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.
I'll make this easier.
I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.
All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
It doesn't matter how I'm achieving it. What matters is you telling me how you would dine the size and distance of the ball with no known reference point.
Just explain it and if you can't, then fair enough.
If you can and you need a reference point, then tell me why you need it and all the rest of it.
Try not to spend any time on having a dig because they're just wasted words.
I'm not attempting to figure out the distance to the ball without a reference point, how have you not worked that out yet?
You asked how and with what tools, you'd determine the size and distance of a ball. You didn't specify any other parameters. You didn't say "oh and you can't use a reference point", you just asked how it could be done. I've shown you one method. This method relies on measuring the angle between two objects, because it uses trigonometry. Clearly you can't measure the angle between two objects when you're only allowing one object.
I'm not interested in wasting my time going down more rabbit holes showing you different methods, you've been given a method, it works, it requires two objects, the ball and a reference object. By all means tell me what's wrong with this method. Or be honest, you've demonstrated over and over again that you can't understand it, it's too much for you. And for the avoidance of doubt, you'll see if you read the post back, that we don't need to know anything about the reference object, where it is, how far away it is, how big it is. All we need to know is that in comparison to the ball, it's a lot further away.
So let's not pretend you can measure the size of a so called light in the sky by using another light in the sky.
You're leading yourself down the rabbit hole.
Brilliant, congratulations, you got there in the end. Two lights in the sky, not one, exactly how it's done.
So line them up one behind the other, move to the side. The one which doesn't move is the distant reference point (obviously) and the one which shifts position is the closer one. Measure the angle, plug the figures into the equation and you have the distance to the nearer one nailed.
If you can't line them up, no worries, just measure the angle, then shift position, measure the angle again, the difference is the angle you need.
If you can't shift position, no worries either, just wait 6 months and the earth will move position for you as it orbits the sun.
-
Engineering caters for atmospheric usage and resistance....not gravity and not a globe to fly upon.
Unless you know of something that uses a global mindset....and if so, tell me how you know.
The flight from Sydney to Santiago, how it fits the flat Earth? Is there something you'd like to tell about the poles, too? I have a hard time picturing the Earth as being flat as you have provided nothing for me to work with.
There are no poles like we are told, as far as I'm concerned, for reasons already given, which I referenced. Go and look it up.
-
There are no poles like we are told, as far as I'm concerned, for reasons already given, which I referenced. Go and look it up.
You mean imaginary points marking the axis that Earth rotates around?
There sure seems to be.
We can even observe them in the sky when we look to the north or south at night and observe the stars appear to circle a point to the north and a point to the south, the 2 celestial poles.
Now again, care to actually address the issue you have continually been avoiding?
Once more, for a RE, you start looking down and see nothing but ground. Then you start raising your head.
Visually what do you see?
How does it transition from ground/sea to sky?
For any small ball that everyone agrees is a ball, doing the same thing we see the ball, then moving our head away from looking directly at the ball we see an edge, a boundary between the ball and its surroundings.
Why shouldn't the same apply to the round Earth?
-
Brilliant, congratulations, you got there in the end. Two lights in the sky, not one, exactly how it's done.
So line them up one behind the other, move to the side. The one which doesn't move is the distant reference point (obviously) and the one which shifts position is the closer one. Measure the angle, plug the figures into the equation and you have the distance to the nearer one nailed.
You don't have anything nailed.
You see one point of light and line it up with another. One shifts position and you measure the angle and this gives you the distance of those two so called stars?
Ok then, let's get to the light year distances from your plugged in figures.
Let's see where you start.
Explain it bit by bit until I'm sure you're moving on a real life track.
If you can't line them up, no worries, just measure the angle, then shift position, measure the angle again, the difference is the angle you need.
Light year angles. Hmmmm. Explain.
If you can't shift position, no worries either, just wait 6 months and the earth will move position for you as it orbits the sun.
Earth will move position and that gives you size and distance?
Explain.
-
There are no poles like we are told, as far as I'm concerned, for reasons already given, which I referenced. Go and look it up.
You mean imaginary points marking the axis that Earth rotates around?
There sure seems to be.
We can even observe them in the sky when we look to the north or south at night and observe the stars appear to circle a point to the north and a point to the south, the 2 celestial poles.
Sure seems to be?
Now again, care to actually address the issue you have continually been avoiding?
Once more, for my a RE, global Earth you start looking down and see nothing but ground. Then you start raising your head.
Visually what do you see?
How does it transition from ground/sea to sky?
It doesn't/wouldn't.
For any small ball that everyone agrees is a ball, doing the same thing we see the ball, then moving our head away from looking directly at the ball we see an edge, a boundary between the ball and its surroundings.
Are you stood atop this ball?
Why shouldn't the same apply to my the round Earth? global Earth.
Are you stood atop your global Earth?
-
Sceptimatic, I would be delighted you could answer the question regarding the map and navigation. And, please, no "look it up". Your words, thank you. The same you require from us, an example.
-
Sure seems to be?
Would you like something more definitive?
How about this then:
Literally every observable piece of evidence which indicates one way or another indicates there is showing beyond any sane doubt that there is.
Now again, care to actually address the issue you have continually been avoiding?
Once more, for a RE, you start looking down and see nothing but ground. Then you start raising your head.
Visually what do you see?
How does it transition from ground/sea to sky?
It doesn't/wouldn't.
Don't change what I have said.
It isn't my round Earth. It is the single, very real round Earth everyone on Earth lives on.
But more to the point, that makes no sense at all.
If that is the case and there is no transition, no change from ground/sea to sky, do you know what that means? That you would always see ground/sea.
So is that your claim now? That for a RE, regardless of where you look you will always see ground/sea, as there is no transition from that to seeing sky?
That your prior claim that you would only see sky is pure nonsense?
If not, then explain visually what happens between ground/sea and sky, how you go from seeing one to the other (i.e. how you transition from seeing one to seeing the other); and no, not that you raise your head, I want to know what you think you would see when you do so.
One more, if you need a diagram, here it is:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
The green at the bottom is your view when looking straight down, when you see nothing but ground/sea.
The blue at the top is your view looking straight up (or as you would claim straight out level), seeing nothing but sky.
Fill in the white space showing what is observed as you lift your head from looking straight down to high enough to see nothing but sky.
For any small ball that everyone agrees is a ball, doing the same thing we see the ball, then moving our head away from looking directly at the ball we see an edge, a boundary between the ball and its surroundings.
Are you stood atop this ball?
Are you stood atop your global Earth?
Completely irrelevant.
Unless you can explain why standing on it should magically change it, that deflection has no place in any rational argument.
What matters is what you are looking at it.
Standing on Earth looking down at it is equivalent to standing near a ball looking at it.
Raising your head to look away from Earth is equivalent to turning your head to look away from the ball.
And yes, you can stand on such a ball, or at least set up a little model to do so, and then observe that as you tilt the camera on the model you see a transition between the ball and the surroundings. To stand on it and see nothing but the ball you would either need a very small FOV, or a very large ball (like Earth).
So again, why should the 2 be magically different?
Why should balls in everyday life, excluding Earth, have a clear edge (horizon) which can easily be observed, but a round Earth magically doesn't?
Is it just so your strawman can hold, so you can pretend Earth isn't round?
-
Brilliant, congratulations, you got there in the end. Two lights in the sky, not one, exactly how it's done.
So line them up one behind the other, move to the side. The one which doesn't move is the distant reference point (obviously) and the one which shifts position is the closer one. Measure the angle, plug the figures into the equation and you have the distance to the nearer one nailed.
You don't have anything nailed.
You see one point of light and line it up with another. One shifts position and you measure the angle and this gives you the distance of those two so called stars?
Ok then, let's get to the light year distances from your plugged in figures.
Let's see where you start.
Explain it bit by bit until I'm sure you're moving on a real life track.
No need, you've finally grasped that you need two objects, so you now understand the method. You've confirmed you understand the trigonometry behind it and I broke the method down into a series of simple steps for you and asked you if you understood each step - which you obviously do, since you didn't question a single one of them.
Go for it, plug some figures in and let us all know how you got on, can't wait to hear.
If you can't line them up, no worries, just measure the angle, then shift position, measure the angle again, the difference is the angle you need.
Light year angles. Hmmmm. Explain.
Never heard of a light year angle, what is it? Certainly nothing to do with my method.
If you can't shift position, no worries either, just wait 6 months and the earth will move position for you as it orbits the sun.
Earth will move position and that gives you size and distance?
Explain.
Explain what part exactly?
-
So let's not pretend you can measure the size of a so called light in the sky by using another light in the sky.
OK lets think about those 'lights in the sky' for a moment and see what we can learn about them and how. I think it is safe to say that the lights in the sky that you see are the same lights in the sky that I see. Taking into consideration just the natural ones for the moment, all but two of them are just points of light in the sky. Let's call those stars. That leaves just two other lights in the sky which are actually visible as disks of light. One is much, much brighter than the other. That one we will call the Sun. The other we will call the Moon.
We will notice that the Sun is visible in the sky every day. It rises in the east and it sets in the west. If you happen to be north of the equator it passes through your south meridian while if you happen to be south of the equator it passes through your north meridian. If you happen to live with within a band between 23.5N and 23.5S latitude, at some point during the year you will see the Sun pass directly overhead.
The Moon on the other hand is visible in the evening sky for about of each month and in the morning sky for the other half of the month. If you live in the northern hemisphere the Moon will appear upside down compared to what an observer in the southern hemisphere sees and the same is therefore true the other way round. The Moon also shows a cycle of phases which seems to be linked to its elongation (angular distance from the Sun)
Now the interesting one. The stars appear to but just points of light. Some are brighter than others and if you look a bit more closely you might even notice that there are subtle variations in colour. More especially for the brighter ones since the cone cells in our eyes which allow us to see colour are less sensitive to light.
So what can we tell about these lights in the sky? Well since they are all just points of light in the sky we cannot say how far away they are. Is the variation in brightness between them a subtle clue about their distance? In other words are the brightest ones he nearest and the fainter ones further away? Well that would be correct if all of these points of light in the sky had the same intrinsic brightness. Just like if we see two candles of the same size the same distance away they will appear to us shine with the same light intensity. But we don't know how far away the stars are do we so we cannot make any assumptions about that.
To understand the stars in any better than just as points of light in the sky we need to know three things about them. How bright they actually look. How bright they actually are and how far away they are. When we say how bright they actually are we need to set some sort of standard by which we can directly compare the brightness of one star against another. The only way we can do that is by knowing how far away they are.
Any knowledge of how far away any star is from us evaded astronomers until relatively recently. The mid-1850s in fact. Why? Because they are - as we've said - just points of light in the sky. By using a little bit of human intelligence astronomers had considered the possibility that the stars were actually very luminous objects just like the Sun and that therefore the Sun is also a star. Just a lot closer to us. This considered possibility came mainly from the observation and comparison of the spectra of stars and that of the Sun. Spectra of the stars showed the same sequence of colours that we see in a rainbow and we also see black lines in the spectra of stars just like we do in the spectra of the stars. However the patterns of lines are different in the spectra of the stars, but all stars of the same colour show the same patterns of lines.
There was one problem though which continued to bug astronomers. The lack of movement of the stars relative to one another. They all appeared to be fixed. This has its advantages and disadvantages. There was clear movement of the Moon relative to the stars every month. That indicated that the Moon was close. A few 'stars' also showed some movement relative to the stars around them. These became known as planets because they appear to the naked eye as moving stars. Less marked than the movement of the Moon though so they must be further away. Jupiter shows greater movement than Saturn so that must be nearer to us.
The movement of the planets could be explained if the heliocentric model of the solar system held true. So the lack of movement and the lack of any apparent observable disk in the stars (as compared to the observable planetary disks in telescopes) indicated that they must be be either relatively near and very small. Or they must be extremely distant compared to the planets and we simply cannot notice any apparent shifts in position even with telescopes.
Which brings us nicely round to telescopes. The quality of optics was improving steadily since the 17th century when telescopes were first used formally for astronomy. By the mid 19th century they had improved to the point where (after many previous failed attempts) tiny movements in the stars relative to each other could finally be detected. Initially in just one or two. This annual movement is what astronomer had been searching for. Up to that point in vain because optical telescopes just weren't of adequate quality up to that time.
However by observing this tiny annual movement of some stars finally provided evidence that the Earth was not motionless in space and it provided evidence that the stars were in fact very, very distant. The distance to several stars was calculated and it was soon determined that there was a definite difference in the distances from us. This disproved the previous theory that there was any link between the apparent brightness of a star and its distance from us.
Linking the apparent brightness of the stars and the eyes logarithmic response to brightness astronomers were able to determine the physical or actual brightness of several stars and from that they were able to work out that some stars were more luminous that the Sun and some less.
And so began the scientific understanding of what were previously just 'lights in the sky'.
That's my contribution done. Others are welcome to continue the story if hey so wish.
-
I like the SkyView app.
-
I'm not a great one for apps. Sky Safari on the Ipad is excellent but on a PC I use Starry Night.
Scepti talks about 'lights in the sky' which covers a multitude of things. If I stand outside with nothing but my eyes for a tool to observe them with then my chances of knowing anything about them is pretty much zero. So they would remain just lights in the sky. But we live in the 21st century (well most of us do anyway) when the tools and resources to find out something about what those 'lights in the sky' really are readily available to us.
If Scepti prefers not to make use of those tools and resources and continue to simply regard them as points of light in the sky then that's entirely up to him. Perhaps he's frightening of learning something he would rather not find out about.
I could have written ten times as much as I did on the subject but here it would be wasted.
-
What would change my mind?
Nothing.
The mass of the earth is what it is and it is round. If it were flat, imagine the whole underside of the earth we have yet to explore......how exciting!
Two sticks, Septic. Two sticks.
Yep, two sticks. Now go and look at what two sticks would really represent.
Two sticks, Sceptimatic. Two sticks.
The Eratosthenes experiment.
Thanks to Aristarchus in 250BC, Eratosthenes accepted the sun was very far away, and far enough away that the sun's rays come in parallel at the one spot.
Two sticks:
One stick placed in the ground precisely vertical at Syene, at noon, on June 21 - the summer solstice. The second stick placed in the ground precisely vertical at Alexandria at the same time.
The stick at Syene should cast no shadow, while the stick at Alexandria should cast a shadow measuring 7 degrees. This will mean the distance between the two cities will be 7 degrees of the circumference of the earth. Eratosthenes hired a man to pace the difference between the two cities, and found them to be about 800 kilometers apart. From that, Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the earth to be about 40,000 kilometres. This experiment is based on the sun's rays coming in at the same angle at the same time of day.
Sceptimatic, how does it feel to be beaten by two lousy sticks and simple mathematics, way back in 240BC? ;D
But, I have total faith :o you already know the alternate flat earth explanation tucked up your 2 sizes too small NASA lies shirt sleeve.
Let's see - will it be the sun is only 3,218 kilometres above the flat earth surface instead of 150 million kilometers away?
This means the sun's rays won't come in parallel at two places 800 kilometers apart on a flat surface, which will account for the 7.2 degree shadow difference. Yes?
Ofcourse, if the sun were really that close, it's rays could be measured to not be parallel at the one spot, right? Also, if the sun were really that close and high in the sky, not only should the size of this flat earth sun be measurable, but increased distance from this sun, should decrease its size, to the viewer, yes?
Atmospheric magnification may account for increase in sun size at sunset or sunrise, but not for high in the sky at the same time.
Do you agree, Sceptimatic, or do your eyes work differently to every other humans eyes on the planet?
-
Sceptimatic, I would be delighted you could answer the question regarding the map and navigation. And, please, no "look it up". Your words, thank you. The same you require from us, an example.
What do you want me to answer?
Explain what your issue is and why you think the issue cannot be solved on a flat Earth.
-
Every time you post something Sceptic you are asking someone else to explain something they have have said. Looking through the last 18 or so pages you don't seem to have explained anything about what you have posted.
Endless claims, no explanations. But then that's what flat Earth is all about isn't it. Making claims that cannot be substantiated. You claim you have this alternative Earth theory which in your view obviously works better than what we have all grown up with. OK let's have it. Clearly so we all know what you mean.
-
Sure seems to be?
Would you like something more definitive?
How about this then:
Literally every observable piece of evidence which indicates one way or another indicates there is showing beyond any sane doubt that there is.
And that's definitive, is it?
Now again, care to actually address the issue you have continually been avoiding?
Once more, for a RE, you start looking down and see nothing but ground. Then you start raising your head.
Visually what do you see?
How does it transition from ground/sea to sky?
It doesn't/wouldn't.
Don't change what I have said.
It isn't my round Earth. It is the single, very real round Earth everyone on Earth lives on.
Potentially circular you mean?
But more to the point, that makes no sense at all.
If that is the case and there is no transition, no change from ground/sea to sky, do you know what that means? That you would always see ground/sea.
As I said. If you were stood on a ball you would have zero transition from ground to water. You would transition from ground to sky if your globe was enveloped by a sky....but we don;t see that. We see our horizon and for good reason. It's because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
So is that your claim now? That for a RE, regardless of where you look you will always see ground/sea, as there is no transition from that to seeing sky?
You wouldn't see the sea on your globe. Ground to sky if you had your head angled downwards.
The issue for you globers is, level sight does not grant you any horizon in that scenario and we cleary do see a level sighted horizon, meaning you are not living on the globe you think you're living on. In my honest opinion.
That your prior claim that you would only see sky is pure nonsense?
It would appear so if you're trying to view that on this flat Earth whilst thinking you are viewing what you think is from a global Earth.
If not, then explain visually what happens between ground/sea and sky, how you go from seeing one to the other (i.e. how you transition from seeing one to seeing the other); and no, not that you raise your head, I want to know what you think you would see when you do so.
On this (my) flattish Earth we have level water and a concave dome.
Our level sight creates a meeting of that dome to water. Our convergence line.
On your rotating globe, you would never have a level sea/water and at level sight you would never see ground.
If you were to look down at the ground and then slowly raise your head, you would ...in short order.....and at a downward angle, see your sky and land.
The thing is, we do not see horizon with our heads bowed.
You are not living on a rotating globe.
One more, if you need a diagram, here it is:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
The green at the bottom is your view when looking straight down, when you see nothing but ground/sea.
The blue at the top is your view looking straight up (or as you would claim straight out level), seeing nothing but sky.
Fill in the white space showing what is observed as you lift your head from looking straight down to high enough to see nothing but sky.
Draw a globe and show what really happens if you were to stand on it and view from that point.
For any small ball that everyone agrees is a ball, doing the same thing we see the ball, then moving our head away from looking directly at the ball we see an edge, a boundary between the ball and its surroundings.
Are you stood atop this ball?
Are you stood atop your global Earth?
Completely irrelevant.
It's absolutely, completely, relevant and you know it.
Unless you can explain why standing on it should magically change it, that deflection has no place in any rational argument.
No deflection from me.
What matters is what you are looking at it.
Standing on Earth looking down at it is equivalent to standing near a ball looking at it.
Absolutely not.
Raising your head to look away from a ball Earth is equivalent to turning your head to look away from the ball.
If you're stood on it, I agree.
And yes, you can stand on such a ball, or at least set up a little model to do so, and then observe that as you tilt the camera on the model you see a transition between the ball and the surroundings. To stand on it and see nothing but the ball you would either need a very small FOV, or a very large ball (like Earth).
Your transition, if your ball was against sky and your head was angled down then raising up, you would see where the ground and sky would be but you would be angled severely downwards...which is what we do not observe.
You deflect level sight because you know it kills off the global indoctrination, I think.
Why should balls in everyday life, excluding Earth, have a clear edge (horizon) which can easily be observed, but a round global Earth magically doesn't?
None do with level sight.
A simple scope will verify this by any honest person who wishes to go and look for themselves.
Is it just so your strawman can hold, so you can pretend Earth isn't round?
No strawman here and no pretence about Earth not being a globe we supposedly live on.
-
Brilliant, congratulations, you got there in the end. Two lights in the sky, not one, exactly how it's done.
So line them up one behind the other, move to the side. The one which doesn't move is the distant reference point (obviously) and the one which shifts position is the closer one. Measure the angle, plug the figures into the equation and you have the distance to the nearer one nailed.
You don't have anything nailed.
You see one point of light and line it up with another. One shifts position and you measure the angle and this gives you the distance of those two so called stars?
Ok then, let's get to the light year distances from your plugged in figures.
Let's see where you start.
Explain it bit by bit until I'm sure you're moving on a real life track.
No need, you've finally grasped that you need two objects, so you now understand the method. You've confirmed you understand the trigonometry behind it and I broke the method down into a series of simple steps for you and asked you if you understood each step - which you obviously do, since you didn't question a single one of them.
Go for it, plug some figures in and let us all know how you got on, can't wait to hear.
No figures to plug in for your stars.
How about you explain how you know the size and distances of these so called stars as you beat on about it.
If you can't line them up, no worries, just measure the angle, then shift position, measure the angle again, the difference is the angle you need.
Light year angles. Hmmmm. Explain.
Never heard of a light year angle, what is it? Certainly nothing to do with my method.
You've heard of light year distances.
You claim you can tell distances and size, by angle.
Seeing as your stars are light year stars, then you need your angle....right?
So let's have it. and why it comes to what you arrive at.
If you can't shift position, no worries either, just wait 6 months and the earth will move position for you as it orbits the sun.
Earth will move position and that gives you size and distance?
Explain.
Explain what part exactly?
The part where you angle from one point of light to another whilst waiting for Earth to supposedly move.
-
So let's not pretend you can measure the size of a so called light in the sky by using another light in the sky.
OK lets think about those 'lights in the sky' for a moment and see what we can learn about them and how. I think it is safe to say that the lights in the sky that you see are the same lights in the sky that I see. Taking into consideration just the natural ones for the moment, all but two of them are just points of light in the sky. Let's call those stars. That leaves just two other lights in the sky which are actually visible as disks of light. One is much, much brighter than the other. That one we will call the Sun. The other we will call the Moon.
We will notice that the Sun is visible in the sky every day. It rises in the east and it sets in the west. If you happen to be north of the equator it passes through your south meridian while if you happen to be south of the equator it passes through your north meridian. If you happen to live with within a band between 23.5N and 23.5S latitude, at some point during the year you will see the Sun pass directly overhead.
The Moon on the other hand is visible in the evening sky for about of each month and in the morning sky for the other half of the month. If you live in the northern hemisphere the Moon will appear upside down compared to what an observer in the southern hemisphere sees and the same is therefore true the other way round. The Moon also shows a cycle of phases which seems to be linked to its elongation (angular distance from the Sun)
Now the interesting one. The stars appear to but just points of light. Some are brighter than others and if you look a bit more closely you might even notice that there are subtle variations in colour. More especially for the brighter ones since the cone cells in our eyes which allow us to see colour are less sensitive to light.
So what can we tell about these lights in the sky? Well since they are all just points of light in the sky we cannot say how far away they are. Is the variation in brightness between them a subtle clue about their distance? In other words are the brightest ones he nearest and the fainter ones further away? Well that would be correct if all of these points of light in the sky had the same intrinsic brightness. Just like if we see two candles of the same size the same distance away they will appear to us shine with the same light intensity. But we don't know how far away the stars are do we so we cannot make any assumptions about that.
To understand the stars in any better than just as points of light in the sky we need to know three things about them. How bright they actually look. How bright they actually are and how far away they are. When we say how bright they actually are we need to set some sort of standard by which we can directly compare the brightness of one star against another. The only way we can do that is by knowing how far away they are.
Any knowledge of how far away any star is from us evaded astronomers until relatively recently. The mid-1850s in fact. Why? Because they are - as we've said - just points of light in the sky. By using a little bit of human intelligence astronomers had considered the possibility that the stars were actually very luminous objects just like the Sun and that therefore the Sun is also a star. Just a lot closer to us. This considered possibility came mainly from the observation and comparison of the spectra of stars and that of the Sun. Spectra of the stars showed the same sequence of colours that we see in a rainbow and we also see black lines in the spectra of stars just like we do in the spectra of the stars. However the patterns of lines are different in the spectra of the stars, but all stars of the same colour show the same patterns of lines.
There was one problem though which continued to bug astronomers. The lack of movement of the stars relative to one another. They all appeared to be fixed. This has its advantages and disadvantages. There was clear movement of the Moon relative to the stars every month. That indicated that the Moon was close. A few 'stars' also showed some movement relative to the stars around them. These became known as planets because they appear to the naked eye as moving stars. Less marked than the movement of the Moon though so they must be further away. Jupiter shows greater movement than Saturn so that must be nearer to us.
The movement of the planets could be explained if the heliocentric model of the solar system held true. So the lack of movement and the lack of any apparent observable disk in the stars (as compared to the observable planetary disks in telescopes) indicated that they must be be either relatively near and very small. Or they must be extremely distant compared to the planets and we simply cannot notice any apparent shifts in position even with telescopes.
Which brings us nicely round to telescopes. The quality of optics was improving steadily since the 17th century when telescopes were first used formally for astronomy. By the mid 19th century they had improved to the point where (after many previous failed attempts) tiny movements in the stars relative to each other could finally be detected. Initially in just one or two. This annual movement is what astronomer had been searching for. Up to that point in vain because optical telescopes just weren't of adequate quality up to that time.
However by observing this tiny annual movement of some stars finally provided evidence that the Earth was not motionless in space and it provided evidence that the stars were in fact very, very distant. The distance to several stars was calculated and it was soon determined that there was a definite difference in the distances from us. This disproved the previous theory that there was any link between the apparent brightness of a star and its distance from us.
Linking the apparent brightness of the stars and the eyes logarithmic response to brightness astronomers were able to determine the physical or actual brightness of several stars and from that they were able to work out that some stars were more luminous that the Sun and some less.
And so began the scientific understanding of what were previously just 'lights in the sky'.
That's my contribution done. Others are welcome to continue the story if hey so wish.
And a very good contribution it was. Great effort.....but....and be honest. It does not tell distances or sizes.
It's just a best guess scenario on something that is impossible to verify.
-
I'm not a great one for apps. Sky Safari on the Ipad is excellent but on a PC I use Starry Night.
Scepti talks about 'lights in the sky' which covers a multitude of things. If I stand outside with nothing but my eyes for a tool to observe them with then my chances of knowing anything about them is pretty much zero. So they would remain just lights in the sky. But we live in the 21st century (well most of us do anyway) when the tools and resources to find out something about what those 'lights in the sky' really are readily available to us.
If Scepti prefers not to make use of those tools and resources and continue to simply regard them as points of light in the sky then that's entirely up to him. Perhaps he's frightening of learning something he would rather not find out about.
I could have written ten times as much as I did on the subject but here it would be wasted.
I'm certainly not frightened of learning something but I am massively sceptical of learning nothing based on potential pseudo-science and potential lies, which we are subjected to almost every day, if not every day.
It's about trying to learn to sort the wheat from the chaff.
-
Sceptimatic, I would be delighted you could answer the question regarding the map and navigation. And, please, no "look it up". Your words, thank you. The same you require from us, an example.
What do you want me to answer?
Explain what your issue is and why you think the issue cannot be solved on a flat Earth.
Le sigh...
How do flights and shipping work as expected when the maps we use are wrong?
Keep dodging.
-
I'm not a great one for apps. Sky Safari on the Ipad is excellent but on a PC I use Starry Night.
Scepti talks about 'lights in the sky' which covers a multitude of things. If I stand outside with nothing but my eyes for a tool to observe them with then my chances of knowing anything about them is pretty much zero. So they would remain just lights in the sky. But we live in the 21st century (well most of us do anyway) when the tools and resources to find out something about what those 'lights in the sky' really are readily available to us.
If Scepti prefers not to make use of those tools and resources and continue to simply regard them as points of light in the sky then that's entirely up to him. Perhaps he's frightening of learning something he would rather not find out about.
I could have written ten times as much as I did on the subject but here it would be wasted.
I'm certainly not frightened of learning something but I am massively sceptical of learning nothing based on potential pseudo-science and potential lies, which we are subjected to almost every day, if not every day.
It's about trying to learn to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I am wary of politicians and big companies, as I do not believe many of their on-paper good intentions. And I do think the history shows this attitude is warranted.
But absolutely nothing hints at the Earth being flat as there has never been any evidence to the contrary and what we (think we) know matches that reality.
-
The Eratosthenes experiment.
Thanks to Aristarchus in 250BC, Eratosthenes accepted the sun was very far away, and far enough away that the sun's rays come in parallel at the one spot.
Two sticks:
One stick placed in the ground precisely vertical at Syene, at noon, on June 21 - the summer solstice. The second stick placed in the ground precisely vertical at Alexandria at the same time.
Who placed the other stick?
The stick at Syene should cast no shadow, while the stick at Alexandria should cast a shadow measuring 7 degrees. This will mean the distance between the two cities will be 7 degrees of the circumference of the earth.
Circumference does not just mean global. A circle of Earth.
Eratosthenes hired a man to pace the difference between the two cities, and found them to be about 800 kilometers apart. From that, Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the earth to be about 40,000 kilometres. This experiment is based on the sun's rays coming in at the same angle at the same time of day.
Compass?
Straight path for the 800km?
How did he set up this?
Did he phone someone up to place the stick.
Tell me about it.
Sceptimatic, how does it feel to be beaten by two lousy sticks and simple mathematics, way back in 240BC? ;D
Two sticks actually proves a flat Earth, to be fair.
But, I have total faith :o you already know the alternate flat earth explanation tucked up your 2 sizes too small NASA lies shirt sleeve.
Let's see - will it be the sun is only 3,218 kilometres above the flat earth surface instead of 150 million kilometers away?
I don't know how big the reflection is, or how high that reflection is inside the dome.
What I do know, is.......it's not 800,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles away.
I don't think it is very large or distant.
This means the sun's rays won't come in parallel at two places 800 kilometers apart on a flat surface, which will account for the 7.2 degree shadow difference. Yes?
To be fair you'd never ever ever get anything parallel on a globe and also you would see one side saturation of a globe facing that sun if it was as big as we are told. It's utter nonsense and people should really see it for that.
Ofcourse, if the sun were really that close, it's rays could be measured to not be parallel at the one spot, right?
If it were close and hitting a sort of circle of a flattish Earth, then I'd full expect parallel .
Also, if the sun were really that close and high in the sky, not only should the size of this flat earth sun be measurable, but increased distance from this sun, should decrease its size, to the viewer, yes?
I think that all depends on the atmosphere and viewpoint of where it's observed by whoever, at wherever.
Atmospheric magnification may account for increase in sun size at sunset or sunrise, but not for high in the sky at the same time.
High in the sky means much less atmospheric distortion, so naturally we'd see size changes and colour changes compared to sun moving over the dome angled away from an observer.
Do you agree, Sceptimatic, or do your eyes work differently to every other humans eyes on the planet?
I disagree with everything you said.
-
Every time you post something Sceptic you are asking someone else to explain something they have have said. Looking through the last 18 or so pages you don't seem to have explained anything about what you have posted.
Endless claims, no explanations. But then that's what flat Earth is all about isn't it. Making claims that cannot be substantiated. You claim you have this alternative Earth theory which in your view obviously works better than what we have all grown up with. OK let's have it. Clearly so we all know what you mean.
I referenced it not too far back in here. Someone will help you find it.
-
Sceptimatic, I would be delighted you could answer the question regarding the map and navigation. And, please, no "look it up". Your words, thank you. The same you require from us, an example.
What do you want me to answer?
Explain what your issue is and why you think the issue cannot be solved on a flat Earth.
Le sigh...
How do flights and shipping work as expected when the maps we use are wrong?
Keep dodging.
Show me the navigation maps you are talking about that ships and planes use.
-
I am wary of politicians and big companies, as I do not believe many of their on-paper good intentions. And I do think the history shows this attitude is warranted.
But absolutely nothing hints at the Earth being flat as there has never been any evidence to the contrary and what we (think we) know matches that reality.
That's like saying...I know the man has murdered many old people and adults over 30 but there's no way I accept he would ever murder anyone under 30.
-
Sceptimatic, I would be delighted you could answer the question regarding the map and navigation. And, please, no "look it up". Your words, thank you. The same you require from us, an example.
What do you want me to answer?
Explain what your issue is and why you think the issue cannot be solved on a flat Earth.
Le sigh...
How do flights and shipping work as expected when the maps we use are wrong?
Keep dodging.
Show me the navigation maps you are talking about that ships and planes use.
So you have no answers as the flights and others work perfectly on the globe Earth we live on.
-
Now again, care to actually address the issue you have continually been avoiding?
Once more, for a RE, you start looking down and see nothing but ground. Then you start raising your head.
Visually what do you see?
How does it transition from ground/sea to sky?
It doesn't/wouldn't.
But more to the point, that makes no sense at all.
If that is the case and there is no transition, no change from ground/sea to sky, do you know what that means? That you would always see ground/sea.
As I said. If you were stood on a ball you would have zero transition from ground to water. You would transition from ground to sky if your globe was enveloped by a sky
No, you denied that there would be a transition from ground/sea to sky. But now you are directly contradicting that claiming that you do get such a transition.
but we don;t see that. We see our horizon and for good reason. It's because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
We do see that.
That transition is the horizon. We see this horizon for good reason, it is the edge of Earth, because Earth is round.
If Earth wasn't round, we wouldn't see that horizon.
On this (my) flattish Earth
I have made it quite clear that this line of inquiry is directed entirely towards the round earth and your strawman of it.
Your ideas of what a FE would look are irrelevant for this line of inquiry.
If you were to look down at the ground and then slowly raise your head, you would ...in short order.....and at a downward angle, see your sky and land.
The thing is, we do not see horizon with our heads bowed.
So is this you accepting that a round Earth would produce a horizon?
A line below which you see ground/sea and above which you see sky?
If not, just how do you think this transition occurs?
If so, just where do you think this horizon is positioned?
Not some vague idea of a downwards angle, what actual angle is it at?
Either provide it for someone who's eye is 2 m above the surface of a round Earth with a radius of 6371 km, or provide an equation relating the altitude/height of the observer, the radius and the angle it appears at.
One more, if you need a diagram, here it is:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
The green at the bottom is your view when looking straight down, when you see nothing but ground/sea.
The blue at the top is your view looking straight up (or as you would claim straight out level), seeing nothing but sky.
Fill in the white space showing what is observed as you lift your head from looking straight down to high enough to see nothing but sky.
Draw a globe and show what really happens if you were to stand on it and view from that point.
I'm pretty sure you have been provided that before, but once more this deflection on your part.
This is for you to show what you think should happen on a round Earth.
It's absolutely, completely, relevant and you know it.
No, it is entirely irrelevant as it does not matter if you are standing on object or not, you are still looking at it and it will function the same.
It is likely you know this, but keep bringing this up as you have no rational response.
Once more, if you wish to claim it is relevant you need to explain why it magically changes by standing on it.
None do with level sight.
A simple scope will verify this by any honest person who wishes to go and look for themselves.
Except the photos already provided which show the exact opposite of your claim, which clearly show the horizon is below eye level.
Only a scope of sufficient accuracy/limited FOV will show the absence of a horizon on a RE.
If you use a scope which is too large then you see the horizon, exactly as you would expect for a RE, exactly as any honest person that actually bothered to do the math would discover.
Once more, it is only in your strawman that the horizon is basically straight down for a RE.
but I am massively sceptical of learning nothing based on potential pseudo-science and potential lies, which we are subjected to almost every day, if not every day.
Then perhaps you should stop spouting so much of that pseudo-science and lies and actually deal with the real science and evidence that you avoid so much?
Two sticks actually proves a flat Earth, to be fair.
If you want to be fair and honest, that lie is not how to do so.
To be fair, 2 sticks leaves the problem unconstrained without extra information.
That extra information is that the sun is very far away, due to its angular size not changing significantly throughout the day.
This then allows those 2 sticks to show a RE.
Without that bit of information (which was available at the time), you have an unconstrained problem with the radius of the roughly spherical Earth and the height of the sun being unknown variables.
What I do know, is.......it's not 800,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles away.
And how do you know that?
It sure seems like you just make stuff up, without knowing any of it.
To be fair you'd never ever ever get anything parallel on a globe and also you would see one side saturation of a globe facing that sun if it was as big as we are told.
You mean day?
Or is this you failing at basic trig again and not realising that with the sun that far away it will only be roughly 0.5 degrees across and impossible for it to magically fill the sky?
High in the sky means much less atmospheric distortion, so naturally we'd see size changes
And the problem for FE is that we don't.
-
Brilliant, congratulations, you got there in the end. Two lights in the sky, not one, exactly how it's done.
So line them up one behind the other, move to the side. The one which doesn't move is the distant reference point (obviously) and the one which shifts position is the closer one. Measure the angle, plug the figures into the equation and you have the distance to the nearer one nailed.
You don't have anything nailed.
You see one point of light and line it up with another. One shifts position and you measure the angle and this gives you the distance of those two so called stars?
Ok then, let's get to the light year distances from your plugged in figures.
Let's see where you start.
Explain it bit by bit until I'm sure you're moving on a real life track.
No need, you've finally grasped that you need two objects, so you now understand the method. You've confirmed you understand the trigonometry behind it and I broke the method down into a series of simple steps for you and asked you if you understood each step - which you obviously do, since you didn't question a single one of them.
Go for it, plug some figures in and let us all know how you got on, can't wait to hear.
No figures to plug in for your stars.
How about you explain how you know the size and distances of these so called stars as you beat on about it.
OK, well let's do one example. The parallax angle for Sirius is 0.37668 arcseconds. Feel free to measure that angle for yourself, otherwise just accept it.
Distance d is 1AU obviously.
You now have everything you need to calculate the distance to Sirius in AU. Just a reminder of the formula I gave you before, d/Tan(θ). Then, if you want it in lightyears, just look up the conversion factor from AU to lightyears and apply it. Let us know what answer you get. It will be interesting to see if it agrees with the accepted distance.
If you can't line them up, no worries, just measure the angle, then shift position, measure the angle again, the difference is the angle you need.
Light year angles. Hmmmm. Explain.
Never heard of a light year angle, what is it? Certainly nothing to do with my method.
You've heard of light year distances.
You claim you can tell distances and size, by angle.
Seeing as your stars are light year stars, then you need your angle....right?
So let's have it. and why it comes to what you arrive at.
Light year stars? That's a new one on me. I didn't realise objects had distance units attached to them. So when I hold a tennis ball, what is that actually, is it an inch ball, a cm ball, a km ball?
If you can't shift position, no worries either, just wait 6 months and the earth will move position for you as it orbits the sun.
Earth will move position and that gives you size and distance?
Explain.
Explain what part exactly?
The part where you angle from one point of light to another whilst waiting for Earth to supposedly move.
You don't understand that you can measure the angle between two objects from an observer's postion? That's how surveying works.
-
Show me the navigation maps you are talking about that ships and planes use.
So you have no answers as the flights and others work perfectly on the globe Earth we live on.
Show me what you're arguing.
-
No, you denied that there would be a transition from ground/sea to sky. But now you are directly contradicting that claiming that you do get such a transition.
No contradictions from me. Plenty of attempts to twist, by you.
You carry on if you think it's worth your while.
On this (my) flattish Earth
I have made it quite clear that this line of inquiry is directed entirely towards the round earth and your strawman of it.
Your ideas of what a FE would look are irrelevant for this line of inquiry.
They are massively relevant because it's to do with the level horizon and that's exactly what we see.
The globe is irrelevant.
If you were to look down at the ground and then slowly raise your head, you would ...in short order.....and at a downward angle, see your sky and land.
The thing is, we do not see horizon with our heads bowed.
So is this you accepting that a round flat Earth would produce a horizon?
Yep.
High in the sky means much less atmospheric distortion, so naturally we'd see size changes
And the problem for FE is that we don't.
The problem for you is...we actually do and it's something people observe every day for themselves.
-
Tell us in what way is the map we use wrong. As it apparently is, as the Earth is flat.
You have never given us an example. I find it odd, as you seem adamant RE is a lie. Based on what, except your opinion, is unclear.
-
OK, well let's do one example. The parallax angle for Sirius is 0.37668 arcseconds. Feel free to measure that angle for yourself, otherwise just accept it.
Distance d is 1AU obviously.
Explain it and how you arrive at the distance and size.
You now have everything you need to calculate the distance to Sirius in AU. Just a reminder of the formula I gave you before, d/Tan(θ). Then, if you want it in lightyears, just look up the conversion factor from AU to lightyears and apply it. Let us know what answer you get. It will be interesting to see if it agrees with the accepted distance.
It's all massive estimations based on nothing.
Light year stars? That's a new one on me. I didn't realise objects had distance units attached to them. So when I hold a tennis ball, what is that actually, is it an inch ball, a cm ball, a km ball?
Are your light year stars only mentioned because distances are just to long in numbers to bother with?
Your issue is exactly the tennis ball size. You do not know it. Its imagined and so is the distance.
You don't understand that you can measure the angle between two objects from an observer's postion? That's how surveying works.
I know how it works.
The simple 3/4/5 method...and so on is the simple version.
I'm fine with realism.
Your stuff is not realism and you know it.
-
Your stuff is not realism and you know it.
How can you keep saying this when you are unable to point any errors in it?
Make a list of the errors, please.
Thank you.
EDIT: RE says Sydney to Santiago is less than 12 000 kilometers. FE says it is ~26 000 kilometers. Yet the fight takes less than 13 hours which is the expected result given the air speed of the commercial flight, and the map we use. Seems to me the RE map is correct, and the FE map isn't.
So, what is wrong with that picture, for example? Or is it the planes actually fly 1.5+ Mach? I find that hard to believe as nothing points to that being true. Do you have more info on this?
-
OK, well let's do one example. The parallax angle for Sirius is 0.37668 arcseconds. Feel free to measure that angle for yourself, otherwise just accept it.
Distance d is 1AU obviously.
Explain it and how you arrive at the distance and size.
OK, d is a lower case letter in what we call an alphabet. 1 is a number. AU is a unit. d/Tan(θ) is what we call an equation.
You plug a value in, that's θ and another value in, that's d, into this thing we call an equation and it yields a value which we call a result. In this case θ is 0.37668 arcseconds and d is 1. If you can locate a device we call a calculator and get someone to show you how it works, put the numbers in and tell us all the result you get. I'm trying to simplify this as much as I can, since you still don't seem able to follow.
You want explanations, you want to learn how this is done. The best way is for you to try it and see if you can follow the instructions given to you many times over now and just see if you can get a result, that way you've worked out the distance yourself and you can ask yourself how you did it instead of just repeatedly asking me how I did it and then not following the answer given. Tell us what result you get and we can carry on with the discussion.
You now have everything you need to calculate the distance to Sirius in AU. Just a reminder of the formula I gave you before, d/Tan(θ). Then, if you want it in lightyears, just look up the conversion factor from AU to lightyears and apply it. Let us know what answer you get. It will be interesting to see if it agrees with the accepted distance.
It's all massive estimations based on nothing.
That's fine, you don't agree with the angle, go measure it yourself, tell us the correct value.
Light year stars? That's a new one on me. I didn't realise objects had distance units attached to them. So when I hold a tennis ball, what is that actually, is it an inch ball, a cm ball, a km ball?
Are your light year stars only mentioned because distances are just to long in numbers to bother with?
Your issue is exactly the tennis ball size. You do not know it. Its imagined and so is the distance.
You don't understand that you can measure the angle between two objects from an observer's postion? That's how surveying works.
I know how it works.
The simple 3/4/5 method...and so on is the simple version.
I'm fine with realism.
Your stuff is not realism and you know it.
-
Your stuff is not realism and you know it.
How can you keep saying this when you are unable to point any errors in it?
Make a list of the errors, please.
Thank you.
EDIT: RE says Sydney to Santiago is less than 12 000 kilometers. FE says it is ~26 000 kilometers. Yet the fight takes less than 13 hours which is the expected result given the air speed of the commercial flight, and the map we use. Seems to me the RE map is correct, and the FE map isn't.
So, what is wrong with that picture, for example? Or is it the planes actually fly 1.5+ Mach? I find that hard to believe as nothing points to that being true. Do you have more info on this?
I went to Cyprus and it took just over 5 hours going there.
The return flight took just over 4.
What are you trying to say?
What are you trying to prove?
Show me your navigation maps. You must have them.
-
No answers from you. You cannot provide a single example of what is wrong with the RE model.
Please, the list of errors in RE.
EDIT: But what I proved is that that specific flight only works with the current model. You are unable to deny that.
I dare you to answer with a question without in any way offering an explanation as to why the flight time correlates with map distances on the RE map, and why the FE would be better.
-
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5fe2e056ab914d7218a611c2837ed8c64ae772ee/11_0_803_482/master/803.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=7486f63d6201121a9cbbd3ed91aeb780)
That map is shit, as it does not represent reality based on, for example, the flight from Sydney to Santiago.
Do you agree, sceptimatic? If not, why?
-
That's fine, you don't agree with the angle, go measure it yourself, tell us the correct value.
What am I measuring?
You say an angle but where is the angle from two light points in the sky?
You are welcome to tell me what a calculator is and what not but show this dummy how you get to what you get with.
Arc seconds?
Tell me all about it all and how you legitimately....for yourself...get to your answers.
Don't give me any plugged in numbers you rely on that you cannot verify, from mainstream.
I want it all from you.
-
No answers from you. You cannot provide a single example of what is wrong with the RE model.
Please, the list of errors in RE.
EDIT: But what I proved is that that specific flight only works with the current model. You are unable to deny that.
I dare you to answer with a question without in any way offering an explanation as to why the flight time correlates with map distances on the RE map, and why the FE would be better.
You've proved nothing and you know fine well you haven't.
-
I want it all from you.
Yeah, you do.
Funny, this mainstream you keep bringing up. As far as I know there is no other type of science. It is conducted with research, tests, and evidence. Scouring YouTube is not science, nor is presenting one's opinion as evidence.
And yeah, you can't even say a word about the pathetic FE map which is so far removed from reality as to appear a joke someone played on you.
Can't get much more simple than what I asked. Is the FE map I linked correct, or not? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that?
-
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5fe2e056ab914d7218a611c2837ed8c64ae772ee/11_0_803_482/master/803.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=7486f63d6201121a9cbbd3ed91aeb780)
That map is shit, as it does not represent reality based on, for example, the flight from Sydney to Santiago.
Do you agree, sceptimatic? If not, why?
Does your plane from Sydney to Santiago fly a perfectly straight line?
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
-
No contradictions from me. Plenty of attempts to twist, by you.
No, it was a pretty direct contradiction.
I asked if there was a transition between ground/sea and sky. You said there wasn't, then you said there was.
It doesn't get much more direct than that.
And then of course, you completely ignore the follow up to that.
Rather than focus on what is actually important to the line of inquiry which shows conclusively that you are wrong, you just focus on if you contradicted yourself.
Why not just admit your claim is completely wrong?
Once more:
Just how do you think this transition will occur?
Will it be such that there is a line below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky?
Or do you think it will be something else?
Or will you contradict yourself yet again?
Or will you just continue with more pathetic deflection as you know that this line of inquiry will show that you are wrong?
On this (my) flattish Earth
I have made it quite clear that this line of inquiry is directed entirely towards the round earth and your strawman of it.
Your ideas of what a FE would look are irrelevant for this line of inquiry.
They are massively relevant...
The globe is irrelevant.
No, your claims of what would be observed on a FE are completely irrelevant to this discussion, at least for the time being, while the globe is crucial.
That is because we are discussing what one should expect to see if Earth is round; if your blatant lie/strawman of the RE is true or false.
Your flat fantasy does not factor into this at all. Because your flat fantasy has no bearing on what one would expect for a RE.
You are using it to deflect from the line of inquiry which shows you are wrong.
Once you stop deflecting and actually address the issues raised and answer the extremely simple questions we can thing bring up what is actually observed in reality and if it matches the RE, your flat fantasy, or both.
If you were to look down at the ground and then slowly raise your head, you would ...in short order.....and at a downward angle, see your sky and land.
The thing is, we do not see horizon with our heads bowed.
So is this you accepting that a round Earth would produce a horizon?
Yep.
Good, you accept that a RE produces a horizon.
Now you can move on to the next question, where is the horizon?
What angle is it found at?
(It is clear that you aren't talking about a FE as you say the horizon would be seen at a downward angle, while you claim for the FE it should be level).
High in the sky means much less atmospheric distortion, so naturally we'd see size changes
And the problem for FE is that we don't.
The problem for you is...we actually do and it's something people observe every day for themselves.
So now you are just inventing observations?
Do you mean they see a different amount of glare?
You don't understand that you can measure the angle between two objects from an observer's postion? That's how surveying works.
I know how it works.
The simple 3/4/5 method...and so on is the simple version.
So you have no idea at all?
The 3/4/5 method is a method to construct a right angle triangle.
It is not for determining distances or measuring angles other than a right angle.
-
Funny, this mainstream you keep bringing up. As far as I know there is no other type of science.
That depends on what is given out as, real mainstream science as opposed to mainstream pseudo-science.
It is conducted with research, tests, and evidence.
Real science is, I agree. It's all about finding what is the reality.
Scouring YouTube is not science, nor is presenting one's opinion as evidence.
You tube is the same as library books. They present topics that people can decide on as to the reality, or to ponder on.....or...dismiss at their leisure.
That nor opinions are real evidence and that includes your opinions.
And yeah, you can't even say a word about the pathetic FE map which is so far removed from reality as to appear a joke someone played on you.
It only becomes a joke if I blindly follow it without question. I do not blindly follow any particular map, because am one human being on a big Earth and trying to legitimately work it all out, is fruitless.
So we all have to stick to best guesses.
The real joke is the one played on yourself. The global one, which is utter utter nonsense in the extreme.
Can't get much more simple than what I asked. Is the FE map I linked correct, or not?
I wouldn't know for sure.
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
Ahhh, so it's a curve. A circle.
I wonder if that can happen on a flat map?
I'd say, yes.
Planes can easily curve in or out or up or down.....right?
-
No contradictions from me. Plenty of attempts to twist, by you.
No, it was a pretty direct contradiction.
I asked if there was a transition between ground/sea and sky. You said there wasn't, then you said there was.
It doesn't get much more direct than that.
No contradictions....like I said.
Failure of you to see what was addressed becomes your issue.
I'm still fine with what I am saying.
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
Ahhh, so it's a curve. A circle.
I wonder if that can happen on a flat map?
I'd say, yes.
Planes can easily curve in or out or up or down.....right?
I don't know about "perfectly" straight, but it would follow a straight great circle route:
(https://i.imgur.com/JjH6TaV.png)
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
Ahhh, so it's a curve. A circle.
I wonder if that can happen on a flat map?
I'd say, yes.
Planes can easily curve in or out or up or down.....right?
I don't know about "perfectly" straight, but it would follow a straight great circle route:
(https://i.imgur.com/JjH6TaV.png)
A great circle tells me the plane makes a horizontal curve, not a vertical curve.
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
Ahhh, so it's a curve. A circle.
I wonder if that can happen on a flat map?
I'd say, yes.
Planes can easily curve in or out or up or down.....right?
I don't know about "perfectly" straight, but it would follow a straight great circle route:
(https://i.imgur.com/JjH6TaV.png)
A great circle tells me the plane makes a horizontal curve, not a vertical curve.
"A Great Circle is any circle that circumnavigates the Earth and passes through the center of the Earth. A great circle always divides the Earth in half, thus the Equator is a great circle (but no other latitudes) and all lines of longitude are great circles."
(https://www.caliper.com/glossary/xmaptitude-great-circle-map.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ho-3Oj1XIA.jpg)
-
The real joke is the one played on yourself. The global one, which is utter utter nonsense in the extreme.
How is it nonsense? You can't just say that.
Can't get much more simple than what I asked. Is the FE map I linked correct, or not?
I wouldn't know for sure.
That is fair. But it would appear you consider it better as it depicts a flat Earth? It is closer to the truth? The problem is what leads you to believe that, which findings? I know of the horizon, but is that really all you go by?
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
Ahhh, so it's a curve. A circle.
I wonder if that can happen on a flat map?
I'd say, yes.
Planes can easily curve in or out or up or down.....right?
I don't know about "perfectly" straight, but it would follow a straight great circle route:
(https://i.imgur.com/JjH6TaV.png)
A great circle tells me the plane makes a horizontal curve, not a vertical curve.
"A Great Circle is any circle that circumnavigates the Earth and passes through the center of the Earth. A great circle always divides the Earth in half, thus the Equator is a great circle (but no other latitudes) and all lines of longitude are great circles."
(https://www.caliper.com/glossary/xmaptitude-great-circle-map.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ho-3Oj1XIA.jpg)
Maybe they should rename it, the great vertical curve, because a great circle tells me the Earth is flat and planes circle around it as well as simply flying from point to point.
It would be very very interesting watching the artificial horizon indicator on one of those flights.
-
The real joke is the one played on yourself. The global one, which is utter utter nonsense in the extreme.
How is it nonsense? You can't just say that.
Can't get much more simple than what I asked. Is the FE map I linked correct, or not?
I wouldn't know for sure.
That is fair. But it would appear you consider it better as it depicts a flat Earth? It is closer to the truth? The problem is what leads you to believe that, which findings? I know of the horizon, but is that really all you go by?
I go by a lot of stuff which I've already explained.
The simplest is level water. Then tall buildings. Then how the atmosphere works with barometers...etc.....etc...etc.
Also low pressure chambers and how and why they potentially really work from my perspective.
There's lots of stuff that I've been into and I don't need silly equations to get to the crux.
-
I guess this is the level water thing? But I am sure you have seen that. And I would expect the tall buildings are akin to that?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flight-level-768x768.jpg)
The tall buildings I remember been discussed elsewhere here. Will need to search for that.
-
No contradictions from me. Plenty of attempts to twist, by you.
No, it was a pretty direct contradiction.
I asked if there was a transition between ground/sea and sky. You said there wasn't, then you said there was.
It doesn't get much more direct than that.
No contradictions....like I said.
Failure of you to see what was addressed becomes your issue.
I'm still fine with what I am saying.
Again, you ignore the main issue and just deflect with this pathetic nonsense.
Your contradiction was clear, there is no more need to discuss it.
Now stop deflecting.
You have admitted that on a round Earth looking down you see ground, looking up you see sky, and that there is some transition between them.
Just what do you think this transition is?
Do you accept that it is a line, below which you see ground/sea and above which you see sky?
If so, what angle do you think this occurs at for a round Earth of radius 6371 km, for an observer with an eye at 2 m above the sea level?
If not, just what do you think this transition looks like?
Stop deflecting and actually answer.
I go by a lot of stuff which I've already explained.
You go by asserting pure fantasy and deflecting away from the numerous issues and evidence which shows you are wrong.
You avoid explaining anything you can't and instead just assert you have.
The simplest is level water. Then tall buildings.
You mean how level water obscures the bottom of tall buildings, even when you and the building are both above the water, meaning the surface couldn't possibly be flat, and thus this level water must curve?
You know the evidence that shows you are wrong?
Then how the atmosphere works with barometers
You mean how barometers clearly show that air pressure and weight are 2 fundamentally different things? That show your model is wrong?
There's lots of stuff that I've been into and I don't need silly equations to get to the crux.
If you want to have any justification for your model matching reality and being able to explain it, you need equations. That is because these equations allow you to make numerical predictions and actually test them.
Equations like those for bouyancy, which show that when you place an object in a fluid its weight is reduced by an amount equal to the volume it displaces multiplied by the density of the fluid that it was displacing, multiplied by g.
Edit:
You also sometimes need equations to be able to tell between models.
For example, if you claim that a RE would have the horizon below level, while it would be level for a FE, then you can dismiss the FE because the horizon is observed significantly below level (i.e. the error range does not include level), but you cannot dismiss the RE due to the horizon being roughly level without the equations which show the horizon for a RE should be lower than the error bounds. This is because an angle of depression of 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 degrees is still below level, but it would be basically indistinguishable from level.
-
(https://simpleflying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-07-at-10.16.43-am.png)
Not sure if you call that straight or not.
Ahhh, so it's a curve. A circle.
I wonder if that can happen on a flat map?
I'd say, yes.
Planes can easily curve in or out or up or down.....right?
I don't know about "perfectly" straight, but it would follow a straight great circle route:
(https://i.imgur.com/JjH6TaV.png)
A great circle tells me the plane makes a horizontal curve, not a vertical curve.
"A Great Circle is any circle that circumnavigates the Earth and passes through the center of the Earth. A great circle always divides the Earth in half, thus the Equator is a great circle (but no other latitudes) and all lines of longitude are great circles."
(https://www.caliper.com/glossary/xmaptitude-great-circle-map.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ho-3Oj1XIA.jpg)
Maybe they should rename it, the great vertical curve, because a great circle tells me the Earth is flat and planes circle around it as well as simply flying from point to point.
It would be very very interesting watching the artificial horizon indicator on one of those flights.
There's no need to rename anything just because you don't understand it. You have your own definition for everything. Your definition for the word volume is one you made up for instance. You even make up how pressure gauges work which is not the way pressure gauges work. As for the great circle definition, I just gave it to you with an image as an aid. And now you're saying that's wrong?
Here's how a gyro altitude/horizon indicator works:
The instrument may develop small errors, in pitch or bank during extended periods of acceleration, deceleration, turns, or due to the earth curving underneath the plane on long trips. To start with, they often have slightly more weight in the bottom, so that when the aircraft is resting on the ground they will hang level and therefore they will be level when started. But once they are started, that pendulous weight in the bottom will not pull them level if they are out of level, but instead its pull will cause the gyro to precess. In order to let the gyro very slowly orient itself to the direction of gravity while in operation, the typical vacuum powered gyro has small pendulums on the rotor casing that partially cover air holes. When the gyro is out of level with respect to the direction of gravity, the pendulums will swing in the direction of gravity and either uncover or cover the holes, such that air is allowed or prevented from jetting out of the holes, and thereby applying a small force to orient the gyro towards the direction of gravity. Electric powered gyros may have different mechanisms to achieve a similar effect.
You never answered my question. Does it make you uncomfortable when you are flying commercially knowing that the engineering, maintenance, navigation and piloting is all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
-
That's fine, you don't agree with the angle, go measure it yourself, tell us the correct value.
What am I measuring?
You say an angle but where is the angle from two light points in the sky?
I have trees in my back garden. I can stand at my back door and measure the angle between any two trees from where I'm standing. To put it simply, point one arm at one tree and one arm at the other and the angle between your two arms is the angle you are measuring. How you measure this angle is up to you.
Now try pointing at two stars, sorry "light points". Again the angle between your arms is the angle you are measuring.
You are welcome to tell me what a calculator is and what not but show this dummy how you get to what you get with.
Arc seconds?
Tell me all about it all and how you legitimately....for yourself...get to your answers.
You want me too look up the word arcsecond in a dictionary for you and tell you what it says? Anything else you'd like me to look up while I'm about it?
As I've already explained to you, I did a year of an undergraduate astronomy course. My recollection is that we measured the parallax of at least one star. Can't remember which one(s), can't remember the results, but, having done it, I know it can be done, I know how it can be done and I know the angles are very small and therefore accurate measurement requires good equipment - we had the use of what was and still is one of the largest optical telescopes in the world, a multi-million £/$ piece of kit.
I'm quite happy to accept an angle measured by someone else, using the very same techniques I'm familiar with. You have a choice, either accept someone else's figures or go do the measurements yourself.
Don't give me any plugged in numbers you rely on that you cannot verify, from mainstream.
I want it all from you.
And I want you to go away, plug some numbers I've already given you into a calculator, using the equation I've given you and tell me once and for all, what answer you get. I have a feeling that neither of us is going to get what we want here, what do you think?
-
I am massively sceptical of learning nothing based on potential pseudo-science and potential lies,
I would recommend perhaps that you join up to some of the mainstream amateur astronomy forums such as star gazers lounge and cloudynights and start preaching about astronomy being a pseudo-science and based on 'potential' lies.
Make sure you have your seatbelt tightly fastened though as you will meet with some moderate to severe turbulence I suspect.
I referenced it not too far back in here. Someone will help you find it.
What is stopping you from helping me find it?
-
I guess this is the level water thing? But I am sure you have seen that. And I would expect the tall buildings are akin to that?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flight-level-768x768.jpg)
The tall buildings I remember been discussed elsewhere here. Will need to search for that.
When you explain what gravity is, then you have a case.
Until then you can see your globe is nonsensical.
-
You also sometimes need equations to be able to tell between models.
For example, if you claim that a RE would have the horizon below level, while it would be level for a FE, then you can dismiss the FE because the horizon is observed significantly below level (i.e. the error range does not include level), but you cannot dismiss the RE due to the horizon being roughly level without the equations which show the horizon for a RE should be lower than the error bounds. This is because an angle of depression of 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 degrees is still below level, but it would be basically indistinguishable from level.
No need for equations.
Level is level.
Horizon is horizontally, level.
Your globe would have none of these features.
No matter how hard you try to dress it up, you would never have a sky to water horizon line.....ever, on your supposed globe.
-
There's no need to rename anything just because you don't understand it. You have your own definition for everything. Your definition for the word volume is one you made up for instance. You even make up how pressure gauges work which is not the way pressure gauges work. As for the great circle definition, I just gave it to you with an image as an aid. And now you're saying that's wrong?
Your image is fine but it does not depict any reality of what you think your Earth is.
Here's how a gyro altitude/horizon indicator works:
The instrument may develop small errors, in pitch or bank during extended periods of acceleration, deceleration, turns, or due to the earth curving underneath the plane on long trips. To start with, they often have slightly more weight in the bottom, so that when the aircraft is resting on the ground they will hang level and therefore they will be level when started. But once they are started, that pendulous weight in the bottom will not pull them level if they are out of level, but instead its pull will cause the gyro to precess. In order to let the gyro very slowly orient itself to the direction of gravity while in operation, the typical vacuum powered gyro has small pendulums on the rotor casing that partially cover air holes. When the gyro is out of level with respect to the direction of gravity, the pendulums will swing in the direction of gravity and either uncover or cover the holes, such that air is allowed or prevented from jetting out of the holes, and thereby applying a small force to orient the gyro towards the direction of gravity. Electric powered gyros may have different mechanisms to achieve a similar effect.
Gyroscopes work due to atmospheric balance/imbalance.
No gravity involved because gravity is fictional.
You never answered my question. Does it make you uncomfortable when you are flying commercially knowing that the engineering, maintenance, navigation and piloting is all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
Nope, because they aren't.
They are made to cater for the Earth we live on under atmospheric pressure, which is not a globe.
-
No gravity involved because gravity is fictional.
I have heard gravity described in many different ways but fictional is a new one on me. Where's the evidence that gravity is 'fictional'?
-
There's no need to rename anything just because you don't understand it. You have your own definition for everything. Your definition for the word volume is one you made up for instance. You even make up how pressure gauges work which is not the way pressure gauges work. As for the great circle definition, I just gave it to you with an image as an aid. And now you're saying that's wrong?
Your image is fine but it does not depict any reality of what you think your Earth is.
Here's how a gyro altitude/horizon indicator works:
The instrument may develop small errors, in pitch or bank during extended periods of acceleration, deceleration, turns, or due to the earth curving underneath the plane on long trips. To start with, they often have slightly more weight in the bottom, so that when the aircraft is resting on the ground they will hang level and therefore they will be level when started. But once they are started, that pendulous weight in the bottom will not pull them level if they are out of level, but instead its pull will cause the gyro to precess. In order to let the gyro very slowly orient itself to the direction of gravity while in operation, the typical vacuum powered gyro has small pendulums on the rotor casing that partially cover air holes. When the gyro is out of level with respect to the direction of gravity, the pendulums will swing in the direction of gravity and either uncover or cover the holes, such that air is allowed or prevented from jetting out of the holes, and thereby applying a small force to orient the gyro towards the direction of gravity. Electric powered gyros may have different mechanisms to achieve a similar effect.
Gyroscopes work due to atmospheric balance/imbalance.
No gravity involved because gravity is fictional.
You never answered my question. Does it make you uncomfortable when you are flying commercially knowing that the engineering, maintenance, navigation and piloting is all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
Nope, because they aren't.
They are made to cater for the Earth we live on under atmospheric pressure, which is not a globe.
So what you are saying is that you're fine with commercial air travel even though it is completely and utterly wrongfully engineered, maintained, navigated, and piloted all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity? You're ok that all of it is completely wrong yet somehow still works pretty seamlessly? That all involved are haphazardly relying on a model of earth that doesn't exist and somehow people get where they need to go, when they need to get there, and planes aren't dropping out of the skies en masse? How could this even work? How do you reconcile that?
-
I have trees in my back garden. I can stand at my back door and measure the angle between any two trees from where I'm standing. To put it simply, point one arm at one tree and one arm at the other and the angle between your two arms is the angle you are measuring. How you measure this angle is up to you.
So you are measuring between your chest. What does that say about the tree sizes and distance?
Now try pointing at two stars, sorry "light points". Again the angle between your arms is the angle you are measuring.
Again, if the angle is an inch between your fingers, how does this give size and distance?
You want me too look up the word arcsecond in a dictionary for you and tell you what it says? Anything else you'd like me to look up while I'm about it?
Just tell me what the arc seconds are doing for your distance and size calculations.
As I've already explained to you, I did a year of an undergraduate astronomy course. My recollection is that we measured the parallax of at least one star. Can't remember which one(s), can't remember the results, but, having done it, I know it can be done, I know how it can be done and I know the angles are very small and therefore accurate measurement requires good equipment - we had the use of what was and still is one of the largest optical telescopes in the world, a multi-million £/$ piece of kit.
Apparently some geezer did it in BC and was close to being accurate by you people. So, did he have a top of the range telescope?
You have no real clue...do you?
Yeah you can map points of light as they move around....but you do not know the distances or sizes. It's all regurgitation from the plate you ate it off, back onto that plate for all to see.
I'm quite happy to accept an angle measured by someone else, using the very same techniques I'm familiar with. You have a choice, either accept someone else's figures or go do the measurements yourself.
This is what it boils down to.
It's the person behind the curtain.
You're quite happy to be told it's a witch who casts spells if you go too close, because that's the word on the street.
Don't give me any plugged in numbers you rely on that you cannot verify, from mainstream.
I want it all from you.
And I want you to go away, plug some numbers I've already given you into a calculator, using the equation I've given you and tell me once and for all, what answer you get. I have a feeling that neither of us is going to get what we want here, what do you think?
I don't think I'll get what I want because you have no means to give it.
-
I am massively sceptical of learning nothing based on potential pseudo-science and potential lies,
I would recommend perhaps that you join up to some of the mainstream amateur astronomy forums such as star gazers lounge and cloudynights and start preaching about astronomy being a pseudo-science and based on 'potential' lies.
Make sure you have your seatbelt tightly fastened though as you will meet with some moderate to severe turbulence I suspect.
I referenced it not too far back in here. Someone will help you find it.
What is stopping you from helping me find it?
Nothing.
-
No gravity involved because gravity is fictional.
I have heard gravity described in many different ways but fictional is a new one on me. Where's the evidence that gravity is 'fictional'?
It depends on what you accept as evidence. I've stated what I believe it to be. You cannot prove gravity exists.
I've seen many argue that they can and none has ever done it.
All I ever seen was appeals to authority and harking back into history.
-
So what you are saying is that you're fine with commercial air travel even though it is completely and utterly wrongfully engineered, maintained, navigated, and piloted all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
You're ok that all of it is completely wrong yet somehow still works pretty seamlessly? That all involved are haphazardly relying on a model of earth that doesn't exist and somehow people get where they need to go, when they need to get there, and planes aren't dropping out of the skies en masse? How could this even work? How do you reconcile that?
I'm absolutely fine with it because it works how I expect it to work.
It work by skimming the atmospheric stacking system.
It's engineered fine.
-
So what you are saying is that you're fine with commercial air travel even though it is completely and utterly wrongfully engineered, maintained, navigated, and piloted all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
You're ok that all of it is completely wrong yet somehow still works pretty seamlessly? That all involved are haphazardly relying on a model of earth that doesn't exist and somehow people get where they need to go, when they need to get there, and planes aren't dropping out of the skies en masse? How could this even work? How do you reconcile that?
I'm absolutely fine with it because it works how I expect it to work.
It work by skimming the atmospheric stacking system.
It's engineered fine.
Even though it's all not designed/engineered to be simply skimming the atmospheric stacking system? What about instrumentation that doesn't follow your system? What about navigation that doesn't follow your system?
-
I have trees in my back garden. I can stand at my back door and measure the angle between any two trees from where I'm standing. To put it simply, point one arm at one tree and one arm at the other and the angle between your two arms is the angle you are measuring. How you measure this angle is up to you.
So you are measuring between your chest. What does that say about the tree sizes and distance?
Now try pointing at two stars, sorry "light points". Again the angle between your arms is the angle you are measuring.
Again, if the angle is an inch between your fingers, how does this give size and distance?
You asked how you measure the angle between two lights in the sky. Your question has been answered. Angles aren't measured in inches. If you ask someone with a compass what direction they are heading in and they answer an inch, you are clearly dealing with an idiot.
You want me too look up the word arcsecond in a dictionary for you and tell you what it says? Anything else you'd like me to look up while I'm about it?
Just tell me what the arc seconds are doing for your distance and size calculations.
Well if you grab a calculator and follow the instructions given to you many times, you'll find out, won't you, you won't need me to answer your question.
As I've already explained to you, I did a year of an undergraduate astronomy course. My recollection is that we measured the parallax of at least one star. Can't remember which one(s), can't remember the results, but, having done it, I know it can be done, I know how it can be done and I know the angles are very small and therefore accurate measurement requires good equipment - we had the use of what was and still is one of the largest optical telescopes in the world, a multi-million £/$ piece of kit.
Apparently some geezer did it in BC and was close to being accurate by you people. So, did he have a top of the range telescope?
You have no real clue...do you?
Yeah you can map points of light as they move around....but you do not know the distances or sizes. It's all regurgitation from the plate you ate it off, back onto that plate for all to see.
Hardly. I've worked out the maths for myself, presented it to you, with diagrams. I've previously used telescopes to collect my own data, made the measurements and worked out the results.
The method, the maths and the process works exactly the same for a ball in a field or a star in the sky. It's very, very simple trigonometry, it works on any scale you like from nanometres to light years.
I'm quite happy to accept an angle measured by someone else, using the very same techniques I'm familiar with. You have a choice, either accept someone else's figures or go do the measurements yourself.
This is what it boils down to.
It's the person behind the curtain.
You're quite happy to be told it's a witch who casts spells if you go too close, because that's the word on the street.
So let's say, back in the day, maybe I calculated for myself the parallax angle for some star or other, using this method. Having done this, I'm comfortable with the method, the results match up with other peoples results. If I want a parallax angle for another star, I can a) go through a really tedious exercise to work it out for myself or b) find a source I trust and use their value. Well guess what, option b is fine by me.
Now, on the other hand, if, back in the day, I'd calculated my parallax angle and it did not match up with other people's results, then I have a problem. If I trust myself, then other people are lying about this for some reason and I shouldn't trust them. But since my results matched theirs, they have proved themselves reliable, so I'll allow myself to trust them.
If I employ someone to do a job, I'll keep a close eye on them. If they are reliable and trustworthy, I'll use them again and just let them get on with it. It must be exhausting being you because no matter how reliable something or someone is demonstrated to be, you still won't trust them will you.
Don't give me any plugged in numbers you rely on that you cannot verify, from mainstream.
I want it all from you.
And I want you to go away, plug some numbers I've already given you into a calculator, using the equation I've given you and tell me once and for all, what answer you get. I have a feeling that neither of us is going to get what we want here, what do you think?
I don't think I'll get what I want because you have no means to give it.
Well I could try and dig out my old astronomy notes from years ago (assuming I still have them somewhere) and tell you the the parallax angle for the star I measured, but I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me anyway, so there's really no point looking is there?
Meanwhile, you could actually give me what I've asked for, so what's stopping you. 5 minutes of your time with a calculator is all it would take after all.
-
You cannot prove gravity exists.
We'll come to that. Before we do though if nothing is stopping you (you said it) then why aren't you pointing me to explanations for your alternative Earth theory? Shouldn't be too hard for you unless they don't actually exist. I cannot give any consideration about an alternative theory unless I know something about it can I.
You seem to blatantly refuse to accept anything about conventional Earth theory is true so what is your version? How many times do I (and the others here) have to ask?
There are many things that I know you can't prove exists but it doesn't seem to stop you believing them.
Since posting the above I have gone back to the start of all this and to your first post. Included within that was the following:
"There is absolutely nothing Rational about the existence of a rotating globe. Nothing.....other than story telling and magical mysterious equations/composites and CGI that nobody has a clue about in reality, other than to parrot them."
OK lets just take that first sentence. You say there is nothing rational about the existence of a rotating globe?
Really? Seems perfectly rational to me. In fact every observation that we can make in reality can be explained very rationally and very simply and easily if we consider the existence of a rotating globe. The rising and setting of the Sun, Moon and stars, the rotation of the stars around the north and south celestial poles and the variation of the altitude of the NCP and SCP with the observers location.
How can you prove that the Earth is not rotating? I know you don't believe it is but how can you prove it? Quite simply, prove it to me and I will believe it. But then as you yourself said, it all depends on what you accept as evidence doesn't it.
As for the rest;
".....other than story telling and magical mysterious equations/composites and CGI that nobody has a clue about in reality, other than to parrot them"
Well none of that represents anything other than just your opinion so it doesn't qualify as evidence.. You don't need CGI to go outside and see simple, real observations for yourself. So if anyone around here has not got a clue then it is you.
-
You also sometimes need equations to be able to tell between models.
For example, if you claim that a RE would have the horizon below level, while it would be level for a FE, then you can dismiss the FE because the horizon is observed significantly below level (i.e. the error range does not include level), but you cannot dismiss the RE due to the horizon being roughly level without the equations which show the horizon for a RE should be lower than the error bounds. This is because an angle of depression of 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 degrees is still below level, but it would be basically indistinguishable from level.
No need for equations.
Level is level.
Horizon is horizontally, level.
Your globe would have none of these features.
I literally just explained why you need equations.
Yes, level is level, but any measurement you ever make will have an error associated with it.
Is that "level" horizon actually level? Or is it 0.00000000000000000001 degrees below, or 0.00000000000000001 degree above, or 5 degrees below?
If it is actually 5 degrees below, then even though you can't tell that it isn't level, it is still below level.
And it doesn't matter how much you try to refine your measurement, there will always be some error.
That means you are never able to honestly say that the horizon is perfectly level.
This means you are never able to honestly exclude the possibility that the horizon is actually below level.
That means without the math/equations you are never able to honestly exclude the possibility that Earth is round.
For some actual numbers (the things you hate because they so easily show you to be wrong):
Lets say you measure the angle of the horizon, and find it to be level but with an error of 1 degree, i.e. you know it is roughly level, and that its position is somewhere in the range of 1 degree below level to 1 degree above level.
Does this rule out the possibility of a round Earth? NO! that is because the error range includes below level.
So instead you need an equation to determine where the horizon should be on a round Earth.
This equation is quite simple. If you are measuring the angle from level downwards, it is acos(r/(r+h)).
So putting in r=6371 km and h=2 m, you end up with 2.7 arc minutes. This is well within the range and thus you cannot exclude Earth being round. This observation of an apparently level horizon is consistent with both a RE and your claims of a FE.
Even if you move up to 1 km, this angle is now 1 degree, right on the edge of uncertainty and thus you still can't tell.
But if you move up to 2 km, the angle is now 1.4 degrees. This would place it outside the region of uncertainty and thus if you went to an altitude of 2 km and measured the horizon to be within 1 degree of level (i.e. your error range was from -1 degree to +1 degree) then you could rule out a RE.
This is why if you want to do it honestly and rationally, equations are crucial. The only way to do this without equations is to show that the horizon should be below level for a RE, but is observed to be above level (such that the error range does not include below level at all).
No matter how hard you try to dress it up, you would never have a sky to water horizon line.....ever, on your supposed globe.
Why not? So far all you have done is repeatedly assert this blatant lie with absolutely nothing to back it up, with continued avoidance of a simple line of inquiry which shows you to be wrong.
You have already admitted that looking down you see ground. Presumable if you were over water (or near it) you would see water.
This is why I have repeatedly grouped together ground, land, sea & water. They all roughy follow Earth's surface.
You have also admitted that if you look up, you see sky.
That means there must be some transition between land/sea and sky.
Yet you continually refuse to explain what this transition would look like.
Most likely because you know that it will show you to be wrong.
So I will ask once more:
WHAT DOES THIS TRANSITION LOOK LIKE?
Do you agree that it will appear as a line, below which you will see land/sea and above which you will see sky?
If so, THAT IS A HORIZON! DO YOU ACCEPT THAT?
If you think it won't look like that, then tell me what you think it will look like.
It depends on what you accept as evidence. I've stated what I believe it to be. You cannot prove gravity exists.
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence, and there is plenty of evidence showing gravity is real.
And all you have done to counter it is just dismiss all that evidence, claim indoctrination, provide a complete failure of a model to replace which does not work at all and instead contradicts itself and simple observations and make no sense at all in the first place and is backed up by no evidence at all, all while avoiding all the issues with this model of yours which show it simple does not work and repeatedly refusing to provide any explanation of how it works except extremely basic ones which directly contradict your model and do not address the issue raised.
Science is not where you completely discard all the work of those who come before you and start again from scratch.
If you tried doing that, you would spend your entire life collecting the evidence, and still not manage to get to where science is before you die.
If you honestly think something is wrong, then test it yourself and see what happens. Don't just discard it all and demand others waste their entire life obtaining evidence just for you to dismiss it.
-
Things that Scepti doesn't understand:
Reality.
-
Scepti seems to think that he is in charge of nature and can define the rules of nature to suit his beliefs. He doesn't believe in gravity so that automatically provides proof that gravity doesn't exist. He doesn't believe that the Earth is a globe so that proves the Earth is not a globe. No further questions your honour.
So the word reality is defined by whether Scepti believes in it or not. Scepti doesn't believe gravity exists so therefore it doesn't. In that case I am wasting my time at the moment reading up about how gravity is the driving force behind the birth of and evolution of stars. Because according to Scepti gravity doesn't exist. If I were to present that proposal to the university professor who wrote my course notes I wonder what his reaction would be. I won't of course because I value my place on the course and I don't want to be expelled from it for presenting ridiculous and non-sensical suggestions.
But wow.. just imagine what it would be like if Sceptis beliefs were actually true! Fortunately for the rest of us such a reality exists only in his head.
-
So what you are saying is that you're fine with commercial air travel even though it is completely and utterly wrongfully engineered, maintained, navigated, and piloted all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
You're ok that all of it is completely wrong yet somehow still works pretty seamlessly? That all involved are haphazardly relying on a model of earth that doesn't exist and somehow people get where they need to go, when they need to get there, and planes aren't dropping out of the skies en masse? How could this even work? How do you reconcile that?
I'm absolutely fine with it because it works how I expect it to work.
It work by skimming the atmospheric stacking system.
It's engineered fine.
Even though it's all not designed/engineered to be simply skimming the atmospheric stacking system? What about instrumentation that doesn't follow your system? What about navigation that doesn't follow your system?
You have no clue what it follows. You're just following what you're told, if you're willing to admit it..
-
You asked how you measure the angle between two lights in the sky. Your question has been answered. Angles aren't measured in inches. If you ask someone with a compass what direction they are heading in and they answer an inch, you are clearly dealing with an idiot.
Well you started with your arms out and fingers, so you placed one finger of one hand onto one point of light and the other finger of the other hand onto another point of light. Then you said the distance between the fingers.
I mentioned inches to each finger...so tell me how it all works.
You want me too look up the word arcsecond in a dictionary for you and tell you what it says? Anything else you'd like me to look up while I'm about it?
Just tell me what the arc seconds are doing for your distance and size calculations.
Well if you grab a calculator and follow the instructions given to you many times, you'll find out, won't you, you won't need me to answer your question.
Nobody's forcing you to answer. If you feel you can't then fair enough.
Hardly. I've worked out the maths for myself, presented it to you, with diagrams. I've previously used telescopes to collect my own data, made the measurements and worked out the results.
The method, the maths and the process works exactly the same for a ball in a field or a star in the sky. It's very, very simple trigonometry, it works on any scale you like from nanometres to light years.
I don't think so.
I'm quite happy to accept an angle measured by someone else, using the very same techniques I'm familiar with. You have a choice, either accept someone else's figures or go do the measurements yourself.
This is what it boils down to.
It's the person behind the curtain.
You're quite happy to be told it's a witch who casts spells if you go too close, because that's the word on the street.
So let's say, back in the day, maybe I calculated for myself the parallax angle for some star or other, using this method. Having done this, I'm comfortable with the method, the results match up with other peoples results. If I want a parallax angle for another star, I can a) go through a really tedious exercise to work it out for myself or b) find a source I trust and use their value. Well guess what, option b is fine by me.
Course it would be. You adhere to mainstream views and peer pressure, so I'd expect that.
Now, on the other hand, if, back in the day, I'd calculated my parallax angle and it did not match up with other people's results, then I have a problem. If I trust myself, then other people are lying about this for some reason and I shouldn't trust them. But since my results matched theirs, they have proved themselves reliable, so I'll allow myself to trust them.
So go back to the day and calculate it and show me simply.
If I employ someone to do a job, I'll keep a close eye on them. If they are reliable and trustworthy, I'll use them again and just let them get on with it. It must be exhausting being you because no matter how reliable something or someone is demonstrated to be, you still won't trust them will you.
I'll trust anyone that does a decent job. But then again, what I'm arguing about has no proof of reality from people like yourself...and you know this.
Well I could try and dig out my old astronomy notes from years ago (assuming I still have them somewhere) and tell you the the parallax angle for the star I measured, but I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me anyway, so there's really no point looking is there?
That's up to you.
Meanwhile, you could actually give me what I've asked for, so what's stopping you. 5 minutes of your time with a calculator is all it would take after all.
I have a calculator so what am I calculating from realism. I don't just want rigged up numbers, I want real numbers for real sizes and real distances.
-
You asked how you measure the angle between two lights in the sky. Your question has been answered. Angles aren't measured in inches. If you ask someone with a compass what direction they are heading in and they answer an inch, you are clearly dealing with an idiot.
Well you started with your arms out and fingers, so you placed one finger of one hand onto one point of light and the other finger of the other hand onto another point of light. Then you said the distance between the fingers.
I mentioned inches to each finger...so tell me how it all works.
No, I think you'll find if you read it back, I said angle, not distance.
You want me too look up the word arcsecond in a dictionary for you and tell you what it says? Anything else you'd like me to look up while I'm about it?
Just tell me what the arc seconds are doing for your distance and size calculations.
Well if you grab a calculator and follow the instructions given to you many times, you'll find out, won't you, you won't need me to answer your question.
Nobody's forcing you to answer. If you feel you can't then fair enough.
Well here's the thing. You pretty much ignore every answer I give you and just ask another question. Whenever I ask you a question, you fail to answer it, so to get us out of this impasse, I'm suggesting you just follow the simple to follow instructions and if you get a sensible answer, then you can see how the method works for yourself and further explanation from me is unnecessary.
Hardly. I've worked out the maths for myself, presented it to you, with diagrams. I've previously used telescopes to collect my own data, made the measurements and worked out the results.
The method, the maths and the process works exactly the same for a ball in a field or a star in the sky. It's very, very simple trigonometry, it works on any scale you like from nanometres to light years.
I don't think so.
Ah, so trigonometry fails at a certain scale? Just another meaningless claim, or for once perhaps you might have some evidence to back this up?
You do understand I take it that for any triangle, if you know two angles and any one side, then you can trivially calculate the remaining angles or sides. I mean, you do know that right?
I'm quite happy to accept an angle measured by someone else, using the very same techniques I'm familiar with. You have a choice, either accept someone else's figures or go do the measurements yourself.
This is what it boils down to.
It's the person behind the curtain.
You're quite happy to be told it's a witch who casts spells if you go too close, because that's the word on the street.
So let's say, back in the day, maybe I calculated for myself the parallax angle for some star or other, using this method. Having done this, I'm comfortable with the method, the results match up with other peoples results. If I want a parallax angle for another star, I can a) go through a really tedious exercise to work it out for myself or b) find a source I trust and use their value. Well guess what, option b is fine by me.
Course it would be. You adhere to mainstream views and peer pressure, so I'd expect that.
Now, on the other hand, if, back in the day, I'd calculated my parallax angle and it did not match up with other people's results, then I have a problem. If I trust myself, then other people are lying about this for some reason and I shouldn't trust them. But since my results matched theirs, they have proved themselves reliable, so I'll allow myself to trust them.
So go back to the day and calculate it and show me simply.
Done that, you're not listening very well though.
If I employ someone to do a job, I'll keep a close eye on them. If they are reliable and trustworthy, I'll use them again and just let them get on with it. It must be exhausting being you because no matter how reliable something or someone is demonstrated to be, you still won't trust them will you.
I'll trust anyone that does a decent job. But then again, what I'm arguing about has no proof of reality from people like yourself...and you know this.
Well I could try and dig out my old astronomy notes from years ago (assuming I still have them somewhere) and tell you the the parallax angle for the star I measured, but I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me anyway, so there's really no point looking is there?
That's up to you.
Meanwhile, you could actually give me what I've asked for, so what's stopping you. 5 minutes of your time with a calculator is all it would take after all.
I have a calculator so what am I calculating from realism. I don't just want rigged up numbers, I want real numbers for real sizes and real distances.
-
The original purpose of this discussion seems to have been lost a long time ago. It has descended into the usual who can outwit who most competition now which to me is a waste of time. So no more contributions from me in this one.
-
You cannot prove gravity exists.
We'll come to that. Before we do though if nothing is stopping you (you said it) then why aren't you pointing me to explanations for your alternative Earth theory? Shouldn't be too hard for you unless they don't actually exist. I cannot give any consideration about an alternative theory unless I know something about it can I.
You seem to blatantly refuse to accept anything about conventional Earth theory is true so what is your version? How many times do I (and the others here) have to ask?
rvlvr will help you out. I'm fairly sure it was him? that asked me and I provided him? with the thread.
There are many things that I know you can't prove exists but it doesn't seem to stop you believing them.
I believe they are closer to the truth, not necessarily the truth. A big difference.
Since posting the above I have gone back to the start of all this and to your first post. Included within that was the following:
"There is absolutely nothing Rational about the existence of a rotating globe. Nothing.....other than story telling and magical mysterious equations/composites and CGI that nobody has a clue about in reality, other than to parrot them."
OK lets just take that first sentence. You say there is nothing rational about the existence of a rotating globe?
Really? Seems perfectly rational to me. In fact every observation that we can make in reality can be explained very rationally and very simply and easily if we consider the existence of a rotating globe. The rising and setting of the Sun, Moon and stars, the rotation of the stars around the north and south celestial poles and the variation of the altitude of the NCP and SCP with the observers location.
It only seems rational to you because your mind has been trained to accept that, all your life. Mass indoctrination.
The truth is, you have no clue what the reality is.
How can you prove that the Earth is not rotating? I know you don't believe it is but how can you prove it? Quite simply, prove it to me and I will believe it. But then as you yourself said, it all depends on what you accept as evidence doesn't it.
You are welcome to believe your Earth rotates as a globe for the rest of your life. It means nothing to me if you do that. It's your choice.
I'm not here to convince you of anything.
It's up to you if you feel you want to question your indoctrinated belief system. You're here for a reason and that surely cannot be to just tell flat Earth theorists they're wrong for thousands and thousands of posts over years.
You must have some curiosity....surely.
As for the rest;
".....other than story telling and magical mysterious equations/composites and CGI that nobody has a clue about in reality, other than to parrot them"
Well none of that represents anything other than just your opinion so it doesn't qualify as evidence..
Of course it's my opinion. I'm not handing out anything as factual for the masses.
You don't need CGI to go outside and see simple, real observations for yourself.
Correct, you don't. I see enough to tell me that Earth is not a rotating globe.
So if anyone around here has not got a clue then it is you.
And that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
-
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence, and there is plenty of evidence showing gravity is real.
Does evidence lead to proof?
-
I believe they are closer to the truth, not necessarily the truth. A big difference.
Closer to which truth?
-
Ah, so trigonometry fails at a certain scale? Just another meaningless claim, or for once perhaps you might have some evidence to back this up?
You do understand I take it that for any triangle, if you know two angles and any one side, then you can trivially calculate the remaining angles or sides. I mean, you do know that right?
Two angles and any one side.
Explain that from two points of lights with your outstretched arms and fingers, as you said.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
-
The original purpose of this discussion seems to have been lost a long time ago. It has descended into the usual who can outwit who most competition now which to me is a waste of time. So no more contributions from me in this one.
I recall you saying that last time.
-
I believe they are closer to the truth, not necessarily the truth. A big difference.
Closer to which truth?
Closer to the truth than the absolute nonsense we are given about a global Earth.
-
What makes you say it is 'absolute nonsense'?
I recall you saying that last time.
Gosh.. you're right.. first time in the entire discussion!
-
So what you are saying is that you're fine with commercial air travel even though it is completely and utterly wrongfully engineered, maintained, navigated, and piloted all based solely on a Globe earth and gravity?
You're ok that all of it is completely wrong yet somehow still works pretty seamlessly? That all involved are haphazardly relying on a model of earth that doesn't exist and somehow people get where they need to go, when they need to get there, and planes aren't dropping out of the skies en masse? How could this even work? How do you reconcile that?
I'm absolutely fine with it because it works how I expect it to work.
It work by skimming the atmospheric stacking system.
It's engineered fine.
Even though it's all not designed/engineered to be simply skimming the atmospheric stacking system? What about instrumentation that doesn't follow your system? What about navigation that doesn't follow your system?
You have no clue what it follows. You're just following what you're told, if you're willing to admit it..
Are you meaning to say that all the engineers, maintenance, FAA/Navigation, & Pilots have no clue what any of it follows too? That they are all just following what they're told and are not willing to admit it?
-
Does evidence lead to proof?
No.
It can lead to a disproof, but it doesn't lead to proof.
And I see yet more avoidance of a very simple line of inquiry.
The only reason for you to avoid it so much is if you know it shows you are wrong, if you know you are wrong.
So why not just admit that your prior claim was pure garbage? Why don't you admit that a RE would have a horizon, that it would be approximately level, and thus what you claim would change your mind is not what is expected for a RE, and thus it is nothing more than a strawman?
IF that isn't the case, then why not follow through this extremely simple line of inquiry?
Once more, you have already admitted that looking down you see ground. Presumable if you were over water (or near it) you would see water.
This is why I have repeatedly grouped together ground, land, sea & water. They all roughy follow Earth's surface.
You have also admitted that if you look up, you see sky.
That means there must be some transition between land/sea and sky.
Yet you continually refuse to explain what this transition would look like.
Most likely because you know that it will show you to be wrong.
So I will ask once more:
WHAT DOES THIS TRANSITION LOOK LIKE?
Do you agree that it will appear as a line, below which you will see land/sea and above which you will see sky?
If so, THAT IS A HORIZON! DO YOU ACCEPT THAT?
If you think it won't look like that, then tell me what you think it will look like.
Hardly. I've worked out the maths for myself, presented it to you, with diagrams. I've previously used telescopes to collect my own data, made the measurements and worked out the results.
The method, the maths and the process works exactly the same for a ball in a field or a star in the sky. It's very, very simple trigonometry, it works on any scale you like from nanometres to light years.
I don't think so.
And you think wrong.
If you honestly think it magically stops working at large distances, explain why.
I'll trust anyone that does a decent job.
You mean you will trust anyone that agrees with you, otherwise you will dismiss their claims as lies/cgi/brainwashing/indoctrination.
You ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It only seems rational to you because your mind has been trained to accept that, all your life. Mass indoctrination.
The truth is, you have no clue what the reality is.
Wrong again.
The truth is we have a fairly good idea of what reality is, of what shape Earth is, due to the abundant evidence, including evidence provided by others and evidence we can/have obtain(ed) ourselves.
Earth being round and rotating explains observations and is supported by evidence.
That is why it seems rational to us.
The only reason it seems irrational to you is because you have an irrational hatred of it. Who knows why.
So if any of us have no clue what reality is, that would be you, where an example is your pathetic strawman of what you would expect on a RE, a strawman you are yet to justify in any rational way and which you continually avoid the refutation of.
Of course it's my opinion. I'm not handing out anything as factual for the masses.
You are claiming people have no clue about reality. That is a false statement that you are handing out as fact.
You are claiming that on a RE you should see nothing but sky. That is a false statement that you are handing out as a fact.
You are not merely presenting things as your opinion.
I see enough to tell me that Earth is not a rotating globe.
Yet other than your strawmen that in no way indicate what you should expect for a rotating globe you are unable to provide a single thing to support that.
Just what do you see that tells you Earth is not a rotating globe?
Is it the horizon, which is imperceptibly below level until you use a high precision instrument or get up high enough, at which point it is clearly observed to be below level, just like you would expect for a RE?
Is it the mere existence of the horizon, something the FE cannot explain?
Is it how level water, below both the observer and a distant object appear to obscure the distant object (or lower part of it) from the observer, requiring the water to curve?
Is it how all the stars appear to circle us, in a way which makes the most sense if Earth is the one rotating to cause the constant apparent angular motion for all the stars of ~15 degrees per hour about an axis Earth rotates on? With this same rotation being measurable by using Foucault's pendulum or a laser ring interferometer?
Is it how the stars appear to circle not one, but 2 points around Earth, with these points always 180 degrees apart, and these 2 points can be circled on Earth (i.e. you can travel around Earth getting back to your starting point while having the point in question remain on the same side of you), physically impossible on a FE?
All of these indicates Earth is round.
I have seen nothing that casts any doubt on Earth being round or rotating.
So if anyone around here has not got a clue then it is you.
And that is not merely my opinion.
Either you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are intentionally lying to us.
Closer to the truth than the absolute nonsense we are given about a global Earth.
You mean closer to your pure fantasy than the rational statements we are given about a real global Earth?
Once more, you have provided no evidence to support your wild ideas, which have been refuted countless times, and have provided nothing which withstands even slight rational scrutiny to say Earth isn't round.
So far all we have to indicate it is nonsense is your repeated assertions which are entirely worthless.
Meanwhile, there is an extremely large abundance of evidence showing that Earth is round, that the global Earth is not nonsense at all.
Why should we believe your baseless assertions over all the available evidence?
-
Ok so lets consider a scenario. I head over to my local park where I have a decent open view in all directions. I don' have a telescope or binoculars and will rely purely on what I can see with my own eyes.
I stay there for 24 hours and observe. I have two possible conclusions to consider. 1 that I live on a globe which rotates once each 24 hours and 2 that I live on a stationary flat Earth. What observations will I make from my local park which will lead me, after 24 hours, to reach the definitive conclusion that I live on a motionless flat Earth and that it is 'absolute nonsense' to think that I live on a globe which rotates once every 24 hours?
What could be true and what could not possibly be true based only on what I observe?
You have also admitted that if you look up, you see sky.
That means there must be some transition between land/sea and sky.
Yet you continually refuse to explain what this transition would look like.
Most likely because you know that it will show you to be wrong.
Makes me wonder. Does Scepti have some sort of vision impairment which prevents him from seeing basic things like the horizon - i.e. the boundary between the ground in the distance and the sky?
I just Googled 'horizon' and found (among many others) this image which I chose at random and to my mind is exactly what JB is on about yet Scepti seems to find reason to deny is true.
https://paulterrysutton.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/positioning-the-horizon-5.jpg
-
Ah, so trigonometry fails at a certain scale? Just another meaningless claim, or for once perhaps you might have some evidence to back this up?
You do understand I take it that for any triangle, if you know two angles and any one side, then you can trivially calculate the remaining angles or sides. I mean, you do know that right?
Two angles and any one side.
Explain that from two points of lights with your outstretched arms and fingers, as you said.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
OK, nice and simple it is. So let's do it in simple steps, one at a time. Here's the first step. This is a triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
So we have two unknown angles, A & B and 3 unknown sides a, b, c. This happens to be a right angled triangle, so we know C is 90°.
To unlock the entire triangle we need to know two angles and the length of any one side. So let's measure angle B and measure side b as well. Now we know B, C and b and from that, I make the following claim: we can easily calculate the remaining angle and the remaining 2 sides.
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
Once we get past this step, we can move on.
-
Are you meaning to say that all the engineers, maintenance, FAA/Navigation, & Pilots have no clue what any of it follows too? That they are all just following what they're told and are not willing to admit it?
Nope. It's fooling you lot so why can't it fool those who engineer?
They don't use gravity, so why would they need to admit anything?
They use the atmosphere for everything...not fictional gravity.
-
It strikes me that the ratio of FE/RE in this discussion at the moment is 1/several. Is no one else on the FE side going to support Scepti here? Or is he really in a minority of one when it comes to whatever he believes in as appears to be the case?
Because one person can believe whatever they want to. However there is a big difference (another phrase Scepti has used before now) between believing in something just because that's what you want to believe and evidence based belief. It all comes down to what you personally are willing to accept as evidence. No one can change that so if someone has got their mind fixed towards a particular point of view then that is sometime that no one is going to change no matter what. End of.
Scepti believes the Earth is flat because that's his choice and he has his own reasons for making that choice. A choice that I respect. But I don't think that qualifies as an excuse to describe any other path of belief as 'absolute nonsense'.
-
Nope. It's fooling you lot so why can't it fool those who engineer?
Really?
It doesn't seem to be fooling us. It just seems that you reject it.
They don't use gravity, so why would they need to admit anything?
They use the atmosphere for everything...not fictional gravity.
No, they use gravity, as unlike your nonsense, it actually works to explain why things fall.
But you are also ignoring what else they follow, especially the pilots, who follow flight paths based upon a round Earth. If Earth was actually flat so many planes would be lost it isn't funny.
And yet again you refuse to follow an extremely simple line of inquiry that conclusively shows you to be wrong.
Again, if it is so damning to your position, why not just admit your position is wrong?
Repeatedly ignoring it won't help your case, it will just further show you have no case and have no interest in the truth at all.
Yet again, you have already admitted that looking down you see ground. Presumable if you were over water (or near it) you would see water.
This is why I have repeatedly grouped together ground, land, sea & water. They all roughy follow Earth's surface.
You have also admitted that if you look up, you see sky.
That means there must be some transition between land/sea and sky.
Yet you continually refuse to explain what this transition would look like.
Most likely because you know that it will show you to be wrong.
So I will ask once more:
WHAT DOES THIS TRANSITION LOOK LIKE?
Do you agree that it will appear as a line, below which you will see land/sea and above which you will see sky?
If so, THAT IS A HORIZON! DO YOU ACCEPT THAT?
If you think it won't look like that, then tell me what you think it will look like.
-
The Eratosthenes experiment.
Thanks to Aristarchus in 250BC, Eratosthenes accepted the sun was very far away, and far enough away that the sun's rays come in parallel at the one spot.
Two sticks:
One stick placed in the ground precisely vertical at Syene, at noon, on June 21 - the summer solstice. The second stick placed in the ground precisely vertical at Alexandria at the same time.
Who placed the other stick?
The stick at Syene should cast no shadow, while the stick at Alexandria should cast a shadow measuring 7 degrees. This will mean the distance between the two cities will be 7 degrees of the circumference of the earth.
Circumference does not just mean global. A circle of Earth.
Eratosthenes hired a man to pace the difference between the two cities, and found them to be about 800 kilometers apart. From that, Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the earth to be about 40,000 kilometres. This experiment is based on the sun's rays coming in at the same angle at the same time of day.
Compass?
Straight path for the 800km?
How did he set up this?
Did he phone someone up to place the stick.
Tell me about it.
Sceptimatic, how does it feel to be beaten by two lousy sticks and simple mathematics, way back in 240BC? ;D
Two sticks actually proves a flat Earth, to be fair.
But, I have total faith :o you already know the alternate flat earth explanation tucked up your 2 sizes too small NASA lies shirt sleeve.
Let's see - will it be the sun is only 3,218 kilometres above the flat earth surface instead of 150 million kilometers away?
I don't know how big the reflection is, or how high that reflection is inside the dome.
What I do know, is.......it's not 800,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles away.
I don't think it is very large or distant.
This means the sun's rays won't come in parallel at two places 800 kilometers apart on a flat surface, which will account for the 7.2 degree shadow difference. Yes?
To be fair you'd never ever ever get anything parallel on a globe and also you would see one side saturation of a globe facing that sun if it was as big as we are told. It's utter nonsense and people should really see it for that.
Ofcourse, if the sun were really that close, it's rays could be measured to not be parallel at the one spot, right?
If it were close and hitting a sort of circle of a flattish Earth, then I'd full expect parallel .
Also, if the sun were really that close and high in the sky, not only should the size of this flat earth sun be measurable, but increased distance from this sun, should decrease its size, to the viewer, yes?
I think that all depends on the atmosphere and viewpoint of where it's observed by whoever, at wherever.
Atmospheric magnification may account for increase in sun size at sunset or sunrise, but not for high in the sky at the same time.
High in the sky means much less atmospheric distortion, so naturally we'd see size changes and colour changes compared to sun moving over the dome angled away from an observer.
Do you agree, Sceptimatic, or do your eyes work differently to every other humans eyes on the planet?
I disagree with everything you said.
Sorry, sceptimatic. I set you up there. All you had to say was you didn't believe Aristarchus explanation for the sun being very far away, instead of tediously breaking apart my post, piece by piece.
That said, you can't mark a random line inside a circle and use that to establish the circumference of that circle, Sceptimatic. Where you screwed the pooch big time though, is the sun's rays are always parallel.
On your close and tiny sun model on a flat earth, whether your flat earth sun is a lamp in the sky shining down, or a ball hanging there from your dome by some fishing line, the light it emits is enough to illuminate half the planet's flat or curved surface. That light has to radiate and flare. Not only that. That light also contains heat. On your flat earth, heat must increase exponentially, the closer you approach your weird little super intense sun in the atmosphere. If what your saying is true, all planes would melt and fall out of the sky.
-
Does evidence lead to proof?
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence, and there is plenty of evidence showing gravity is real.
And then you go on to say this.
No.
It can lead to a disproof, but it doesn't lead to proof.
Makes no sense at all if you want your gravity to be real proof.
Unless you simply accept that gravity has no real proof.
-
Ok so lets consider a scenario. I head over to my local park where I have a decent open view in all directions. I don' have a telescope or binoculars and will rely purely on what I can see with my own eyes.
I stay there for 24 hours and observe. I have two possible conclusions to consider. 1 that I live on a globe which rotates once each 24 hours and 2 that I live on a stationary flat Earth. What observations will I make from my local park which will lead me, after 24 hours, to reach the definitive conclusion that I live on a motionless flat Earth and that it is 'absolute nonsense' to think that I live on a globe which rotates once every 24 hours?
What could be true and what could not possibly be true based only on what I observe?
You have also admitted that if you look up, you see sky.
That means there must be some transition between land/sea and sky.
Yet you continually refuse to explain what this transition would look like.
Most likely because you know that it will show you to be wrong.
Makes me wonder. Does Scepti have some sort of vision impairment which prevents him from seeing basic things like the horizon - i.e. the boundary between the ground in the distance and the sky?
I just Googled 'horizon' and found (among many others) this image which I chose at random and to my mind is exactly what JB is on about yet Scepti seems to find reason to deny is true.
https://paulterrysutton.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/positioning-the-horizon-5.jpg
Where is your horizon?
Go and find one with sea and sky. A proper horizon line.
-
Ah, so trigonometry fails at a certain scale? Just another meaningless claim, or for once perhaps you might have some evidence to back this up?
You do understand I take it that for any triangle, if you know two angles and any one side, then you can trivially calculate the remaining angles or sides. I mean, you do know that right?
Two angles and any one side.
Explain that from two points of lights with your outstretched arms and fingers, as you said.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
OK, nice and simple it is. So let's do it in simple steps, one at a time. Here's the first step. This is a triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
So we have two unknown angles, A & B and 3 unknown sides a, b, c. This happens to be a right angled triangle, so we know C is 90°.
To unlock the entire triangle we need to know two angles and the length of any one side. So let's measure angle B and measure side b as well. Now we know B, C and b and from that, I make the following claim: we can easily calculate the remaining angle and the remaining 2 sides.
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
Once we get past this step, we can move on.
Make your picture a lot smaller. It's far too big.
-
Sorry, sceptimatic. I set you up there. All you had to say was you didn't believe Aristarchus explanation for the sun being very far away, instead of tediously breaking apart my post, piece by piece.
That said, you can't mark a random line inside a circle and use that to establish the circumference of that circle, Sceptimatic. Where you screwed the pooch big time though, is the sun's rays are always parallel.
Parallel to, what?
On your close and tiny sun model on a flat earth, whether your flat earth sun is a lamp in the sky shining down, or a ball hanging there from your dome by some fishing line, the light it emits is enough to illuminate half the planet's flat or curved surface. That light has to radiate and flare. Not only that. That light also contains heat. On your flat earth, heat must increase exponentially, the closer you approach your weird little super intense sun in the atmosphere. If what your saying is true, all planes would melt and fall out of the sky.
Maybe you should pay attention to my theory if you want to come up with stuff like this.
-
Ah, so trigonometry fails at a certain scale? Just another meaningless claim, or for once perhaps you might have some evidence to back this up?
You do understand I take it that for any triangle, if you know two angles and any one side, then you can trivially calculate the remaining angles or sides. I mean, you do know that right?
Two angles and any one side.
Explain that from two points of lights with your outstretched arms and fingers, as you said.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
OK, nice and simple it is. So let's do it in simple steps, one at a time. Here's the first step. This is a triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
So we have two unknown angles, A & B and 3 unknown sides a, b, c. This happens to be a right angled triangle, so we know C is 90°.
To unlock the entire triangle we need to know two angles and the length of any one side. So let's measure angle B and measure side b as well. Now we know B, C and b and from that, I make the following claim: we can easily calculate the remaining angle and the remaining 2 sides.
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
Once we get past this step, we can move on.
Make your picture a lot smaller. It's far too big.
(https://i.imgur.com/4rgMaHW.png)
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
Just tell me when to stop
(https://i.imgur.com/4rgMaHW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/AwJpShC.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/qaXYP1W.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bUMHpKD.png)
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
-
How is that not spamming worthless content?
-
Go and find one with sea and sky. A proper horizon line.
You mean like this one?
http://www.freeimageslive.com/galleries/sports/relaxation/pics/distant_ocean_horizon.jpg
or this video
https://videohive.net/item/blue-sea-or-ocean-horizon/5401826
or this
https://piebgd.com/files/original/2_IMG_1699.JPG
or this
https://www.marsdens.co.uk/devon-cottages/north-devon-coast-cottages/ilfracombe/horiz1-horizons
etc etc..
And yes before you point it out I will do it for you. The horizon does look flat. No curvature at all. Does that prove that the whole Earth is flat? Absolutely not.
In all photos the boundary line between the sea and the sky seems obvious enough to me. We call this bounday line the horizon. Pretty clear and distinct.
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Well I don't know what anybody else can see, but it all looks fine to me on phone and computer screen, but rather than waste any more of anyone's time, grab a piece of paper. Draw a horizontal line somewhere near the bottom. On the left hand end, write "A" and on the right hand end write "C". In the middle of the line write "b". Now starting at the right hand end, draw a vertical line upwards. Label the top "B". Half way up this line, write "a". Join the top of this vertical line to the left hand end of of the horizontal line to make a hypotenuse line and half way along write "c".
B
+
/|
/ |
/ |
c / |
/ |a
/ |
/ |
/ |
A +--------+ C
b
-
Sceptimatic is just being FE clever.
-
Does evidence lead to proof?
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence, and there is plenty of evidence showing gravity is real.
And then you go on to say this.
No.
It can lead to a disproof, but it doesn't lead to proof.
Makes no sense at all if you want your gravity to be real proof.
Unless you simply accept that gravity has no real proof.
And more pathetic deflection.
Is your outright lie really such an obvious lie that you cannot follow a simple line of inquiry to show it is wrong?
Are you really that dishonest that you will not admit it is wrong or go down this path of inquiry?
Every time you avoid you are just demonstrating to everyone that you know what you spout is pure BS and that you have no concern for the truth at all.
Again, you have already admitted that looking down you see ground. Presumable if you were over water (or near it) you would see water.
This is why I have repeatedly grouped together ground, land, sea & water. They all roughy follow Earth's surface.
You have also admitted that if you look up, you see sky.
That means there must be some transition between land/sea and sky.
Yet you continually refuse to explain what this transition would look like.
Most likely because you know that it will show you to be wrong.
So I will ask once more:
WHAT DOES THIS TRANSITION LOOK LIKE?
Do you agree that it will appear as a line, below which you will see land/sea and above which you will see sky?
If so, THAT IS A HORIZON! DO YOU ACCEPT THAT?
If you think it won't look like that, then tell me what you think it will look like.
As for what you did address, and completely misrepresent, understand what proof actually is.
From a logical point of view, no amount of evidence would lead to actual proof for something.
Instead it can only be proof against something, i.e. disproof.
Because of this science does not deal with proof.
Instead it deals with evidence and develops theories backed up by said evidence, and attempts to disprove these theories.
This evidence indicates beyond any sane doubt that gravity is real. Just like it indicates beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
It also disproves your nonsense.
So by proof do you mean proof in the strict logical sense, or in a more everyday sense where evidence can lead to proof (where that proof is really just indicating something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than 100% showing it is true)?
If the former, there is no proof of anything about the world. If the latter, then yes, there is proof of gravity.
Parallel to, what?
To each other, not hard to understand.
The rays are lines. Saying lines are parallel means parallel to each other.
Why do you so often play dumb as if even the simplest things are beyond your grasp?
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
You are aware that is an entirely meaningless request?
Just what do you think the width of the forum page is?
The first image fits just fine for me, as the post has a width of 1294 px, while the first image provided has a width of 1082 px.
It sure seems like you are just grasping at whatever you can to pathetically deflect from issues you cannot adress.
-
Sorry, sceptimatic. I set you up there. All you had to say was you didn't believe Aristarchus explanation for the sun being very far away, instead of tediously breaking apart my post, piece by piece.
That said, you can't mark a random line inside a circle and use that to establish the circumference of that circle, Sceptimatic. Where you screwed the pooch big time though, is the sun's rays are always parallel.
Parallel to, what?
On your close and tiny sun model on a flat earth, whether your flat earth sun is a lamp in the sky shining down, or a ball hanging there from your dome by some fishing line, the light it emits is enough to illuminate half the planet's flat or curved surface. That light has to radiate and flare. Not only that. That light also contains heat. On your flat earth, heat must increase exponentially, the closer you approach your weird little super intense sun in the atmosphere. If what your saying is true, all planes would melt and fall out of the sky.
Maybe you should pay attention to my theory if you want to come up with stuff like this.
Parallel to each other.
Have you published your theory somewhere? Is it copyrighted? Where can I read the basics of your flatasia belief system?
All you flat earthers agree that the surface of the earth is flat, but that's where what you all agree on, ENDS. After that, it's a total friggin free for all.
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
You are aware that is an entirely meaningless request?
Just what do you think the width of the forum page is?
The first image fits just fine for me, as the post has a width of 1294 px, while the first image provided has a width of 1082 px.
It sure seems like you are just grasping at whatever you can to pathetically deflect from issues you cannot adress.
I worry that he might have bought one of those flat earth computers. The ones with the adverts making all sorts of wild claims, but when you actually try to use them for anything at all, they just don't work.
-
How do you actually include an image inline with a post anyway? I've been trying for ages unsuccessfully.
-
How do you actually include an image inline with a post anyway? I've been trying for ages unsuccessfully.
If it's an image you can upload from your own computer, then the way I do is is load it to https://imgur.com/ (https://imgur.com/). You don't need an account or anything, you can just upload anonymously, just click on "New Post" and follow the instructions.
If you hover over your uploaded image, you get an ellipsis "..." top right. Clicking that gives you a "Get share links" option and on there you get various options including a "BBCode (Forums)" options. You can just copy/paste that straight in here. It ends up looking like [ img ] http:...... [ /img ] (without the spaces) and that's your inline image.
Alternatively, if you have a url to some image you can do it by hand by wrapping the url inside [ img ]...[ /img ]
-
Much appreciated. I've used one of my own lunar images here as a test.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDMoexu.png)
-
Much appreciated. I've used one of my own lunar images here as a test.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDMoexu.png)
Very nice, but can we have it smaller smaller smaller....
You know - to fit the forum. I mean I can see it just fine, but...
-
Needs more rodents to be believable.
-
Very nice, but can we have it smaller smaller smaller....
Absolutely...apologies. I forgot to check the size of the image before I posted it. Any subsequent images I post I will make sure are a more convenient size.
-
Very nice, but can we have it smaller smaller smaller....
Absolutely...apologies. I forgot to check the size of the image before I posted it. Any subsequent images I post I will make sure are a more convenient size.
Quick and dirty resize. In the image code just put the desired pixel width "width=###" See the code for this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDMoexu.png)
-
Excellent, so with the help of a quick and dirty solution from stash, here's my diagram of a triangle that sceptimatic can't otherwise see, but smaller...
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
-
It depends on what you accept as evidence. I've stated what I believe it to be. You cannot prove gravity exists
So you can prove that gravity doesn't exist can you? How exactly?
If you are right and gravity does not exist then I assume you have got your own version of the GTR which works just as well to explain how the galaxies formed and how gravitational lenses work do you?
At a more simple level, if gravity doesn't exist then I am wasting my time at the moment studying (for a university module on the formation of galaxies) how gravity influences the rotational velocity of stars orbiting the galactic centre and which leads eventually to their spiral shape forming. What is your theory for that instead?
-
Excellent, so with the help of a quick and dirty solution from stash, here's my diagram of a triangle that sceptimatic can't otherwise see, but smaller...
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Font doesn't match forum text.
-
Go and find one with sea and sky. A proper horizon line.
You mean like this one?
http://www.freeimageslive.com/galleries/sports/relaxation/pics/distant_ocean_horizon.jpg
or this video
https://videohive.net/item/blue-sea-or-ocean-horizon/5401826
or this
https://piebgd.com/files/original/2_IMG_1699.JPG
or this
https://www.marsdens.co.uk/devon-cottages/north-devon-coast-cottages/ilfracombe/horiz1-horizons
etc etc..
And yes before you point it out I will do it for you. The horizon does look flat. No curvature at all. Does that prove that the whole Earth is flat? Absolutely not.
In all photos the boundary line between the sea and the sky seems obvious enough to me. We call this bounday line the horizon. Pretty clear and distinct.
I don't need to point out anything flat. That's plain to see.
The point is, this is a proper horizon line to the eye.
It's level to the eye or scope.
The reason it is level to the eye and scope is....it is a convergence of sky to sea,as far as your eye can see.
You see the raised land on that horizon. You see it because more light reaches it.
This absolutely cannot happen on your global Earth you believe you walk/sail/fly upon.
f your Earth was the globe you believe, then it would not only curve downwards, every mm from your stand point but you would never see ocean....at all.....ever.
You also would never see any horizon line because there's absolutely nothing to converge at eye/horizontally level.
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Well I don't know what anybody else can see, but it all looks fine to me on phone and computer screen, but rather than waste any more of anyone's time, grab a piece of paper. Draw a horizontal line somewhere near the bottom. On the left hand end, write "A" and on the right hand end write "C". In the middle of the line write "b". Now starting at the right hand end, draw a vertical line upwards. Label the top "B". Half way up this line, write "a". Join the top of this vertical line to the left hand end of of the horizontal line to make a hypotenuse line and half way along write "c".
B
+
/|
/ |
/ |
c / |
/ |a
/ |
/ |
/ |
A +--------+ C
b
That's much better.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
So what are you going to prove wth it?
-
And more pathetic deflection.
There's no deflection.
-
Sorry, sceptimatic. I set you up there. All you had to say was you didn't believe Aristarchus explanation for the sun being very far away, instead of tediously breaking apart my post, piece by piece.
That said, you can't mark a random line inside a circle and use that to establish the circumference of that circle, Sceptimatic. Where you screwed the pooch big time though, is the sun's rays are always parallel.
Parallel to, what?
On your close and tiny sun model on a flat earth, whether your flat earth sun is a lamp in the sky shining down, or a ball hanging there from your dome by some fishing line, the light it emits is enough to illuminate half the planet's flat or curved surface. That light has to radiate and flare. Not only that. That light also contains heat. On your flat earth, heat must increase exponentially, the closer you approach your weird little super intense sun in the atmosphere. If what your saying is true, all planes would melt and fall out of the sky.
Maybe you should pay attention to my theory if you want to come up with stuff like this.
Parallel to each other.
Have you published your theory somewhere? Is it copyrighted? Where can I read the basics of your flatasia belief system?
All you flat earthers agree that the surface of the earth is flat, but that's where what you all agree on, ENDS. After that, it's a total friggin free for all.
No we don't.
-
Excellent, so with the help of a quick and dirty solution from stash, here's my diagram of a triangle that sceptimatic can't otherwise see, but smaller...
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
I could see it. The problem was, it was like trying to look at a diagram on a billboard from 2 feet away.
-
It depends on what you accept as evidence. I've stated what I believe it to be. You cannot prove gravity exists
So you can prove that gravity doesn't exist can you? How exactly?
If you are right and gravity does not exist then I assume you have got your own version of the GTR which works just as well to explain how the galaxies formed and how gravitational lenses work do you?
At a more simple level, if gravity doesn't exist then I am wasting my time at the moment studying (for a university module on the formation of galaxies) how gravity influences the rotational velocity of stars orbiting the galactic centre and which leads eventually to their spiral shape forming. What is your theory for that instead?
The sea and air pressure thread might give you a clue.
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Well I don't know what anybody else can see, but it all looks fine to me on phone and computer screen, but rather than waste any more of anyone's time, grab a piece of paper. Draw a horizontal line somewhere near the bottom. On the left hand end, write "A" and on the right hand end write "C". In the middle of the line write "b". Now starting at the right hand end, draw a vertical line upwards. Label the top "B". Half way up this line, write "a". Join the top of this vertical line to the left hand end of of the horizontal line to make a hypotenuse line and half way along write "c".
B
+
/|
/ |
/ |
c / |
/ |a
/ |
/ |
/ |
A +--------+ C
b
That's much better.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
So what are you going to prove wth it?
No, remember what you said:
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So, nice and simple, easy peasy, one step at a time.
Please confirm option 1, 2 or 3 and we'll move on from there.
Edit: Just a reminder of the claim:
So let's measure angle B and measure side b as well. Now we know B, C and b and from that, I make the following claim: we can easily calculate the remaining angle and the remaining 2 sides.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-54420240 (http://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-54420240)
More proof that "science" is just a circle jerk, right?
-
I don't need to point out anything flat. That's plain to see.
Yes you do, as it isn't.
There is literally nothing that indicates Earth is flat rather than round.
If you believe there is, especially something so obvious to make it "plain to see", then provide it.
Otherwise, stop claiming it is plain to see.
The point is, this is a proper horizon line to the eye.
It's level to the eye or scope.
Prove it.
Prove it isn't a tiny amount below level, like you would expect for a RE.
Then you can go to the ones I provided before, the ones clearly showing it significantly below level and then prove that it is actually level by pure magic.
The reason it is level to the eye and scope is....it is a convergence of sky to sea,as far as your eye can see.
Except we don't.
As clearly provided by plenty of images, the horizon is not the point where parallel lines converge, and it isn't at eye level.
The sole reason we see the horizon is because it is an edge of Earth, where Earth obstructs viewing past the horizon.
The kind of Earth which wouldn't have a horizon is a flat Earth as the distance to the edge would result in it fading to a blur instead.
This absolutely cannot happen on your global Earth you believe you walk/sail/fly upon.
f your Earth was the globe you believe, then it would not only curve downwards, every mm from your stand point but you would never see ocean....at all.....ever.
Stop just repeating the same lie.
I have provided the math that shows that is wrong.
Plenty of people have provided pictures of balls which show you are wrong.
And you have repeatedly ignored or deflected from the extremely simple line of inquiry which shows you to be wrong.
Repeating the same lie again and again will not help your case. It just further supports the idea that you have no sense of integrity, that you don't care about the truth, that you are knowingly lying to us all.
And more pathetic deflection.
There's no deflection.
Then why have you still not addressed the issue?
Why have you still not provided any problem with the math I provided?
Why have you still not answered extremely simple questions about just what you think a round Earth should look like?
Why have you still not provided a reason for why a ball like a basketball should magically be different from Earth?
Why have you still not provided a reason for why we shouldn't see the edge of Earth?
All you have done is continually deflect from this extremely simple issue which shows your claim to be pure garbage.
Again, without deflection the path would go something like this:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - i.e. your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Now are you going to stop deflecting and actually address this issue?
Just what point along that line of reasoning do you disagree with and why (I have even numbered them to make it easier for you)?
Now unless you can specify exactly what point you disagree with and why (and that means addressing it in the context of the prior points) you are deflecting, as you have been this entire thread.
After all, this (or at least the start of it) was provided in reply 15 and we are now up to reply 641. And you still haven't addressed this in any way other than deflecting or just repeating your baseless assertion that you wouldn't see a horizon on the round Earth.
So you have been deflecting for quite some time.
Edit: fixed typo in formula.
-
The sea and air pressure thread might give you a clue.
I don't want any clues. I just want you to answer a question directly. Surely that is not too hard. You seem to excel at evading giving direct answers to questions put to you. Is it something you do deliberately? If so why? Maybe you just don't want to answer questions or maybe you can't. The way it works is that when someone asks you a question you know the answer to you answer it. Simple as. If you can't answer a question put to you then I will take that to mean you don't know the answer. You get clues in a treasure hunt and a treasure hunt this isn't.
The flat horizon in my photos doesn't in any way, shape or form prove 'your' flat Earth belief is true. If I put myself in the middle of the ocean with a clear view in all directions, I will see the horizon all around me and it will be a flat horizon. At least from ground level or surface level it will be. How far away is that horizon in all directions? Doe the distance of the horizon vary with direction? Here's a clue. I am standing on a sphere with the same rate of curvature over its entire surface. I will only be able to see so far in every direction before the surface curves away from my direct view. That is the horizon.
Going back to the original question that was asked.. What would change your mind? I think the clear answer on both FE and RE sides can be summed up in just one word. Nothing. Everyone knows that. Both sides have got their reasons for what they believe and why. Nothing has changed my mind on what I have believed for many years now and I am sure the same applies to FE believers as well.
We could carry on debating/arguing/discussing different points of view for ever and still not reach a formative conclusion. Everyone has their own reasons and motives for what they believe. It is easy to be selective about evidence according to what we believe. As Scepti said some time ago, what is evidence and what is not depends on what we are willing to accept as evidence.
-
Sorry, sceptimatic. I set you up there. All you had to say was you didn't believe Aristarchus explanation for the sun being very far away, instead of tediously breaking apart my post, piece by piece.
That said, you can't mark a random line inside a circle and use that to establish the circumference of that circle, Sceptimatic. Where you screwed the pooch big time though, is the sun's rays are always parallel.
Parallel to, what?
On your close and tiny sun model on a flat earth, whether your flat earth sun is a lamp in the sky shining down, or a ball hanging there from your dome by some fishing line, the light it emits is enough to illuminate half the planet's flat or curved surface. That light has to radiate and flare. Not only that. That light also contains heat. On your flat earth, heat must increase exponentially, the closer you approach your weird little super intense sun in the atmosphere. If what your saying is true, all planes would melt and fall out of the sky.
Maybe you should pay attention to my theory if you want to come up with stuff like this.
Parallel to each other.
Have you published your theory somewhere? Is it copyrighted? Where can I read the basics of your flatasia belief system?
All you flat earthers agree that the surface of the earth is flat, but that's where what you all agree on, ENDS. After that, it's a total friggin free for all.
No we don't.
Oh yes you all do. If Mark Sargent were to swagger in on this thread he would disagree with you on your fundamentals of how human vision works for starters, which is your number one explanation for almost everything in the real world.
But you didn't answer my question. Where can I read a comprehensive breakdown of your particular flat earth beliefs? Or, which flat earth YouTube channel do you run?
While you're at it, explain how sunlight in the real world is always parallel, even though all sunlight would have to be flared if the sun were close by as it is has to be in your flatasia model.......
Maybe you should give Mark a call.... :-*
Hey, ;D it's better you tackle these questions here than later on when you hit the road in your travelling flat man vehicle, preaching to the masses....
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Well I don't know what anybody else can see, but it all looks fine to me on phone and computer screen, but rather than waste any more of anyone's time, grab a piece of paper. Draw a horizontal line somewhere near the bottom. On the left hand end, write "A" and on the right hand end write "C". In the middle of the line write "b". Now starting at the right hand end, draw a vertical line upwards. Label the top "B". Half way up this line, write "a". Join the top of this vertical line to the left hand end of of the horizontal line to make a hypotenuse line and half way along write "c".
B
+
/|
/ |
/ |
c / |
/ |a
/ |
/ |
/ |
A +--------+ C
b
That's much better.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
So what are you going to prove wth it?
No, remember what you said:
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So, nice and simple, easy peasy, one step at a time.
Please confirm option 1, 2 or 3 and we'll move on from there.
Edit: Just a reminder of the claim:
So let's measure angle B and measure side b as well. Now we know B, C and b and from that, I make the following claim: we can easily calculate the remaining angle and the remaining 2 sides.
Yeah you can calculate the sides of the triangle.
Now tell me how you equate that to your points of light.
-
There is literally nothing that indicates Earth is flat rather than round.
There's enough evidence to suggest it is certainly not a rotating globe.
There is enough evidence to suggest it is flat, by water alone.
The rest of it is mostly rough terrain. You know, hills and mountains and uneven ground...etc.
The key to it all is....water.
-
The flat horizon in my photos doesn't in any way, shape or form prove 'your' flat Earth belief is true. If I put myself in the middle of the ocean with a clear view in all directions, I will see the horizon all around me and it will be a flat horizon. At least from ground level or surface level it will be. How far away is that horizon in all directions? Doe the distance of the horizon vary with direction? Here's a clue. I am standing on a sphere with the same rate of curvature over its entire surface. I will only be able to see so far in every direction before the surface curves away from my direct view. That is the horizon.
Let's make this very very simple.
If you were stood in the (bold) scenario you say and looking out with a level scope and you see your horizon all around you, it should immediately tell you, you are not on a globe.
If you were laid down or stood up you would not see the Earth directly under your scope from your eye to the end of that scope. I'm sure you won't find a way to deny this.
So given that fact and given your thought process that the earth supposedly curves down from every point around you, then your scope should pick up, sky....nothing else.
You already lost the ground the second you placed that scope over your eye.
Now then, to save all the arguments about FOV, we will make this simpler and have you looking through a kitchen roll tube, because this does not give you any convex outer view to give you that FOV.
Basically your Earth is always curving downwards from your view and, if you are looking from a level point, you will never see anything other than sky....if your Earth was the globe you stand by.
What you would expect to see on a flat Earth with concave sky/dome...is.....an horizon line where the sky and ground converge to your eye level. Your line vanishing point.
It really is that simple. It's so simple but too simple.
So called scientists can come up with all sorts of silly magical things to try and pretend a globe exists but the simple reality is right there. It is not a globe and certainly not rotatng.
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
-
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
What the hell is this now?
You were asked a question:
So, before we move on to the next step, can you confirm you agree this highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
That's all I'm asking you to do for now, just confirm option 1, 2 or 3.
You can read, right?
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Well I don't know what anybody else can see, but it all looks fine to me on phone and computer screen, but rather than waste any more of anyone's time, grab a piece of paper. Draw a horizontal line somewhere near the bottom. On the left hand end, write "A" and on the right hand end write "C". In the middle of the line write "b". Now starting at the right hand end, draw a vertical line upwards. Label the top "B". Half way up this line, write "a". Join the top of this vertical line to the left hand end of of the horizontal line to make a hypotenuse line and half way along write "c".
B
+
/|
/ |
/ |
c / |
/ |a
/ |
/ |
/ |
A +--------+ C
b
That's much better.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
So what are you going to prove wth it?
No, remember what you said:
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So, nice and simple, easy peasy, one step at a time.
Please confirm option 1, 2 or 3 and we'll move on from there.
Edit: Just a reminder of the claim:
So let's measure angle B and measure side b as well. Now we know B, C and b and from that, I make the following claim: we can easily calculate the remaining angle and the remaining 2 sides.
Yeah you can calculate the sides of the triangle.
Now tell me how you equate that to your points of light.
So that's option 1 you've chosen is it?
Edit: I've just looked back. You were asked 3 days ago to choose option 1, 2 or 3. You've replied to this repeated question 6 times and you still haven't managed to answer this simplest of questions. Basically you've been asked to pick a number between 1 and 3 and you can't even manage that can you.
How about I offer you alternative 4) Don't know/not sure. Does that help at all?
You seem very eager to move forward, you keep asking me follow up questions, but here's the thing, if you'd simply answered the original question 3 days ago, we could have made some progress, so why are you so intent on stalling?
So I'll ask again: option 1, 2 or 3 (or 4 if you like). Choose one and let's make some progress.
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
So your favored version is the 1893 Ferguson map, a "square and stationary" Earth, based on his literal interpretation of the Bible, which references angels visiting the "four corners" of the world? I never took you for such scriptural leanings. I thought you were against indoctrination?
(https://i.imgur.com/5tTeGuy.jpg)
-
I thought you were against indoctrination?
The Truth ain't indoctrination!
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
So your favored version is the 1893 Ferguson map, a "square and stationary" Earth, based on his literal interpretation of the Bible, which references angels visiting the "four corners" of the world? I never took you for such scriptural leanings. I thought you were against indoctrination?
(https://i.imgur.com/5tTeGuy.jpg)
Do you notice in my avatar, if you look carefully. Can you see where it looks circular and not square edged with angels on it?
Let me just make it clear.
I believe the Earth may be closer to my avatar with a dome over it....not necessarily the way the countries and continents are depicted.
Now then, if you want to go into little frenzies about square and the bible and such, you carry on and waste your time.
I don't follow a bible nor any invisible god.
Use this as your reference point and it may save you some typing time.
-
There is literally nothing that indicates Earth is flat rather than round.
There's enough evidence to suggest it is certainly not a rotating globe.
Then why are you completely incapable of providing any evidence to suggest that Earth isn't a rotating globe?
Why do you instead repeat the same refuted lies while continually deflecting from their refutation?
There is enough evidence to suggest it is flat, by water alone.
Stop just asserting the same lies.
Water easily shows Earth is round.
Again, the fact that water obscures the lower portion (or all of) a distant object, which is above the water, with the observer also above the water, shows that Earth is round.
So water shows it is round, not flat.
If you were stood in the (bold) scenario you say and looking out with a level scope and you see your horizon all around you
Yes, entirely consistent with a RE, as repeatedly explained.
In no way proof of a flat Earth.
Once more, if you disagree, point out exactly what step of this chain of logical reasoning you disagree with and why:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
So given that fact and given your thought process that the earth supposedly curves down from every point around you, then your scope should pick up, sky....nothing else.
Again, you are yet to justify this.
In order for this to actually hold you would need to have the same happen for a FE.
As you don't accept that and instead accept that the level scope can see ground below you, that means Earth curving down is not enough to exclude it from the scope.
As explained before, if you want to say we should only see sky you need to do the math to show what is the greatest angle of elevation where not-sky could be seen and show that the FOV is less than that.
Now then, to save all the arguments about FOV, we will make this simpler and have you looking through a kitchen roll tube
We already went through that, and clearly demonstrated that you seem to have no idea about what FOV is or how it works.
A kitchen roll tube still has a FOV.
Why do you keep bringing up the same refuted nonsense?
Why don't you ever address these massive failings of your claims?
Like I provided before, assuming it has a radius of 1 cm and a length of 20 cm, then the FOV will be 5.7 degrees.
In order to avoid seeing the horizon, even from such a tiny tube, you would need to view it from a distance of 12.6 m assuming you were standing 2 m above sea level/above the level of the horizon.
Even if you chose to use a straw, with a radius of 3 mm and a length of 20 cm, the FOV would still be 1.7 degrees, and to remove the horizon you need to look through this straw from a distance of 3.8 m.
It really is that simple. It's so simple but too simple.
Well for once your analysis is partially correct, that is too simple.
So simple you ignore important points which show your argument to be pure garbage.
There is no need for any magic to explain why this is observed on a RE, nor any magic to explain why the horizon can easily be shown to be below level as you get higher.
There is no need for any magic to explain why the bottom of structures are obscured by the curved Earth.
There is no need for any magic to explain the apparent position of celestial objects.
There is no need for any magic to explain the phases of the moons or eclipses.
But with a FE, they all need loads of magic.
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
So not actually flat?
So you aren't actually a flat Earther?
So your objection wasn't that disagree on everything else part, it was the agree on Earth being flat part? That you think FEers which by definition should believe Earth is flat, don't all agree that Earth is flat?
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
So your favored version is the 1893 Ferguson map, a "square and stationary" Earth, based on his literal interpretation of the Bible, which references angels visiting the "four corners" of the world? I never took you for such scriptural leanings. I thought you were against indoctrination?
(https://i.imgur.com/5tTeGuy.jpg)
Do you notice in my avatar, if you look carefully. Can you see where it looks circular and not square edged with angels on it?
Let me just make it clear.
I believe the Earth may be closer to my avatar with a dome over it....not necessarily the way the countries and continents are depicted.
Now then, if you want to go into little frenzies about square and the bible and such, you carry on and waste your time.
I don't follow a bible nor any invisible god.
Use this as your reference point and it may save you some typing time.
How am I supposed to know that your cropping of the Ferguson map to make an avatar means you don't subscribe to the totality of the Ferguson map when you said it's your preferred flat earth map? It's not like you made it clear. Even though you think you did - Which seems to be a big problem with you: Things are crystal in your head and you're bewildered as to why no one else gets 'it'. Well here's a case in point. You use a very famous scriptural depiction of a flat earth, a specific one at that. And then when called out on on it, you're like, "Oh no, that's not at all what I mean..." Maybe take a personal note on what it means to be 'clear' and use this as a reference point on how to convey what you actually mean.
So how are the countries and continents laid out on your "map"? We know where ours are as we travel to and from them all the time with undeniable accuracy and efficiency. Unless you don't travel, I suppose you could dodge the question. But it would be interesting to see if you believe no one knows where anything is or not. What do you say?
-
Let's make this very very simple.
Indeed let's make this very, very simple. There is a tonne of evidence readily available to everyone that we do live on a globe. In fact lets take that a step further. There is a tonne of evidence available that leads us to know (not believe, know) we live on a globe.
If we didn't then it would be more widely known by now. It just so happens that there is a relatively small group of people who choose to refuse to accept that and dismiss science. Fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion. if you are so convinced then broadcast your amazing theory to the wider world and see how you get on. It's ironic that this is a FE forum and yet even here the FE supporters or believers seem to be in the minority.
That pretty map you have pointed us to is really nice. Someone there has a fantastic imagination. But we have moved on a bit since then. A few obvious and major differences between what it shows and what we experience in real life. But that is just a small point isn't it.
And that as far as I am concerned is the end of this particular verbal slagging off match.
-
So, the azimuthal equidistant projection of the global earth into a bowl, is your model, sceptimatic? With all the incorrectly distorted land mass shapes. A bowl where the centre half is raised out of any water contained in the bowl and the antatctic ice shelf is raised even higher on a wall that no human has ever seen.
I'm out. If this is what you believe or are peddling, sceptimatic, good luck to you. This is "special" of the highest order, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Do you still play choo choo trains?
I've noticed you've avoided explaining parallel rays of sunlight, as opposed to flared sunlight on your model. This is because, you can't get around this.
Parallel sunlight, destroys every flat earth model. But hey, if you want to work it into a video game, go for it.
-
Flat Earthers seem to live in a fantasy land where what they believe somehow overcomes reality.
I'm with you though on this Smoke Machine. If Scepti seriously and genuinely believes that a diagram of something claiming to be a map of the Earth from the 19th century reflects real life then someone needs to help him and that person certainly isn't going to be me.
-
Flat Earthers seem to live in a fantasy land where what they believe somehow overcomes reality.
I'm with you though on this Smoke Machine. If Scepti seriously and genuinely believes that a diagram of something claiming to be a map of the Earth from the 19th century reflects real life then someone needs to help him and that person certainly isn't going to be me.
A map by Professor Orlando Ferguson no less. A snake oil salesman from South Dakota who ran a grocery store, a hotel and later a bath house. With a made up title of Professor thrown in to impress. You couldn't make this stuff up could you.
-
You couldn't make this stuff up could you
O yes you could... FEers are doing it all the time!
One thing that strikes me about this 'Professor' Orlando Ferguson 'map' that Scepti has provided us with is that the world seems to curve back up as you move south of the equator towards the tip of S Africa. That would surely mean that anyone standing at the southern most tip of S Africa would be able to see Polaris since the surface of the world is tilted back towards the NCP.
Since the latitude of Cape Town is -34 south there is no way you are ever going to see Polaris from that part of the world.
So the first thing FEers need to do is to come up with a single model that is completely consistent with all that we see in the real world. I have yet to see such a model.
-
It could be seen as a valiant attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole, or a preference for concepts and frames of mind of antiquity.
To a degree, we all do live on a flat earth. Wherever we call home, is more easily thought of in a two dimensional plane of north south east west, without unecessarily complicating matters with curvature of earth. Anybody who has ever used an old fashioned street directory or even birds eye view Google maps, will understand what I'm saying.
The genuine flat earth movement takes this tiny home view and stretches it to include the entire world, which ultimately cannot work.
I must say, I'm fascinated with the psychology that motivates anyone to argue in favor of the flat earth. It's a bit like a chess game where how many moves will it take to get flat earth into check mate.
Sceptimatic, guaging your sincerity and motives in this endeavour, is beyond the scope of a forum member such as I, to deduce.
Good game! ;D
-
So not actually flat?
So you aren't actually a flat Earther?
So your objection wasn't that disagree on everything else part, it was the agree on Earth being flat part? That you think FEers which by definition should believe Earth is flat, don't all agree that Earth is flat?
You know this so why persist with the pretence.
I'll tell you again.
The water is flat, the ground is obviously uneven in many many areas.
You know exactly how my Earth is, so don't keep wasting your own time pretending, unless you simply like typing for the sake of it.
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
So your favored version is the 1893 Ferguson map, a "square and stationary" Earth, based on his literal interpretation of the Bible, which references angels visiting the "four corners" of the world? I never took you for such scriptural leanings. I thought you were against indoctrination?
(https://i.imgur.com/5tTeGuy.jpg)
Do you notice in my avatar, if you look carefully. Can you see where it looks circular and not square edged with angels on it?
Let me just make it clear.
I believe the Earth may be closer to my avatar with a dome over it....not necessarily the way the countries and continents are depicted.
Now then, if you want to go into little frenzies about square and the bible and such, you carry on and waste your time.
I don't follow a bible nor any invisible god.
Use this as your reference point and it may save you some typing time.
How am I supposed to know that your cropping of the Ferguson map to make an avatar means you don't subscribe to the totality of the Ferguson map when you said it's your preferred flat earth map? It's not like you made it clear. Even though you think you did - Which seems to be a big problem with you: Things are crystal in your head and you're bewildered as to why no one else gets 'it'. Well here's a case in point. You use a very famous scriptural depiction of a flat earth, a specific one at that. And then when called out on on it, you're like, "Oh no, that's not at all what I mean..." Maybe take a personal note on what it means to be 'clear' and use this as a reference point on how to convey what you actually mean.
So how are the countries and continents laid out on your "map"? We know where ours are as we travel to and from them all the time with undeniable accuracy and efficiency. Unless you don't travel, I suppose you could dodge the question. But it would be interesting to see if you believe no one knows where anything is or not. What do you say?
You've been around long enough to know what my Earth is, so don't be giving it the old, huh,
carry on.
-
Let's make this very very simple.
Indeed let's make this very, very simple. There is a tonne of evidence readily available to everyone that we do live on a globe. In fact lets take that a step further. There is a tonne of evidence available that leads us to know (not believe, know) we live on a globe.
If we didn't then it would be more widely known by now.
The only reason you think you know you live on a globe, is due to massive indoctrination, not physical proof.
Physical proof proves otherwise but you refuse to see that.....and fair enough.
I have tonnes of evidence that a group of men went up in two shuttles and landed on an asteroid, planted a nuke and blew it to bits, saving us all.
Are you going to try and tell me that this didn't happen?
It just so happens that there is a relatively small group of people who choose to refuse to accept that and dismiss science.
No....not at all. It's not dismissing science...it's questioning what is put out as scientific, which makes zero sense.
Science is the entire Earth and what is within, for us to explore. We're all scientists.
Fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion. if you are so convinced then broadcast your amazing theory to the wider world and see how you get on.
I don't need to broadcast it. I'm well aware of what mainstream media...etc... have turned people into, who question the so called authoritative, narrative.
It's ironic that this is a FE forum and yet even here the FE supporters or believers seem to be in the minority.
So what are you doing here?
That pretty map you have pointed us to is really nice. Someone there has a fantastic imagination. But we have moved on a bit since then. A few obvious and major differences between what it shows and what we experience in real life. But that is just a small point isn't it.
Moved on a bit, with what?
CGI?
And that as far as I am concerned is the end of this particular verbal slagging off match.
Feel free to go into a frenzy, anytime you want to.
-
So, the azimuthal equidistant projection of the global earth into a bowl, is your model, sceptimatic? With all the incorrectly distorted land mass shapes. A bowl where the centre half is raised out of any water contained in the bowl and the antatctic ice shelf is raised even higher on a wall that no human has ever seen.
You see, your problem is in not being able to put your mind to work and just not taking full notice of explanations.
I've already said the countries/continents may not necessarily be as they show in that picture.
And also, think of the size of Earth when you look at that bowl and mound.
A clue:
Next time you go for a walk for a few hours and find yourself a few thousand feet higher than when you set off.....or lower, depending on where you are, then ask yourself how.
Now have a think about the mound and thousands of miles walking a slight gradient...then it may dawn on you.
I'm out. If this is what you believe or are peddling, sceptimatic, good luck to you. This is "special" of the highest order, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Do you still play choo choo trains?
Imagine that. Someone thinking my Earth is crazy and yet he believes he's walking about on a spinning ball in a space vacuum.
It's like trying to tell someone they're crazy whilst continuously slamming an ice cream and cone into their forehead.
I've noticed you've avoided explaining parallel rays of sunlight, as opposed to flared sunlight on your model. This is because, you can't get around this.
How about you explain this parallel sunlight.
Parallel sunlight, destroys every flat earth model. But hey, if you want to work it into a video game, go for it.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by parallel sunlight. Is it all the time or at sunrise or sunset on your Earth?
Tell me about this parallel.
-
Flat Earthers seem to live in a fantasy land where what they believe somehow overcomes reality.
I'm with you though on this Smoke Machine. If Scepti seriously and genuinely believes that a diagram of something claiming to be a map of the Earth from the 19th century reflects real life then someone needs to help him and that person certainly isn't going to be me.
I don't need your help. You're free to come and go as you please, with me.
As I explained to your good global minded friend.... imagine calling people stupid for questioning a spinning ball n a so called space vacuum.
-
It could be seen as a valiant attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole, or a preference for concepts and frames of mind of antiquity.
To a degree, we all do live on a flat earth. Wherever we call home, is more easily thought of in a two dimensional plane of north south east west, without unecessarily complicating matters with curvature of earth. Anybody who has ever used an old fashioned street directory or even birds eye view Google maps, will understand what I'm saying.
The genuine flat earth movement takes this tiny home view and stretches it to include the entire world, which ultimately cannot work.
I must say, I'm fascinated with the psychology that motivates anyone to argue in favor of the flat earth. It's a bit like a chess game where how many moves will it take to get flat earth into check mate.
Sceptimatic, guaging your sincerity and motives in this endeavour, is beyond the scope of a forum member such as I, to deduce.
Good game! ;D
I didn't get to this stage by just dipping into a lucky bag. It was pick and mix until I got to this.
The initial go to sweetie was the indoctrinated global Earth model which I, like you and many many many others, grew up knowing to be a reality due to consistent head battering.
I was once the person who thought alternate Earth thoughts were nuts and it had to be a globe.
Why?
Well, space, big rockets, the moon and landings. The big 93 million mile sun baking us as we rotate into its path. Being told all about it on TV and reading about it in papers and magazines as well as seeing globes in classrooms and being taught all about this globe throughout school and in general life.
Why would anyone go against all that?
I go about in life obeying laws and generally just going with the flow of life. I have no reason nor inclination to be a martyr or contrarian just for the sake of it.
If I don't agree with something, I'll question it.
If I find that something requires more in depth questioning....I'll do so.
If i have my own theory/hypothesis on anything, I will follow it.
And this is where I am.
You are trying your best to checkmate me with your king and knight, against my king.
-
YouTube!
-
You are trying your best to checkmate me with your king and knight, against my king.
You can add at least the rooks and bishops, too. But yes, that is true -- we have a lot more ammo.
-
I don't need to broadcast it. I'm well aware of what mainstream media...etc... have turned people into, who question the so called authoritative, narrative.
Whatever that means. So you don't agree with the globe model of Earth or mainstream science in general but you don't feel the need to communicate this to them and challenge them about what you think is really true on their own stage.
So what then do you hope to or expect to achieve then? There is a phrase you may have heard of which is 'you are talking to the converted' which means as long as you limit your views to those who you know share the same opinion (i.e. FE forums) then you are not really going to make any progress.
We who know the Earth is a globe are simply curious to know the reasons behind those who think differently. Call it research if you will.
If i have my own theory/hypothesis on anything, I will follow it.
Appreciated. But how do you think your own theory/hypothesis is any better than what we already have? I'm not interested in your claims about being dictated to or being indoctrinated by or whatever. I'm talking about the simple act of going outside, observing what we see for a year and finding the best way of explaining it all.
-
You know this so why persist with the pretence.
No, I don't know this.
This is the first time you have presented a model where you indicate the surface of Earth has very significant curvature.
Take a look at your model and imagine you were standing at the north pole.
That is basically the same as standing at the north pole on a round Earth.
In all previous interactions you have indicated your Earth is flat like a snow globe, not round like the model you present now.
I'll tell you again.
How about instead of just telling me the same refuted nonsense you actually address the issues raised which show it to be nonsense?
Once more, where do you take issue with this line of reasoning?
What point do you think does not logically follow from that which comes before (or that which you reject if it is a premise)?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Until you actually provide just what point you disagree with and why, your argument for why you think Earth is flat based upon the horizon is pure garbage.
The water is flat
And just what is the water level on your map?
Is it at the level of the equator, with even a slight variation from the equator (on the scale of Earth) resulting in just dry land with no water at all?
Or is it at the level of the north pole, with basically the entire Earth submerged under water?
Are you aware that the map you presented is not one of a flat Earth?
But back to reality rather than your fantasy, we know that water is not flat.
Instead it takes on a level surface. At the large scale, that means it follows the curvature of Earth, as clearly observed as said repeatedly.
It obstructs the view to a distant object, even though that distant object is above the water level, and the observe is above the water level.
This indicates that the surface of the water curves.
-
The only reason you think you know you live on a globe, is due to massive indoctrination, not physical proof.
No, as clearly pointed out, plenty of us accept that Earth is round due to the massive abundance of evidence which shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round and shows that a FE is impossible.
You not liking that, does not change that fact.
The fact that you cannot defend your false arguments and instead deflect or ignore their refutations repeatedly shows that you have no case.
Physical proof proves otherwise
Again, if that truly is the case why are you completely incapable of providing a single example of this "physical proof" that shows Earth can't be a globe?
It isn't a case of us refusing to see it, it is a case of you refusing to provide it.
What you have provided, which you might think is this magical physical proof of yours has been refuted repeatedly with you continually deflecting or ignoring that refutation.
We're all scientists.
No we aren't all scientists.
You are a perfect example of someone who is not a scientist.
You are not looking for the truth.
You are not making rational hypotheses and predictions and testing them.
Instead you are setting up strawmen which go directly against the model you are trying to disprove and using those strawmen to dismiss reality.
You are completely ignoring evidence which shows you are wrong.
You are ignoring or deflecting from refutations of your claims.
Scientists follow the evidence to make conclusions and models about reality. You start with a model about reality and manipulate whatever you can into pretending to fit, and reject everything that doesn't fit.
You are not a scientist.
If you were a scientist, you would have done the math for a RE to see where the horizon should be and also noted the uncertainty in your measurements of the "level" horizon to show that you cannot exclude the possibility of Earth being round.
If you were a scientist you would have realised through all the available evidence, that air is not causes weight.
It's like trying to tell someone they're crazy whilst continuously slamming an ice cream and cone into their forehead.
Perhaps you should stop slamming an ice cream cone into their forehead and instead try approaching them in a rational manner? Then they would be less likely to think you are the crazy one.
I've noticed you've avoided explaining parallel rays of sunlight, as opposed to flared sunlight on your model. This is because, you can't get around this.
How about you explain this parallel sunlight.
Again, this is an issue of scale and uncertainty.
The sun is ~150 000 000 km away, and has an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees or 30 arc minutes.
This means that even over 1000 km, the difference in angle of the sunlight from the centre of the sun only differ by ~1 arc second.
Unless you are trying to measure it very accurately, you are not going to notice this difference, especially considering sunlight is coming from roughly 1800 times that difference.
Conversely, for a FE with the sun only 5000 km above us, the angle should vary dramatically and things like anti-crepuscular rays should never be observed.
Is it all the time or at sunrise or sunset on your Earth?
All the time, visible with events like crepuscular rays and anti-crepuscular rays.
If I find that something requires more in depth questioning....I'll do so.
So why do you refuse to do so for your own wild claims?
Is it because they don't actually require all that much depth and they can be dismissed with even a very basic analysis?
You are trying your best to checkmate me with your king and knight, against my king.
If you want a more accurate chess like analogy, it would be more akin to you have a king, we have our king, our queen, 2 knights, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, and all 8 pawns promoted to queens.
You were checkmated 100 moves ago by you refuse to admit defeat and through all the rules (i.e. rational thought) out the window and still claim you are correct.
You have literally nothing to support you and instead just spout wild, irrational, factually incorrect, refuted claims; while we have mountains of evidence to back up the fact Earth is round (and roughly spherical).
-
Given that the original question was 'What would change your mind?' it might be easier and simpler for Scepti to just answer nothing (as is obviously the case) and leave it at that.
-
Given that the original question was 'What would change your mind?' it might be easier and simpler for Scepti to just answer nothing (as is obviously the case) and leave it at that.
I don't know why, but this came to mind..
-
@sceptimatic:
Question for you: do you think bacterias exist? If yes, can you see them with your own eyes? If you can't see them, why not?
-
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.
I'm just curious what others might think.
Thanks.
There aren't any cliffs that keep you from falling off, OBVIOUSLY! There is a firmament, and whether the land goes on and on forever beyond that has it's disbelievers and believers.
-
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.
I'm just curious what others might think.
Thanks.
There aren't any cliffs that keep you from falling off, OBVIOUSLY! There is a firmament, and whether the land goes on and on forever beyond that has it's disbelievers and believers.
Well why don't you go look for yourself and settle the question once and for all? Discover the firmament, be famous.
-
Why would anyone go against all that?
Yes indeed. Why would they?
The big 93 million mile sun baking us as we rotate
The Sun is not 93 million miles across. It is only 865,000 miles across. The 93 million miles figure is the distance of the sun not the size.
-
Which is your favored map of the flat earth, sceptimatic?
Would I be correct to assume it is the azimuthal equidistant projection? Which ofcourse is a map of the globe.......
My avatar.
So your favored version is the 1893 Ferguson map, a "square and stationary" Earth, based on his literal interpretation of the Bible, which references angels visiting the "four corners" of the world? I never took you for such scriptural leanings. I thought you were against indoctrination?
(https://i.imgur.com/5tTeGuy.jpg)
Do you notice in my avatar, if you look carefully. Can you see where it looks circular and not square edged with angels on it?
Let me just make it clear.
I believe the Earth may be closer to my avatar with a dome over it....not necessarily the way the countries and continents are depicted.
Now then, if you want to go into little frenzies about square and the bible and such, you carry on and waste your time.
I don't follow a bible nor any invisible god.
Use this as your reference point and it may save you some typing time.
How am I supposed to know that your cropping of the Ferguson map to make an avatar means you don't subscribe to the totality of the Ferguson map when you said it's your preferred flat earth map? It's not like you made it clear. Even though you think you did - Which seems to be a big problem with you: Things are crystal in your head and you're bewildered as to why no one else gets 'it'. Well here's a case in point. You use a very famous scriptural depiction of a flat earth, a specific one at that. And then when called out on on it, you're like, "Oh no, that's not at all what I mean..." Maybe take a personal note on what it means to be 'clear' and use this as a reference point on how to convey what you actually mean.
So how are the countries and continents laid out on your "map"? We know where ours are as we travel to and from them all the time with undeniable accuracy and efficiency. Unless you don't travel, I suppose you could dodge the question. But it would be interesting to see if you believe no one knows where anything is or not. What do you say?
You've been around long enough to know what my Earth is, so don't be giving it the old, huh,
carry on.
You didn't answer the question, do you believe no one knows where anything is on earth?
-
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.
I'm just curious what others might think.
Thanks.
There aren't any cliffs that keep you from falling off, OBVIOUSLY! There is a firmament, and whether the land goes on and on forever beyond that has it's disbelievers and believers.
Well why don't you go look for yourself and settle the question once and for all? Discover the firmament, be famous.
Then why don't YOU go look for YOURself and settle it? Discover there isn't a firmament, be famous!
-
I don't need to broadcast it. I'm well aware of what mainstream media...etc... have turned people into, who question the so called authoritative, narrative.
Whatever that means. So you don't agree with the globe model of Earth or mainstream science in general but you don't feel the need to communicate this to them and challenge them about what you think is really true on their own stage.
So what then do you hope to or expect to achieve then?
My own personal satisfaction and....maybe the satisfaction from others that may want to question the global model....and....who see alternate theories as a way to start thinking and questioning something (globe model) they have generally just accepted, more or less, unconditionally.
There is a phrase you may have heard of which is 'you are talking to the converted' which means as long as you limit your views to those who you know share the same opinion (i.e. FE forums) then you are not really going to make any progress.
You seem to forget that my views changed over time as I questioned and researched....etc.
My variations got me to where I am now.
But you are right...I am talking to the (global) converted in a lot of you people.
We who know the Earth is a globe are simply curious to know the reasons behind those who think differently. Call it research if you will.
I'm not so sure you're being genuine with that. I may be wrong.
I wouldn't waste thousands of posts trying to find reasons why someone thinks differently to a global model, unless I was actually questioning that global model.
Are you?
If i have my own theory/hypothesis on anything, I will follow it.
Appreciated. But how do you think your own theory/hypothesis is any better than what we already have? I'm not interested in your claims about being dictated to or being indoctrinated by or whatever. I'm talking about the simple act of going outside, observing what we see for a year and finding the best way of explaining it all.
If you've been taking notice you'll see that observations and simple tests show we are not on a spinning globe. If you want to say they don't, then feel free to do so. If you want to make out nothings has been said, then feel free to do so.
I'm more than content to know the Earth s not a globe by the simplest of observations and tests...and....if I never find out the true Earth in its entirety...as in physical proof of it all.....so be it.
But I will at least know I have my own theory and also know for 100% certain it is not a spinning globe in a space vacuum....etc.
-
This is the first time you have presented a model where you indicate the surface of Earth has very significant curvature.
No it's not. I'm sure a good few on here will bear me out on this.
Pay more attention.
-
If you want a more accurate chess like analogy, it would be more akin to you have a king, we have our king, our queen, 2 knights, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, and all 8 pawns promoted to queens.
You were checkmated 100 moves ago by you refuse to admit defeat and through all the rules (i.e. rational thought) out the window and still claim you are correct.
Generally if a checkmate happens in your scenario then you would not keep sitting there trying to checkmate me after your checkmate....but here you are trying to checkmate me.
Why are we still playing?
Could it be your checkmate strategy is severely flawed and not above board?(pun intended)
-
I wouldn't waste thousands of posts trying to find reasons why someone thinks differently to a global model, unless I was actually questioning that global model.
Are you?
No I am not. I know the Earth is a globe as do several others taking part in this discussion. I'm not living with 19th century astronomy any more. I have moved on. I'm more interested in the wider universe.
-
Given that the original question was 'What would change your mind?' it might be easier and simpler for Scepti to just answer nothing (as is obviously the case) and leave it at that.
That applies to you people, not me. I've changed my mind over the years. Let that sink in.
-
@sceptimatic:
Question for you: do you think bacterias exist? If yes, can you see them with your own eyes? If you can't see them, why not?
I believe smaller organisms exist by looking at the size of the largest to the smallest by sight. I can assume there is smaller than what we can see by eye, even through scopes.
We can't see air but we see through it and we breathe whatever is part of it.
So what's your reasoning?
-
Then why don't YOU go look for YOURself and settle it? Discover there isn't a firmament, be famous!
People already have. Humanity has circumnavigated the globe, including in the east-west direction and north-south.
They have also went into space with loads of satellites in all sorts of orbits circumnavigating Earth.
There is no sign of any firmament.
If you've been taking notice you'll see that observations and simple tests show we are not on a spinning globe.
If you have actually been paying attention, not only to your baseless claims, but also the refutation/challenging of them and the claims/arguments put forwards by others, you will see there is none, and that there is actually observations and simple tests which show we ARE on a spinning globe.
But I will at least know I have my own theory and also know for 100% certain it is not a spinning globe in a space vacuum....etc.
How can you be 100% certain when you are yet to provide a single observation or test that actually supports it, and provided nothing rational to refute the evidence clearly showing we are?
How can you be 100% certain when you are unable to point out a problem with the refutation of your alleged evidence?
Generally if a checkmate happens in your scenario then you would not keep sitting there trying to checkmate me after your checkmate....but here you are trying to checkmate me.
Why are we still playing?
Could it be your checkmate strategy is severely flawed and not above board?(pun intended)
We are still here because I actually care about the truth and will continue to object while you continue to spout lies.
Because we aren't actually playing chess, and you being completely defeated doesn't mean you will stop making your outrageous claims.
That applies to you people, not me. I've changed my mind over the years. Let that sink in.
No, it applies to both.
Just because you have changed your mind once (for whatever reason, it clearly wasn't based upon rational thought), doesn't mean that what you believe now is correct, nor does it mean that you can't change your mind again.
-
You didn't answer the question, do you believe no one knows where anything is on earth?
People sail and fly and travel using compasses and maps, so why would I think that?
But, it's about the entirety and the shape. You know this.
It's about how we are told.
-
I wouldn't waste thousands of posts trying to find reasons why someone thinks differently to a global model, unless I was actually questioning that global model.
Are you?
No I am not. I know the Earth is a globe as do several others taking part in this discussion. I'm not living with 19th century astronomy any more. I have moved on. I'm more interested in the wider universe.
First of all you do not know your Earth is a globe. You believe it to be because you were schooled into that mindset and unconditionally (it seems) accept it.
-
You didn't answer the question, do you believe no one knows where anything is on earth?
People sail and fly and travel using compasses and maps, so why would I think that?
Because in order to be able to reliably navigate from place to place, they need to know where these places are in relation to one other (or have a tool which does).
Then these relationships between these locations allows you to construct a map from the locations.
i.e. you can get the shape from these relationships.
First of all you do not know your Earth is a globe. You believe it to be because you were schooled into that mindset and unconditionally (it seems) accept it.
Stop just repeating the same lie.
Plenty of us know, beyond any sane doubt, that Earth is round, roughly a sphere. This is not because of indoctrination but because of the mountains of evidence which show that to be the case, the evidence you cannot refute and your attempts at explaining it away fail miserably and have been refuted.
Just because you don't know and choose to continually all the evidence doesn't mean no one else can know nor does it mean that everyone who accepts Earth is round is indoctrinated.
Again, you provide literally nothing of any substance to challenge the fact that Earth is roughly a sphere.
-
We are just going round and round in circles with all this now. Scepti will continue on with his line about no one 'knows' the Earth is a globe and insisting that everyone who thinks it is has been indoctrinated etc etc...
Meanwhile we on the RE side will continue to point out about the masses of evidence available that the Earth really is a globe and then scepti will just reply again with all his denials.
So I call that stalemate. I can't see where else we can go with this. It's taken 20 odd pages just to realise what we all knew at the start. No one will change their minds because both sides are equally adamant that they are right.
-
So I call that stalemate.
I don't. It is a victory for RE. Don't really care what sceptimatic (if that's even his real name) thinks.
-
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.
I'm just curious what others might think.
Thanks.
There aren't any cliffs that keep you from falling off, OBVIOUSLY! There is a firmament, and whether the land goes on and on forever beyond that has it's disbelievers and believers.
Well why don't you go look for yourself and settle the question once and for all? Discover the firmament, be famous.
Then why don't YOU go look for YOURself and settle it? Discover there isn't a firmament, be famous!
That's because I am not the one claiming there is a firmament, you are. Why should I go look for something that doesn't exist? Duh.
But you claim it's there. So go find it. What's stopping you? You could find out if the land goes on forever or not... aren't you even slightly interested?
-
We are just going round and round in circles with all this now. Scepti will continue on with his line about no one 'knows' the Earth is a globe and insisting that everyone who thinks it is has been indoctrinated etc etc...
Not quite a stalemate. One side is willing to accept evidence and entertain the idea they could be wrong, the other is not.
If the dome existed, I'd change my mind if I flew out there and touched it. On the other hand, I have yet to hear ANY Flat Earther admit they would change their mind no matter WHAT evidence was provided to them, assuming they can even understand the question in the first place.
That's a pretty huge distinction.
That was the whole point of this topic in the first place, and all we got from Flat Earthers was a few who couldn't even understand the concept. Then they derailed it into attacking science, as usual.
I'm still waiting for a real answer.
-
Back in the middle ages there was widely held belief, influenced in no small way by religious views of the time that the Universe was perfect geometrically. By Universe I mean of course solar system as we would say today. All the planets were perfect spheres and they orbited the Sun in orbits that were perfectly circular.
Tycho Brahe, despite his over indulgent and extravagant life style was nevertheless an expert observer and made the most detailed and most accurate observation of the positions of the planets available. He used instruments which were state of the art for the time.
Kepler on the other hand was a theorist and his special interest was to map the solar system. He believed with passion about the circular orbits of the planets but after gaining access to Tychos observing logs after his death, try as he might he could not get his predicted positions to match Tychos recorded positions. The discrepancies were small but Kepler was a perfectionist and so they troubled him. In the end, and against all his preferred instincts he changed the shapes of the planetary orbits from circles to ellipses. The errors vanished immediately.
It was against all his personal instincts and beliefs to abandon the circular planetary orbits. He nevertheless realised that the accuracy of Tychos observation logs meant he could not patch over the differences and pretend they didn't exist just so that he could keep his religiously influenced belief in circular orbits alive.
In other words we might not like reality but sometimes we just have to accept it. That is what science is about. Distinguishing between what is real and what we might like to be real. Science discovered a long time ago that the Earth is a sphere and that is the main reason why flat Earthers don't like it and refuse to agree with science. That is why they are hell-bent on re-inventing another version of science that is compatible with their beliefs. Regardless of whether it actually matches reality.
-
The water is flat, the ground is obviously uneven in many many areas.
You know exactly how my Earth is, so don't keep wasting your own time pretending, unless you simply like typing for the sake of it.
Your map literally shows the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans (all conveniently labelled) following a curve down from the north pole to the equator. The water on your own map is anything but flat. Honestly, this is comedy gold. How are you going to dig yourself out of this hole?
-
I think I'll have one more go at this. You never know.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So sceptimatic wants it nice and easy, so the first step is this right angled triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Measure side b and angle B. We already know angle C is 90°, so we have two angles and a side.
I claim that with two known angles and a known side, for any triangle, we can solve the triangle, i.e. we can find all the missing sides and angles.
I'm trying to find out if sceptimatic agrees with this perfectly straightforward claim. How hard could it be? I originally gave him 3 options, but since this didn't work, I'm now extending it to 5 options, covering every possibility.
The highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
4) DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE
5) ONLY WHEN IT SUITS ME
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
Make your picture a lot smaller. It's far too big.
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
Now tell me how you equate that to your points of light.
So a week on and several evasive replies later and still no answer.
So I'll ask once more. Pick an option between 1 and 5.
If you can't even do this simple thing, then you forfeit the right to claim that nobody has been able to explain to you how we work out the distances to stars.
-
So I call that stalemate.
I don't. I see it as a checkmate with scepti just refusing to admit defeat.
All he has done is repeatedly assert the same false claims, while refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational debate.
Meanwhile we have refuted his claims, and he hasn't been able to show a single problem with those refutations.
We have provided evidence, and all he did was dismiss it and make up excuses which were easily shown to be wrong.
That is not a stalemate.
One side is clearly defeated.
-
I mean a stalemate in so far as changing of minds. We (RE) know the evidence points overwhelmingly to the Earth being a globe so no one is going to change their mind.
Scepti is just as certain that he is right but for reasons of pure belief so he will never change his mind either.
So if we were judging this on evidence alone then RE won ages ago because the best FE have done so far is produce some ancient diagram that they will insist is some kind of map which is blatantly just one persons fantasy. But FE (well Scepti because he is the only FEer here) will see it differently.
Kepler could so easily have accused Tycho of lying or deliberately 'massaging' his data just because it implied that what he believed in (i.e.that the planetary orbits were perfectly circular) was wrong. By doing that Kepler would have become a kind of 'conspiracy theorist' of his era. Kepler knew that wasn't the case though because Tycho had absolutely no interest in what Kepler thought or believed. He simply recorded what he saw and Kepler respected that.
Today, as has always been the case the same evidence is available to everyone. It's just a matter of how we interpret that evidence. FE will continue insist that it points to the Earth being flat and will accuse mainstream science and RE of lying or being in denial of the truth because we say something that goes against their beliefs.
Some see what is actually there. Some see what they want to see.
-
Plenty of us know, beyond any sane doubt, that Earth is round, roughly a sphere. This is not because of indoctrination but because of the mountains of evidence which show that to be the case, the evidence you cannot refute and your attempts at explaining it away fail miserably and have been refuted.
The so called mountains of evidence have been handed to you as so called facts. Massive indoctrinated belief's.
It all fits for you because it's been made to fit your mindset.
-
The water is flat, the ground is obviously uneven in many many areas.
You know exactly how my Earth is, so don't keep wasting your own time pretending, unless you simply like typing for the sake of it.
Your map literally shows the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans (all conveniently labelled) following a curve down from the north pole to the equator. The water on your own map is anything but flat. Honestly, this is comedy gold. How are you going to dig yourself out of this hole?
Show me the water on that map and let's talk about the flatness.
-
I think I'll have one more go at this. You never know.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So sceptimatic wants it nice and easy, so the first step is this right angled triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Measure side b and angle B. We already know angle C is 90°, so we have two angles and a side.
I claim that with two known angles and a known side, for any triangle, we can solve the triangle, i.e. we can find all the missing sides and angles.
I'm trying to find out if sceptimatic agrees with this perfectly straightforward claim. How hard could it be? I originally gave him 3 options, but since this didn't work, I'm now extending it to 5 options, covering every possibility.
The highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
4) DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE
5) ONLY WHEN IT SUITS ME
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
Make your picture a lot smaller. It's far too big.
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
Now tell me how you equate that to your points of light.
So a week on and several evasive replies later and still no answer.
So I'll ask once more. Pick an option between 1 and 5.
If you can't even do this simple thing, then you forfeit the right to claim that nobody has been able to explain to you how we work out the distances to stars.
Let me make this more abundantly clear.
I'm not arguing genuinely made triangles that can be accurately calculated, physically.
I accept you can triangulate points to find the distance as I mentioned in building and such.
Let me make this more clear.
Let's make this simpler.
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
-
So I call that stalemate.
I don't. I see it as a checkmate with scepti just refusing to admit defeat.
All he has done is repeatedly assert the same false claims, while refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational debate.
Meanwhile we have refuted his claims, and he hasn't been able to show a single problem with those refutations.
We have provided evidence, and all he did was dismiss it and make up excuses which were easily shown to be wrong.
That is not a stalemate.
One side is clearly defeated.
My king is still upright and proud and has zero back up.
You seem to be armed with most of your pieces and still can't find a way to checkmate.
-
I mean a stalemate in so far as changing of minds. We (RE) know the evidence points overwhelmingly to the Earth being a globe so no one is going to change their mind.
Scepti is just as certain that he is right but for reasons of pure belief so he will never change his mind either.
So if we were judging this on evidence alone then RE won ages ago because the best FE have done so far is produce some ancient diagram that they will insist is some kind of map which is blatantly just one persons fantasy. But FE (well Scepti because he is the only FEer here) will see it differently.
Kepler could so easily have accused Tycho of lying or deliberately 'massaging' his data just because it implied that what he believed in (i.e.that the planetary orbits were perfectly circular) was wrong. By doing that Kepler would have become a kind of 'conspiracy theorist' of his era. Kepler knew that wasn't the case though because Tycho had absolutely no interest in what Kepler thought or believed. He simply recorded what he saw and Kepler respected that.
Today, as has always been the case the same evidence is available to everyone. It's just a matter of how we interpret that evidence. FE will continue insist that it points to the Earth being flat and will accuse mainstream science and RE of lying or being in denial of the truth because we say something that goes against their beliefs.
Some see what is actually there. Some see what they want to see.
And some see what they're programmed to see.
-
The so called mountains of evidence have been handed to you
While some has, some has also been personally collected by me.
Once more, it has nothing to do with indoctrination.
It is entirely based upon reality, something your wild fantasy severely lacks.
Now again, care to address the refutation of your insane claims?
Care to point out which point in the argument provided you disagree with and why?
Or are you only capable of dismissing reality as indoctrination?
-
I think I'll have one more go at this. You never know.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So sceptimatic wants it nice and easy, so the first step is this right angled triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Measure side b and angle B. We already know angle C is 90°, so we have two angles and a side.
I claim that with two known angles and a known side, for any triangle, we can solve the triangle, i.e. we can find all the missing sides and angles.
I'm trying to find out if sceptimatic agrees with this perfectly straightforward claim. How hard could it be? I originally gave him 3 options, but since this didn't work, I'm now extending it to 5 options, covering every possibility.
The highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
4) DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE
5) ONLY WHEN IT SUITS ME
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
Make your picture a lot smaller. It's far too big.
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
Now tell me how you equate that to your points of light.
So a week on and several evasive replies later and still no answer.
So I'll ask once more. Pick an option between 1 and 5.
If you can't even do this simple thing, then you forfeit the right to claim that nobody has been able to explain to you how we work out the distances to stars.
Let me make this more abundantly clear.
I'm not arguing genuinely made triangles that can be accurately calculated, physically.
Great, that answer sounds like you could mean either option 1 or option 3 or option 4 or option 5, but probably not 2? Is this supposed to be progress?
I accept you can triangulate points to find the distance as I mentioned in building and such.
Let me make this more clear.
Brilliant, you want to make things clear, so presumably you'll just answer the question then by picking a number between 1 and 5.
Let's make this simpler.
Yes, let's, so that's a number between 1 and 5 then
Your moon.
Sorry did you forget we're still trying to establish a simple truth about triangles, we don't need a moon to do that.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
Gladly, just tell me which of 1 to 5 represents your understanding of triangles and I'll happily move on.
From this we can move on
Indeed we can, so that's 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Who can't seem to pick a number
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
No, I'll only include sensible equations.
So let's not skip over anything, let's especially not skip over the part where you pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let me just repeat that first answer you gave here:
I'm not arguing genuinely made triangles that can be accurately calculated, physically.
So here's the problem in a nutshell. I'm trying to establish exactly what you believe about a particular rule concerning triangles. I want to know whether you believe it to be true. I want to know if you think it's true all of the time or just some of the time. Your word salad answers don't tell me anything useful. What is a "genuinely made triangle"? Is there some other kind of triangle that I'm unaware of? A "counterfeit triangle" perhaps? What does "calculated physically" mean? Is there such a thing as "calculated spiritually" perhaps, which would give a different answer?
Please don't bother to address any of the above questions. I've given you 5 simple options which cover every possible eventuality, just pick one. For example, if you are certain there is more than one type of triangle ("genuine" and "counterfeit" perhaps) or more than one method of calculation ("physical" and "spiritual" perhaps), then pick option 3. If you suspect this, rather than are certain, then option 4. If you are playing games and just messing about, then option 5.
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
-
The water is flat, the ground is obviously uneven in many many areas.
You know exactly how my Earth is, so don't keep wasting your own time pretending, unless you simply like typing for the sake of it.
Your map literally shows the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans (all conveniently labelled) following a curve down from the north pole to the equator. The water on your own map is anything but flat. Honestly, this is comedy gold. How are you going to dig yourself out of this hole?
Show me the water on that map and let's talk about the flatness.
(https://i.imgur.com/OJQ8Fh3.png)
Last time I checked, oceans were made of water.
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
The ways and means of calculating the size and distance of the Moon are documented widely and freely available to anyone. So it is not up to us to repeat all that here just because you are too lazy or pig headed to do your own research. Go and look it up yourself. I guess which methods you will accept or reject depends on whether you get the answer you want to get, or not. Below is one link I found within a few seconds which demonstrates an experiment carried out by amateur astronomers. There are other links within it which detail exactly how it was done.
http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
Once we have calculated the distance we can determine the true size of the Moon given the apparent size on the sky which anyone can measure. Easy.
The figure obtained for the distance of the Moon doesn't quite agree with that given the the FE Wiki:
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
So clearly one of these figures is wrong. There is no explanation of how whoever wrote the Wiki figure arrived at it. So it is just a claim. But there you go.
Regarding 'your tools' do you mean the typical sort of tools that would have been available to stone age man or the sort of tools available to us in the 21st century?
Do you honestly think that amateur astronomers of today simply stand outside under the night sky, look up and think 'wow that all looks very pretty'. We engage our brains and work out for ourselves how we can find the answers to the questions that we have and what equipment we might need that will help us to answer these questions. We can even get in touch with others around the world and work with them to obtain data from two places at the same time. Clever eh!
-
Damn, missed that there was another page.
My bad, fixing it now.
Show me the water on that map and let's talk about the flatness.
Your avatar is quite a low resolution, so I will use the "square and stationary Earth" image provided by Stash, but appropriately cropped.
Here is such an image:
(https://i.imgur.com/IIJykLM.jpg)
Notice the red line?
This is a line running along latitudes 0 degrees and 180 degrees.
If your Earth was flat, that should be a straight line.
Notice that this goes through oceans, i.e. WATER, so either your non-flat Earth has non-flat water following the curvature of your non-flat Earth; or the water remains pooled at some level on this Earth.
Or are you going to suggest that these lines were drawn in wavy just for fun and it wasn't meant to represent a bowl at all, and you think Europe and Asia is basically just a tiny sliver?
My king is still upright and proud and has zero back up.
Yes, because it is too stubborn to admit defeat, even though it is completely surrounded by 8 queens (one in each direction) and 2 knights.
You are check-mated, you just refuse to admit it.
It isn't a case of defeating you, that has been done long ago.
It is now just a case of getting you to be honest and rational and either engage with the arguments or admit you are wrong.
Even now you still just assert you are fine and act like there is nothing wrong with all the nonsense you have said, even though you have been completley incapable of providing a single fault with the line reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that the round Earth does have a horizon and that when you are close to the surface it will appear to be roughly eye-level.
And some see what they're programmed to see.
Is that why you keep repeating the same refuted nonsense?
Because you are programmed to not see all the refutations?
And why you continually see the very real round Earth as nonsense, because you are programmed to do so?
-
This retort about being 'programmed' seems to be all Scepti can come up with now. How is that any different to how he has 'programmed' himself to just believe his own views?
Difference is we are still in 'edit/modify' mode where we can change our 'programme' code if new evidence comes to light. Scepti seems to be in 'read only' mode.
-
This retort about being 'programmed' seems to be all Scepti can come up with now. How is that any different to how he has 'programmed' himself to just believe his own views?
Difference is we are still in 'edit/modify' mode where we can change our 'programme' code if new evidence comes to light. Scepti seems to be in 'read only' mode.
Agree with this, I've certainly changed my mind. I'm now quite happy to accept scepti's map (for everywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer), or the globe, as I like to call it.
-
One issue I have with this map is that it shows the Sun as similar in size to the UK. So what has kept something so small shining for just over 4.6 billion years up to now?
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
::)
-
Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
If you were stood outside simply looking at the Moon how would you measure its distance? How could you prove from direct observation alone whether it was 250 miles away or 250,000 miles away?
-
Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
If you were stood outside simply looking at the Moon how would you measure its distance? How could you prove from direct observation alone whether it was 250 miles away or 250,000 miles away?
To be honest I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be measuring the distance to. It started out with distant galaxies, then stars, then balls, then lights in the sky, now the moon. Probably going to be mars, or Halley's comet or the ISS next.
Meanwhile, I've spent a week trying to get him to pick a number.
-
Well basically Scepti is asserting that if you and I were stood outside simply looking at the Moon in the sky like our ancestors did during the stone age or even before then it would not be possible to measure how far away it is.
Which is quite true. But since the stone age those with a scientific mind have been asking themselves what methods they could use to find that information. Not only that but many of those people have devised methods to work out the answer and have gone ahead and found it. One such method is lunar parallax and I even handed him on a plate a couple of links which explain in detail (as he requested) how a couple of amateur astronomers with 'their tools' made the necessary observations and calculated the distance to the Moon. Once you know the distance and its angular apparent size, you can work out its physical size.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
I'm expecting Scepti to now come back and say 'ah yes but I didn't say you were allowed to use telescopes'. Well sorry my friend you said using 'our tools' and in an astronomers toolbox you usually find a telescope or two. So if we've got the tools we will use them. The links I provided in a previous post satisfy Sceptis request and provide an answer. It might not be the answer he wanted but it is the right answer.
To be honest I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be measuring the distance to. It started out with distant galaxies, then stars, then balls, then lights in the sky, now the moon. Probably going to be mars, or Halley's comet or the ISS next.
Well bring it on... if Scepti wants to know more about the cosmological distance ladder then he just needs to ask. He might not understand the answers but nothing stopping him from asking.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
Agreed. Mathematical evidence doesn't seem to be a strong point when it comes to FE theory. Maybe mathematics hasn't been invented yet in the FE Universe.
-
I think I'll have one more go at this. You never know.
Nice and simple to start with.
Easy peasy stuff for a dummy like me.
So sceptimatic wants it nice and easy, so the first step is this right angled triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Measure side b and angle B. We already know angle C is 90°, so we have two angles and a side.
I claim that with two known angles and a known side, for any triangle, we can solve the triangle, i.e. we can find all the missing sides and angles.
I'm trying to find out if sceptimatic agrees with this perfectly straightforward claim. How hard could it be? I originally gave him 3 options, but since this didn't work, I'm now extending it to 5 options, covering every possibility.
The highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
4) DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE
5) ONLY WHEN IT SUITS ME
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
Make your picture a lot smaller. It's far too big.
Your diagram is far too big. Make it fit the forum page.
Help him make the diagram small enough to fit the forum.
Now are you going to tell me the horizontal and vertical lines add up to the same number as the angled line?
If so, I already understand it. Builders, etc, use it.
Now tell me how you equate that to your points of light.
So a week on and several evasive replies later and still no answer.
So I'll ask once more. Pick an option between 1 and 5.
If you can't even do this simple thing, then you forfeit the right to claim that nobody has been able to explain to you how we work out the distances to stars.
Let me make this more abundantly clear.
I'm not arguing genuinely made triangles that can be accurately calculated, physically.
I accept you can triangulate points to find the distance as I mentioned in building and such.
Let me make this more clear.
Let's make this simpler.
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Last words being one final challenge from the checkmated king, whilst taken into custody........
I'm an enormous fan of the KISS principle. (The principle, not the rock band) Keep It Simple Stupid.
An easy request.
"You, have your tools......."
1. Outline each tool.
2. Explain how each tool works.
3. Explain how a tool proves the size of moon.
4. Explain how a tool proves the distance of the moon from the earth.
Very well, sceptimatic. Very well. On your way to your prison cell...."me and you stood in an open space", it is a clear starry night with full moon high in the night sky.....
-
The so called mountains of evidence have been handed to you
While some has, some has also been personally collected by me.
Such as?
-
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let's start with your moon.
Forget the so called laser pointing mountain top sites and what not. Let's see you calculate the size and distance of your moon.
-
The water is flat, the ground is obviously uneven in many many areas.
You know exactly how my Earth is, so don't keep wasting your own time pretending, unless you simply like typing for the sake of it.
Your map literally shows the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans (all conveniently labelled) following a curve down from the north pole to the equator. The water on your own map is anything but flat. Honestly, this is comedy gold. How are you going to dig yourself out of this hole?
Show me the water on that map and let's talk about the flatness.
(https://i.imgur.com/OJQ8Fh3.png)
Last time I checked, oceans were made of water.
Yep, so what's your point?
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
The ways and means of calculating the size and distance of the Moon are documented widely and freely available to anyone. So it is not up to us to repeat all that here just because you are too lazy or pig headed to do your own research. Go and look it up yourself. I guess which methods you will accept or reject depends on whether you get the answer you want to get, or not. Below is one link I found within a few seconds which demonstrates an experiment carried out by amateur astronomers. There are other links within it which detail exactly how it was done.
http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
Once we have calculated the distance we can determine the true size of the Moon given the apparent size on the sky which anyone can measure. Easy.
The figure obtained for the distance of the Moon doesn't quite agree with that given the the FE Wiki:
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
So clearly one of these figures is wrong. There is no explanation of how whoever wrote the Wiki figure arrived at it. So it is just a claim. But there you go.
Regarding 'your tools' do you mean the typical sort of tools that would have been available to stone age man or the sort of tools available to us in the 21st century?
Do you honestly think that amateur astronomers of today simply stand outside under the night sky, look up and think 'wow that all looks very pretty'. We engage our brains and work out for ourselves how we can find the answers to the questions that we have and what equipment we might need that will help us to answer these questions. We can even get in touch with others around the world and work with them to obtain data from two places at the same time. Clever eh!
Sooo, basically you have no clue.
-
WATER, so either your non-flat Earth has non-flat water following the curvature of your non-flat Earth; or the water remains pooled at some level on this Earth.
It's all about looking at the size of Earth from this point of view and where water would actually be pooled.
-
This retort about being 'programmed' seems to be all Scepti can come up with now. How is that any different to how he has 'programmed' himself to just believe his own views?
Difference is we are still in 'edit/modify' mode where we can change our 'programme' code if new evidence comes to light. Scepti seems to be in 'read only' mode.
I already did change my program. You may or may not in your lifetime. Either way it's down to you.
-
One issue I have with this map is that it shows the Sun as similar in size to the UK. So what has kept something so small shining for just over 4.6 billion years up to now?
Who told you about 4.6 billion years?
Which expert?
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
::)
There's math and then there's made up numbers that actually mean nothing.
-
Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
If you were stood outside simply looking at the Moon how would you measure its distance? How could you prove from direct observation alone whether it was 250 miles away or 250,000 miles away?
This is what I'm asking of you people and I get deflection.
If you can legitimately prove its size and distance then you'd do so. It seems you can't....and for good reason.
-
Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
If you were stood outside simply looking at the Moon how would you measure its distance? How could you prove from direct observation alone whether it was 250 miles away or 250,000 miles away?
To be honest I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be measuring the distance to. It started out with distant galaxies, then stars, then balls, then lights in the sky, now the moon. Probably going to be mars, or Halley's comet or the ISS next.
Meanwhile, I've spent a week trying to get him to pick a number.
We'll get to your stars and what not. Let's start with an easy task for you and your peers. Your moon size and distance.
-
You asked how we can measure the size and the distance of the Moon using equipment available to any amateur astronomer. That has been explained to you in the finest detail but obviously that isn't good enough for you so you choose to ignore it. I haven't personally done it but if I did I would get the same answer.
I have yet to read anywhere where you have done any experiments or observations that prove you to be right and others wrong.
-
Well basically Scepti is asserting that if you and I were stood outside simply looking at the Moon in the sky like our ancestors did during the stone age or even before then it would not be possible to measure how far away it is.
Which is quite true. But since the stone age those with a scientific mind have been asking themselves what methods they could use to find that information. Not only that but many of those people have devised methods to work out the answer and have gone ahead and found it. One such method is lunar parallax and I even handed him on a plate a couple of links which explain in detail (as he requested) how a couple of amateur astronomers with 'their tools' made the necessary observations and calculated the distance to the Moon. Once you know the distance and its angular apparent size, you can work out its physical size.
Let's see you explain it to me, the dummy. Nice and simple and we'll deal with every little bit so I can be sure it makes sense.
You see, I can't just accept you telling me the little horse in the field is really a massive, gigantic horse but in a field that is thousands of miles away, even if it runs to another position in that field.
So let's see how you get on with your moon size and distance.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
I'm expecting Scepti to now come back and say 'ah yes but I didn't say you were allowed to use telescopes'. Well sorry my friend you said using 'our tools' and in an astronomers toolbox you usually find a telescope or two. So if we've got the tools we will use them. The links I provided in a previous post satisfy Sceptis request and provide an answer. It might not be the answer he wanted but it is the right answer.
Use whatever you want to but only use something which you can guarantee to be a proof and not something that is a scribbled load of figures and then a pen flung onto the paper to say " and that's that" when there isn't anything to prove the reality.
I'm sure you can understand this.
To be honest I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be measuring the distance to. It started out with distant galaxies, then stars, then balls, then lights in the sky, now the moon. Probably going to be mars, or Halley's comet or the ISS next.
Well bring it on... if Scepti wants to know more about the cosmological distance ladder then he just needs to ask. He might not understand the answers but nothing stopping him from asking.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
Agreed. Mathematical evidence doesn't seem to be a strong point when it comes to FE theory. Maybe mathematics hasn't been invented yet in the FE Universe.
Mathematical evidence is fine if it actually means something.
-
Last words being one final challenge from the checkmated king, whilst taken into custody........
I'm an enormous fan of the KISS principle. (The principle, not the rock band) Keep It Simple Stupid.
An easy request.
"You, have your tools......."
1. Outline each tool.
2. Explain how each tool works.
3. Explain how a tool proves the size of moon.
4. Explain how a tool proves the distance of the moon from the earth.
Very well, sceptimatic. Very well. On your way to your prison cell...."me and you stood in an open space", it is a clear starry night with full moon high in the night sky.....
Carry on.
-
You asked how we can measure the size and the distance of the Moon using equipment available to any amateur astronomer. That has been explained to you in the finest detail but obviously that isn't good enough for you so you choose to ignore it. I haven't personally done it but if I did I would get the same answer.
I have yet to read anywhere where you have done any experiments or observations that prove you to be right and others wrong.
It's ok, I think smoke machine is going to do the KISS version of explanation. Maybe you can add to it and teach this utter simpleton of a dunce (me) just how it all stacks up to a truth or at least shows massive potential for it....because I just don't see anything other than hand waving and figures thrown out that solve nothing.
I'm hoping the , KISS sheds something more in your face reality.
-
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let's start with your moon.
Forget the so called laser pointing mountain top sites and what not. Let's see you calculate the size and distance of your moon.
I can't help with the size of the moon, but can with the distance. Amateur HAM Radio Operators have been performing what's known as an Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) bounce to send transmissions to far flung places. One of the cool things you can do with EME is bounce a transmission off the moon and get the echo back. Calculate the time it took to make the round trip and knowing the propagation speed of a radio wave, calculate how far away the object (Moon) is. Something like this (You need to be a licensed amateur HAM Radio operator with the right equipment, but even the equipment is pretty standard for a HAM):
1) Set up the transmitter/receiver and connect it to the antenna.
2) The antenna and radio transmitter should be within line of sight of the Moon, and the receiver should not be disturbed by interference signals, such as large electric installations nearby.
3) Find out where exactly the Moon is positioned in the sky, as seen from your location at the time of the experiment.
4) Select an appropriate frequency in a VHF or UHF amateur radio band.
5) Point the antenna towards the Moon.
6) Connect the oscilloscope to the sound input of the transmitter so that it shows the signal being transmitted.
7) Connect the output of the transmitter/receiver to the second channel of the oscilloscope.
8 - Transmit a signal in Morse code or as a series of pulses that easily show on the oscilloscope.
9) On the receiver, listen for the reflection of your signal and watch it on the oscilloscope.
10) Set the transmitter/receiver in the ‘break-in mode’ to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving.
11) Adjust the antenna direction if needed.
12) Align the two signals seen on the oscilloscope and read the time delay between them from the screen.
Using the time delay, calculate the distance d to the Moon using the following equation
d = (c x t) / 2
where
d = distance of Earth to Moon in metres
c = the speed of light, 3 x 108 metres per second
t =time delay in seconds
The radio signal covers the same distance twice (Earth to the Moon, and back), hence the need to divide by 2
For example, with a delay time of 2.56 seconds:
d = [(3 x 108) x 2.56] / 2
d = 348 000 000 m
It's really as simple as that and gives the distance to the moon of approx. 384,400 km. Amateurs do this all over the world. There are even contests for who can moon bounce the farthest. People have been doing it since the 50's.
-
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let's start with your moon.
Forget the so called laser pointing mountain top sites and what not. Let's see you calculate the size and distance of your moon.
I can't help with the size of the moon, but can with the distance. Amateur HAM Radio Operators have been performing what's known as an Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) bounce to send transmissions to far flung places. One of the cool things you can do with EME is bounce a transmission off the moon and get the echo back. Calculate the time it took to make the round trip and knowing the propagation speed of a radio wave, calculate how far away the object (Moon) is. Something like this (You need to be a licensed amateur HAM Radio operator with the right equipment, but even the equipment is pretty standard for a HAM):
1) Set up the transmitter/receiver and connect it to the antenna.
2) The antenna and radio transmitter should be within line of sight of the Moon, and the receiver should not be disturbed by interference signals, such as large electric installations nearby.
3) Find out where exactly the Moon is positioned in the sky, as seen from your location at the time of the experiment.
4) Select an appropriate frequency in a VHF or UHF amateur radio band.
5) Point the antenna towards the Moon.
6) Connect the oscilloscope to the sound input of the transmitter so that it shows the signal being transmitted.
7) Connect the output of the transmitter/receiver to the second channel of the oscilloscope.
8 - Transmit a signal in Morse code or as a series of pulses that easily show on the oscilloscope.
9) On the receiver, listen for the reflection of your signal and watch it on the oscilloscope.
10) Set the transmitter/receiver in the ‘break-in mode’ to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving.
11) Adjust the antenna direction if needed.
12) Align the two signals seen on the oscilloscope and read the time delay between them from the screen.
Using the time delay, calculate the distance d to the Moon using the following equation
d = (c x t) / 2
where
d = distance of Earth to Moon in metres
c = the speed of light, 3 x 108 metres per second
t =time delay in seconds
The radio signal covers the same distance twice (Earth to the Moon, and back), hence the need to divide by 2
For example, with a delay time of 2.56 seconds:
d = [(3 x 108) x 2.56] / 2
d = 348 000 000 m
It's really as simple as that and gives the distance to the moon of approx. 384,400 km. Amateurs do this all over the world. There are even contests for who can moon bounce the farthest. People have been doing it since the 50's.
A few questions for you. Answer them as honestly as you can, if you don't mind.
!. Have you ever done what you're pushing towards me?
2.Are you simply in acceptance of this because it appears right but you're not physically sure how it is?
3. What makes you so certain of this speed of light?
Answer these without appealing to any authority, please.
It might seem like I'm being a dick and maybe I am to you and others........but....... I have my reasons and I simply don't just believe something that begs massive questions.
-
The water is flat, the ground is obviously uneven in many many areas.
You know exactly how my Earth is, so don't keep wasting your own time pretending, unless you simply like typing for the sake of it.
Your map literally shows the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans (all conveniently labelled) following a curve down from the north pole to the equator. The water on your own map is anything but flat. Honestly, this is comedy gold. How are you going to dig yourself out of this hole?
Show me the water on that map and let's talk about the flatness.
(https://i.imgur.com/OJQ8Fh3.png)
Last time I checked, oceans were made of water.
Yep, so what's your point?
I'm not making a point. You asked a simple question, you asked me to show you the water on that map. I answered your simple question with a direct answer. I annotated your map and pointed you to the water, 3 oceans full of water, all following a curve. Not flat.
Now, quid pro quo, I answered your question, you answer mine: Pick a number between 1 and 5.
Why are you so terrified of this question? Why have you spent a week avoiding it like some squirming politician, throwing out words to fill the dead air as you desperately, seek to avoid the one question you don't want to address?
-
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let's start with your moon.
Forget the so called laser pointing mountain top sites and what not. Let's see you calculate the size and distance of your moon.
I can't help with the size of the moon, but can with the distance. Amateur HAM Radio Operators have been performing what's known as an Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) bounce to send transmissions to far flung places. One of the cool things you can do with EME is bounce a transmission off the moon and get the echo back. Calculate the time it took to make the round trip and knowing the propagation speed of a radio wave, calculate how far away the object (Moon) is. Something like this (You need to be a licensed amateur HAM Radio operator with the right equipment, but even the equipment is pretty standard for a HAM):
1) Set up the transmitter/receiver and connect it to the antenna.
2) The antenna and radio transmitter should be within line of sight of the Moon, and the receiver should not be disturbed by interference signals, such as large electric installations nearby.
3) Find out where exactly the Moon is positioned in the sky, as seen from your location at the time of the experiment.
4) Select an appropriate frequency in a VHF or UHF amateur radio band.
5) Point the antenna towards the Moon.
6) Connect the oscilloscope to the sound input of the transmitter so that it shows the signal being transmitted.
7) Connect the output of the transmitter/receiver to the second channel of the oscilloscope.
8 - Transmit a signal in Morse code or as a series of pulses that easily show on the oscilloscope.
9) On the receiver, listen for the reflection of your signal and watch it on the oscilloscope.
10) Set the transmitter/receiver in the ‘break-in mode’ to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving.
11) Adjust the antenna direction if needed.
12) Align the two signals seen on the oscilloscope and read the time delay between them from the screen.
Using the time delay, calculate the distance d to the Moon using the following equation
d = (c x t) / 2
where
d = distance of Earth to Moon in metres
c = the speed of light, 3 x 108 metres per second
t =time delay in seconds
The radio signal covers the same distance twice (Earth to the Moon, and back), hence the need to divide by 2
For example, with a delay time of 2.56 seconds:
d = [(3 x 108) x 2.56] / 2
d = 348 000 000 m
It's really as simple as that and gives the distance to the moon of approx. 384,400 km. Amateurs do this all over the world. There are even contests for who can moon bounce the farthest. People have been doing it since the 50's.
A few questions for you. Answer them as honestly as you can, if you don't mind.
!. Have you ever done what you're pushing towards me?
No.
2.Are you simply in acceptance of this because it appears right but you're not physically sure how it is?
That's kind of a loaded question. There's nothing 'simple' about it. My grandfather was a HAM and I witnessed him talking to other HAM's in Austria and Japan when I was a kid, those I remember - He was on the East coast of the US (There were other ones, in other countries, I was a lad, I'm sure there were more elsewhere around the world, I don't remember where exactly). Now I don't think he was doing moon bounce transmission, more like Ionosphere ones. Moon is technically more difficult for a back and forth, not so much for an echo. So yes and no.
3. What makes you so certain of this speed of light?
Great question and I knew that was coming because it's sort of the crux of the biscuit. No, I personally am not able to verify the speed of light. But I'm also not sure I can personally verify how my toaster knows when to pop up my toast on the perfect 'brown' setting I put it on. There are a million things in life that I can't personally verify exactly how they function from my internet, computer, phone all the way down to my toaster. But they work. If you have something that refutes the common knowledge of the speed of light, lay it on me. But I don't think you have that. And it's not like it hasn't been tested and measured ad nauseam. So if you would like to contest it, you need some really strong evidence. Otherwise, it's a known value that is used the world over to great success. Balls in your court on that.
Answer these without appealing to any authority, please.
Done.
It might seem like I'm being a dick and maybe I am to you and others........but....... I have my reasons and I simply don't just believe something that begs massive questions.
And no, I don't think you're being a dick. Absolutely fair questions. The point being is that people, amateur radio people, do these things and it's documented all over the place. If you are really interested, contact some local HAMS in your town (They are everywhere, you'd be surprised) and ask them. Get a demo. If my grandfather were still alive, I'd ask him. But this is not some obscure thing and it's actually somewhat easily, personally verified. So if you are really interested in the 'truth' check it out for yourself. By all means, don't take my word for it.
-
Let's see you explain it to me, the dummy. Nice and simple and we'll deal with every little bit so I can be sure it makes sense.
That's exactly what I thought I have done. The way I describe anything to do with astronomy on here is set at a very low level. I regularly do presentations to 11-16 year olds and I set those at a higher level than how I describe things on here. They don't seem to have much trouble keeping up. In fact some of them ask me to get more technical.
I'm sorry if you consider yourself to be a dummy but that I cannot do anything about.
-
You asked a simple question, you asked me to show you the water on that map. I answered your simple question with a direct answer. I annotated your map and pointed you to the water, 3 oceans full of water, all following a curve. Not flat.
And you think oceans do not sit inside a concave bowl....right?
You think you can have a bowl of soup with your bowl turned upside down and you can have your soup without any bother....right?
You think the Earth I'm showing you has a mound around it that is like a hill you walk up instead of thousands of miles of mild inclination....right?
You think you can't have a mass or water sitting in a large delve in this inclination....right?
Or am I wrong with your thoughts?
Now, quid pro quo, I answered your question, you answer mine: Pick a number between 1 and 5.
Why are you so terrified of this question? Why have you spent a week avoiding it like some squirming politician, throwing out words to fill the dead air as you desperately, seek to avoid the one question you don't want to address?
I'm not terrified of the question.
I can't answer it until I know what you're postulating, fully.
You mention this:
I think I'll have one more go at this. You never know.
So sceptimatic wants it nice and easy, so the first step is this right angled triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Measure side b and angle B. We already know angle C is 90°, so we have two angles and a side.
I claim that with two known angles and a known side, for any triangle, we can solve the triangle, i.e. we can find all the missing sides and angles.
I'm trying to find out if sceptimatic agrees with this perfectly straightforward claim. How hard could it be? I originally gave him 3 options, but since this didn't work, I'm now extending it to 5 options, covering every possibility.
The highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
4) DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE
5) ONLY WHEN IT SUITS ME
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
So, tell me how you know the angle is 90 degrees?
Your answer will be, measure both sides and using the 1-2-3......2-3-4......3-4-5 method to measure the angle to ensure a perfect 90 degrees....right?
If you can physically know the two lines you can angle the third to get your distance..........................and this is where the issue starts.
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
-
Such as?
Such as my personal observations of the stars, my personal observations of Focault's pendulum, my personal observations of how the distance to the horizon and the angle of elevation of the horizon varies with height, my personal observations of the horzion, my personal observations of sunrise and sunset, my personal observations of how water (or the horizon in general) obscures objects from the bottom up and is capable of obstructing the view to a distant object, even while both myself and the distant object are well above the level of the water.
Meanwhile what do you have?
A baseless assertion that the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level, in with photographic evidence directly contradicting that, and backed up by strawmen to pretend that what is observed isn't expected on a globe, even though that strawman has been refuted and you were unable to point out a single fault with the several refutations of it.
Yep, so what's your point?
That is quite clear, the surface of your Earth, including the oceans, ARE CURVED, i.e. you do not have a flat Earth with flat water. Instead you have a curved Earth with curved water.
WATER, so either your non-flat Earth has non-flat water following the curvature of your non-flat Earth; or the water remains pooled at some level on this Earth.
It's all about looking at the size of Earth from this point of view and where water would actually be pooled.
And I have. It could not possibly produce the oceans that are observed.
The bottom of the bowl would be around the Tropic of Capricorn.
You could have water pooled at that level, at which point some regions of Australia and Africa and South America would have water, while the entire northern hemisphere and even the majority of the southern hemisphere would be dry, with no water at all.
Or you could have the water fill up to southern edge of USA, in which case Australia would be submerged, entirely underwater, while the northern United States, Canada, Europe, and northern Asia would be dry.
And before you try to appeal to topography, at this scale the topography would be indistinguishable from a flat surface.
The Earth shown is 40 000 km accross.
The height of the tallest mountain, Mt Everest, is a mere ~9 km. That is 9 parts in 40 000, or roughly 1 part in 4000.
The image is only 2308 px wide. Even being generous and saying that the curvature shown doubles the length, Mt Everest would be a single pixel high, basically nothing.
Meanwhile, the variation in height in this model is ~200 px. Being generous and pretending that is viewed side on, rather than from an angle which would make it appear smaller, that puts it at roughly 200 times the size of Everest.
So your Earth is quite clearly not flat, even if you ignore the topography of mountains and the like.
So which is it?
Is your water pooled and in no way consistent with what is observed in reality, or is it curved?
And you think oceans do not sit inside a concave bowl....right?
You think you can have a bowl of soup with your bowl turned upside down and you can have your soup without any bother....right?
You think the Earth I'm showing you has a mound around it that is like a hill you walk up instead of thousands of miles of mild inclination....right?
You think you can't have a mass or water sitting in a large delve in this inclination....right?
Or am I wrong with your thoughts?
While I'm not him, I am fairly sure you are wrong.
This isn't about the very real round Earth that you hate so much, but the model you presented, the model you claimed had flat water, which would make it entirely inconsistent with the known boundaries of water on this Earth.
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
Clearly not an answer to the request and instead repeated deflections.
If you want to appeal to the 0 degree angle, start by picking one of the 5 options, and then ask.
-
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let's start with your moon.
Forget the so called laser pointing mountain top sites and what not. Let's see you calculate the size and distance of your moon.
I can't help with the size of the moon, but can with the distance. Amateur HAM Radio Operators have been performing what's known as an Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) bounce to send transmissions to far flung places. One of the cool things you can do with EME is bounce a transmission off the moon and get the echo back. Calculate the time it took to make the round trip and knowing the propagation speed of a radio wave, calculate how far away the object (Moon) is. Something like this (You need to be a licensed amateur HAM Radio operator with the right equipment, but even the equipment is pretty standard for a HAM):
1) Set up the transmitter/receiver and connect it to the antenna.
2) The antenna and radio transmitter should be within line of sight of the Moon, and the receiver should not be disturbed by interference signals, such as large electric installations nearby.
3) Find out where exactly the Moon is positioned in the sky, as seen from your location at the time of the experiment.
4) Select an appropriate frequency in a VHF or UHF amateur radio band.
5) Point the antenna towards the Moon.
6) Connect the oscilloscope to the sound input of the transmitter so that it shows the signal being transmitted.
7) Connect the output of the transmitter/receiver to the second channel of the oscilloscope.
8 - Transmit a signal in Morse code or as a series of pulses that easily show on the oscilloscope.
9) On the receiver, listen for the reflection of your signal and watch it on the oscilloscope.
10) Set the transmitter/receiver in the ‘break-in mode’ to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving.
11) Adjust the antenna direction if needed.
12) Align the two signals seen on the oscilloscope and read the time delay between them from the screen.
Using the time delay, calculate the distance d to the Moon using the following equation
d = (c x t) / 2
where
d = distance of Earth to Moon in metres
c = the speed of light, 3 x 108 metres per second
t =time delay in seconds
The radio signal covers the same distance twice (Earth to the Moon, and back), hence the need to divide by 2
For example, with a delay time of 2.56 seconds:
d = [(3 x 108) x 2.56] / 2
d = 348 000 000 m
It's really as simple as that and gives the distance to the moon of approx. 384,400 km. Amateurs do this all over the world. There are even contests for who can moon bounce the farthest. People have been doing it since the 50's.
A few questions for you. Answer them as honestly as you can, if you don't mind.
!. Have you ever done what you're pushing towards me?
No.
Thanks for your honesty.
2.Are you simply in acceptance of this because it appears right but you're not physically sure how it is?
That's kind of a loaded question. There's nothing 'simple' about it. My grandfather was a HAM and I witnessed him talking to other HAM's in Austria and Japan when I was a kid, those I remember - He was on the East coast of the US (There were other ones, in other countries, I was a lad, I'm sure there were more elsewhere around the world, I don't remember where exactly). Now I don't think he was doing moon bounce transmission, more like Ionosphere ones. Moon is technically more difficult for a back and forth, not so much for an echo. So yes and no.
Ok, so you know he was doing something but not sure exactly, what.....right?
3. What makes you so certain of this speed of light?
Great question and I knew that was coming because it's sort of the crux of the biscuit. No, I personally am not able to verify the speed of light. But I'm also not sure I can personally verify how my toaster knows when to pop up my toast on the perfect 'brown' setting I put it on.
Fair enough. I do like your honesty.
There are a million things in life that I can't personally verify exactly how they function from my internet, computer, phone all the way down to my toaster. But they work. If you have something that refutes the common knowledge of the speed of light, lay it on me.
I can't physically prove a lot of stuff....if any, depending on who it is I'm dealing with....but I can....in my own ways....prove a lot of stuff to myself in at least putting a massive massive massive question mark against a lot of mainstream so called science....which is not to be mixed up with me dismissing all of potential and hard to question, real mainstream science.
As for laying it on you....how about this.
There is no speed of light, as such. What happens in this full pressurised, stacked Earth.....is instant.
It needs a little bit of explaining and I'm willing to. It's a simple explanation but I'll leave it for the next answer to save it being buried beneath all this.
But I don't think you have that. And it's not like it hasn't been tested and measured ad nauseam. So if you would like to contest it, you need some really strong evidence. Otherwise, it's a known value that is used the world over to great success. Balls in your court on that.
Who uses it?
What I mean is, how is it used.
Answer these without appealing to any authority, please.
Done.
Thanks.
It might seem like I'm being a dick and maybe I am to you and others........but....... I have my reasons and I simply don't just believe something that begs massive questions.
And no, I don't think you're being a dick. Absolutely fair questions. The point being is that people, amateur radio people, do these things and it's documented all over the place. If you are really interested, contact some local HAMS in your town (They are everywhere, you'd be surprised) and ask them. Get a demo. If my grandfather were still alive, I'd ask him. But this is not some obscure thing and it's actually somewhat easily, personally verified. So if you are really interested in the 'truth' check it out for yourself. By all means, don't take my word for it.
I'm not questioning Ham radio operators, I'm questioning the stuff supposedly behind it that even they will simply follow.
-
Let's see you explain it to me, the dummy. Nice and simple and we'll deal with every little bit so I can be sure it makes sense.
That's exactly what I thought I have done. The way I describe anything to do with astronomy on here is set at a very low level. I regularly do presentations to 11-16 year olds and I set those at a higher level than how I describe things on here. They don't seem to have much trouble keeping up. In fact some of them ask me to get more technical.
I'm sorry if you consider yourself to be a dummy but that I cannot do anything about.
Anyone will understand being taught a certain way.
To be fair (and I do use this a fair bit)..if I was taught to understand how and why the starship enterprise works and it was taught to me as a reality without having to prove it, physically (do you get me?) then I would happily go around telling anyone who will listen and proclaim myself to be well educated and a theoretical expert on it.
I could go along in life with that belief, unconditionally and yet only hope to see the workings in reality....which, I would never get to see.
People research the loch ness monster.
People research ghosts and claim to be experts.
Are they real?
This is the conundrum.
-
Anyone will understand being taught a certain way.
Anyone can be taught if they are willing to learn. Learning involves absorbing or accepting new/different information. That is where we seem to have the difficulty with you.
I am fairly flexible with my reaction to what is said on this forum but I don't take to kindly to being told ' I haven't got a clue' after studying astronomy for over 40 years.
If two people located at a large distance from each other observe the Moon and a star (the same star) located near the Moon at the SAME TIME but notice a difference in the distance between the star and the limb of the Moon, that difference is down to parallax. From that we can calculate the distance of the Moon.
It is not for obvious reasons (that even a dummy should be able to understand) an observation that just one person can make.
-
I can't physically prove a lot of stuff....if any, depending on who it is I'm dealing with....but I can....in my own ways....prove a lot of stuff to myself in at least putting a massive massive massive question mark against a lot of mainstream so called science....which is not to be mixed up with me dismissing all of potential and hard to question, real mainstream science.
You mean like presenting strawmen that you refuse to justify?
That sure seems like it is you just dismissing it.
As for laying it on you....how about this.
There is no speed of light, as such. What happens in this full pressurised, stacked Earth.....is instant.
Then what causes all the known effects of the finite speed of light, including ping times for fibre optic cables, which can actually be measured?
You can even directly measure the speed of light in one of several ways.
Perhaps the simplest is getting a fast microprocessor and a very long fibre optic cable (10s of km).
Then it is just a case of sending a pulse of light through and measuring how long it takes to arrive.
More importantly, if light did travel instantly, why is there a delay at all for the moon bounce?
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
::)
There's math and then there's made up numbers that actually mean nothing.
You not understanding simple trigonometry doesn't mean it's wrong.
-
More importantly, if light did travel instantly, why is there a delay at all for the moon bounce?
There is no Moon..?
Just guessing.
EDIT: And the fibre optic thingy is just processor delay, computing takes time. (I'm getting good at this!)
I can fill in for FE they need some time off the forums!
-
You asked a simple question, you asked me to show you the water on that map. I answered your simple question with a direct answer. I annotated your map and pointed you to the water, 3 oceans full of water, all following a curve. Not flat.
And you think oceans do not sit inside a concave bowl....right?
You think you can have a bowl of soup with your bowl turned upside down and you can have your soup without any bother....right?
You think the Earth I'm showing you has a mound around it that is like a hill you walk up instead of thousands of miles of mild inclination....right?
You think you can't have a mass or water sitting in a large delve in this inclination....right?
Or am I wrong with your thoughts?
Now, quid pro quo, I answered your question, you answer mine: Pick a number between 1 and 5.
Why are you so terrified of this question? Why have you spent a week avoiding it like some squirming politician, throwing out words to fill the dead air as you desperately, seek to avoid the one question you don't want to address?
I'm not terrified of the question.
I can't answer it until I know what you're postulating, fully.
You mention this:
I think I'll have one more go at this. You never know.
So sceptimatic wants it nice and easy, so the first step is this right angled triangle, drawn on a flat plane..
(https://i.imgur.com/MClf6k4.png)
Measure side b and angle B. We already know angle C is 90°, so we have two angles and a side.
I claim that with two known angles and a known side, for any triangle, we can solve the triangle, i.e. we can find all the missing sides and angles.
I'm trying to find out if sceptimatic agrees with this perfectly straightforward claim. How hard could it be? I originally gave him 3 options, but since this didn't work, I'm now extending it to 5 options, covering every possibility.
The highlighted claim is correct:
1) ALWAYS
2) NEVER
3) SOMETIMES
4) DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE
5) ONLY WHEN IT SUITS ME
So the answers I've had so far to the request to pick an option are:
So, tell me how you know the angle is 90 degrees?
Your answer will be, measure both sides and using the 1-2-3......2-3-4......3-4-5 method to measure the angle to ensure a perfect 90 degrees....right?
No. The reason I know the angle is exactly 90° is because I've defined it to be so, simply by stating that this is a right angled triangle. The image is an illustration of this triangle, nothing more. I could have drawn it by hand without a ruler and called it a right angled triangle. Any normal person would understand that to be interpreted as a triangle with perfectly straight lines with one angle exactly 90°, even if the lines on the illustration were not perfectly straight and the angles weren't exact. There is no need to measure anything. I can draw a sketch of a dog, say it's a dog and a rational person would just accept that and understand perfectly well what was meant.
In fact, for this particular image, I did use software which draws straight lines and understands angles and since I constrained the angle to be 90°, assuming the software works as advertised, then the angle, even in the image, is in fact 90°.
If you can physically know the two lines you can angle the third to get your distance..........................and this is where the issue starts.
You haven't read this properly have you? You don't need to know two lines, only one. No wonder you are having problems answering.
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
Fine, OK, let's measure the distance to the moon.
The moon is at B. Let's have two observers, one at A and one at C. Let's call distance b one unit. Measure the angle B. You have now all the information required to calculate the distance to the moon. I've offered to explain this to you in simple steps. This involves you engaging in the process by answering the original question. Option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which is it?
-
You asked a simple question, you asked me to show you the water on that map. I answered your simple question with a direct answer. I annotated your map and pointed you to the water, 3 oceans full of water, all following a curve. Not flat.
And you think oceans do not sit inside a concave bowl....right?
You think you can have a bowl of soup with your bowl turned upside down and you can have your soup without any bother....right?
You think the Earth I'm showing you has a mound around it that is like a hill you walk up instead of thousands of miles of mild inclination....right?
You think you can't have a mass or water sitting in a large delve in this inclination....right?
Or am I wrong with your thoughts?
To be honest, this word salad makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you think we live in or on a soup bowl?
We live in the middle of thousands of miles of mild inclination? What does that mean in English?
Delve: verb - To reach inside a receptacle and search for something.
What exactly are we reaching for and how do we reach inside an inclination?
-
Such as?
Such as my personal observations of the stars, my personal observations of Focault's pendulum, my personal observations of how the distance to the horizon and the angle of elevation of the horizon varies with height, my personal observations of the horzion, my personal observations of sunrise and sunset, my personal observations of how water (or the horizon in general) obscures objects from the bottom up and is capable of obstructing the view to a distant object, even while both myself and the distant object are well above the level of the water.
Meanwhile what do you have?
A baseless assertion that the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level, in with photographic evidence directly contradicting that, and backed up by strawmen to pretend that what is observed isn't expected on a globe, even though that strawman has been refuted and you were unable to point out a single fault with the several refutations of it.
None of your observations prove anything for your globe.
They're all observations based on your belief from what you were schooled into and you simply use it as your reality when it's far from it.
Yep, so what's your point?
That is quite clear, the surface of your Earth, including the oceans, ARE CURVED, i.e. you do not have a flat Earth with flat water. Instead you have a curved Earth with curved water.
Nope. I have a concave Earth with flat, level water in and around it along with flat land along with a lot of land that has inclination.
And.... you shouldn't be arguing curved oceans, as if you think they're wrong and actually trying to also use them to cater for your own globe.
Can't you see how contradictory and nonsensical it appears?
-
Anyone will understand being taught a certain way.
Anyone can be taught if they are willing to learn. Learning involves absorbing or accepting new/different information. That is where we seem to have the difficulty with you.
I am fairly flexible with my reaction to what is said on this forum but I don't take to kindly to being told ' I haven't got a clue' after studying astronomy for over 40 years.
If two people located at a large distance from each other observe the Moon and a star (the same star) located near the Moon at the SAME TIME but notice a difference in the distance between the star and the limb of the Moon, that difference is down to parallax. From that we can calculate the distance of the Moon.
It is not for obvious reasons (that even a dummy should be able to understand) an observation that just one person can make.
So show me how it works.
This parallax with this person here and another, there and this parallax.....etc....etc.............show me.
-
I can't physically prove a lot of stuff....if any, depending on who it is I'm dealing with....but I can....in my own ways....prove a lot of stuff to myself in at least putting a massive massive massive question mark against a lot of mainstream so called science....which is not to be mixed up with me dismissing all of potential and hard to question, real mainstream science.
You mean like presenting strawmen that you refuse to justify?
That sure seems like it is you just dismissing it.
As for laying it on you....how about this.
There is no speed of light, as such. What happens in this full pressurised, stacked Earth.....is instant.
Then what causes all the known effects of the finite speed of light, including ping times for fibre optic cables, which can actually be measured?
You can even directly measure the speed of light in one of several ways.
Perhaps the simplest is getting a fast microprocessor and a very long fibre optic cable (10s of km).
Then it is just a case of sending a pulse of light through and measuring how long it takes to arrive.
More importantly, if light did travel instantly, why is there a delay at all for the moon bounce?
Moon bounce?
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
::)
There's math and then there's made up numbers that actually mean nothing.
You not understanding simple trigonometry doesn't mean it's wrong.
Simple trigonometry is simple.
What is not simple, is the nonsense used for so called distant stars and the so called moon....etc.
It's not explained properly because it can't be explained, because you simply cannot use trigonometry like that.
It's just a pretence and figures thrown about as if they match up.
Explain it if you can instead of hand waving.
-
No. The reason I know the angle is exactly 90° is because I've defined it to be so, simply by stating that this is a right angled triangle. The image is an illustration of this triangle, nothing more. I could have drawn it by hand without a ruler and called it a right angled triangle. Any normal person would understand that to be interpreted as a triangle with perfectly straight lines with one angle exactly 90°, even if the lines on the illustration were not perfectly straight and the angles weren't exact.
Of course you can say it's 90 degrees but the point is in showing how and why. This comes in for your moon calculation which I'm waiting to see how it's done.
There is no need to measure anything. I can draw a sketch of a dog, say it's a dog and a rational person would just accept that and understand perfectly well what was meant.
Of course you can but I'm not questioning the dog.
In fact, for this particular image, I did use software which draws straight lines and understands angles and since I constrained the angle to be 90°, assuming the software works as advertised, then the angle, even in the image, is in fact 90°.
It doesn't matter.
What you need to be doing is to show how you calculate the angle to create the 90. We know it's simple but this needs to be shown and then we can go onto the moon what you say you can calculate.
If you can physically know the two lines you can angle the third to get your distance..........................and this is where the issue starts.
You haven't read this properly have you? You don't need to know two lines, only one. No wonder you are having problems answering.
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
Fine, OK, let's measure the distance to the moon.
The moon is at B. Let's have two observers, one at A and one at C. Let's call distance b one unit. Measure the angle B. You have now all the information required to calculate the distance to the moon. I've offered to explain this to you in simple steps. This involves you engaging in the process by answering the original question. Option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which is it?
So, calculate the moon distance and tell me how.
This is telling me nothing and you know it.
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
::)
There's math and then there's made up numbers that actually mean nothing.
You not understanding simple trigonometry doesn't mean it's wrong.
Simple trigonometry is simple.
What is not simple, is the nonsense used for so called distant stars and the so called moon....etc.
It's not explained properly because it can't be explained, because you simply cannot use trigonometry like that.
It's just a pretence and figures thrown about as if they match up.
Explain it if you can instead of hand waving.
Of course you can use trigonometry to measure these distances. You can use trigonometry to measure the distance to anything you like, no matter how far away. The only practical limitation is whether the equipment used to measure the angle(s) you need is capable of doing so accurately enough.
The angles you need to measure to determine the distance to the moon are relatively enormous, more than a 1/10th of a degree and trivially easy to measure, even for an amateur. Angles for stars require better equipment for sure, because they are smaller, but it's not a problem.
You make a completely unsubstantiated claim about trigonometry, where's your evidence?
-
To be honest, this word salad makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you think we live in or on a soup bowl?
We live inside a cell.
We are covered by the skin (dome)....we live on a sort of decaying mass that would be like the set up in my avatar.
It's been explained so why are you asking again?
We live in the middle of thousands of miles of mild inclination? What does that mean in English?
If you were to walk up a very mild inclination you could end up very high and not realise it....or low, depending on where you reside in the first place....or trek.
Delve: verb - To reach inside a receptacle and search for something.
What exactly are we reaching for and how do we reach inside an inclination?
Nope, there's also another meaning. Maybe I should've made it a bit more clear.
Let's use the word indentation.
I'm open to change if that doesn't suit.
-
Of course you can use trigonometry to measure these distances. You can use trigonometry to measure the distance to anything you like, no matter how far away. The only practical limitation is whether the equipment used to measure the angle(s) you need is capable of doing so accurately enough.
So set it all out and show me how you do it. How you do it.
I'll help. Show me what you want me to do and talk me through it. Send me wherever so we can calculate this moon distance.
The angles you need to measure to determine the distance to the moon are relatively enormous, more than a 1/10th of a degree and trivially easy to measure, even for an amateur. Angles for stars require better equipment for sure, because they are smaller, but it's not a problem.
You make a completely unsubstantiated claim about trigonometry, where's your evidence?
I'm looking for evidence that it works outside of the normality and physicality that we know.
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
-
No. The reason I know the angle is exactly 90° is because I've defined it to be so, simply by stating that this is a right angled triangle. The image is an illustration of this triangle, nothing more. I could have drawn it by hand without a ruler and called it a right angled triangle. Any normal person would understand that to be interpreted as a triangle with perfectly straight lines with one angle exactly 90°, even if the lines on the illustration were not perfectly straight and the angles weren't exact.
Of course you can say it's 90 degrees but the point is in showing how and why. This comes in for your moon calculation which I'm waiting to see how it's done.
This is utterly meaningless. If I tell you to imagine a square then it's in my head and now it's in your head. A square is by definition a four sided shape with 4 equal length sides and all the interior angles are exactly 90°. A right angled triangle is by definition a three sided shape with one 90° angle. If you are having problems imagining the square, I can sketch it for you. The sketch is to help you imagine the square, it isn't the square. There is no point in asking how or why the angles are 90°, because that's how a square is defined. Same with a triangle. I've defined a right angled triangle, so the angle is 90°. If the angle is not 90°, then it's not a right angled triangle and therefore isn't the triangle I have defined.
You might ask me to think of a number. OK, I have, 23. You can ask me how I know it's 23 if you want, but it's a meaningless question.
There is no need to measure anything. I can draw a sketch of a dog, say it's a dog and a rational person would just accept that and understand perfectly well what was meant.
Of course you can but I'm not questioning the dog.
You're not questioning the triangle either, you're questioning the sketch of the triangle.
In fact, for this particular image, I did use software which draws straight lines and understands angles and since I constrained the angle to be 90°, assuming the software works as advertised, then the angle, even in the image, is in fact 90°.
It doesn't matter.
What you need to be doing is to show how you calculate the angle to create the 90. We know it's simple but this needs to be shown and then we can go onto the moon what you say you can calculate.
If I say to you, imagine a teacup, asking me how I know it's a teacup is pointless. I'm saying imagine a right angled triangle, you are asking how do I know it's a right angled triangle. It is what it is because that's what I say it is.
If you can physically know the two lines you can angle the third to get your distance..........................and this is where the issue starts.
You haven't read this properly have you? You don't need to know two lines, only one. No wonder you are having problems answering.
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
No, you absolutely do not. One line is sufficient.
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
Fine, OK, let's measure the distance to the moon.
The moon is at B. Let's have two observers, one at A and one at C. Let's call distance b one unit. Measure the angle B. You have now all the information required to calculate the distance to the moon. I've offered to explain this to you in simple steps. This involves you engaging in the process by answering the original question. Option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which is it?
So, calculate the moon distance and tell me how.
This is telling me nothing and you know it.
You use trigonometry as already described.
-
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
No, you absolutely do not. One line is sufficient.
Ok then let's use this one line and see how it works.
What do you do with this one line?
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
Fine, OK, let's measure the distance to the moon.
The moon is at B. Let's have two observers, one at A and one at C. Let's call distance b one unit. Measure the angle B. You have now all the information required to calculate the distance to the moon. I've offered to explain this to you in simple steps. This involves you engaging in the process by answering the original question. Option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which is it?
So, calculate the moon distance and tell me how.
This is telling me nothing and you know it.
You use trigonometry as already described.
So let's use it.
I'm with you. You have your tools.
Tell me what I need to do to aid you to get this verification.
-
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
No, you absolutely do not. One line is sufficient.
Ok then let's use this one line and see how it works.
What do you do with this one line?
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
Fine, OK, let's measure the distance to the moon.
The moon is at B. Let's have two observers, one at A and one at C. Let's call distance b one unit. Measure the angle B. You have now all the information required to calculate the distance to the moon. I've offered to explain this to you in simple steps. This involves you engaging in the process by answering the original question. Option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which is it?
So, calculate the moon distance and tell me how.
This is telling me nothing and you know it.
You use trigonometry as already described.
So let's use it.
I'm with you. You have your tools.
Tell me what I need to do to aid you to get this verification.
I need you to answer the question about triangles. Choose option 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. That's what you need to do to aid me. If I understand your position on triangles and trigonometry, then I can formulate an answer to your question in terms of concepts we both agree on.
If you have a problem with the question or the options, then explain what the problem is.
-
Your moon.
Me and you are stood in an open space. You have your tools you need to show me how big your moon is and how distant it is.
Explain it from the very start to the end, showing me exactly how you prove its size and distance.
From this we can move on to the your sun and then the tiny points of light.
Explain it to this utter dummy.
Don't skip over anything but also do not add in silly equations. Just explain how you do it as if I was stood beside you.
Yes include all the details and don't skip anything but skip all the parts that have math in them!
::)
There's math and then there's made up numbers that actually mean nothing.
You not understanding simple trigonometry doesn't mean it's wrong.
Simple trigonometry is simple.
What is not simple, is the nonsense used for so called distant stars and the so called moon....etc.
It's not explained properly because it can't be explained, because you simply cannot use trigonometry like that.
It's just a pretence and figures thrown about as if they match up.
Explain it if you can instead of hand waving.
I've explained it many times. Other have explained it many times.
You just come up with lines like that, saying you don't understand how it can be used like that.
Yet you can't actually point to any math that's wrong. Just your constant complaining you don't understand, that it doesn't make sense, that it just can't possibly work that way.
Maybe the problem isn't with the math, maybe it's with your inability to understand it. You still haven't show your ability to understand any of the se concepts.
-
To be honest, this word salad makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you think we live in or on a soup bowl?
We live inside a cell.
We are covered by the skin (dome)....we live on a sort of decaying mass that would be like the set up in my avatar.
It's been explained so why are you asking again?
I don't read every single post. You may well have explained the whole cell, skin and decaying matter thing, but first I've heard. Post a link if you like and I'll read up about it.
We live in the middle of thousands of miles of mild inclination? What does that mean in English?
If you were to walk up a very mild inclination you could end up very high and not realise it....or low, depending on where you reside in the first place....or trek.
There are a whole load of clues which would lead me to believe I was walking up a mild inclination as you call it. If it was cloudy, I'd expect to eventually emerge above the clouds. I might well feel short of breath. If there were a river or stream, I'd certainly infer from the direction of flow where the low ground was and where the high ground was. If I was on a very large body of still water in a canoe (say), I would be surprised to find myself going uphill in any sense.
Delve: verb - To reach inside a receptacle and search for something.
What exactly are we reaching for and how do we reach inside an inclination?
Nope, there's also another meaning. Maybe I should've made it a bit more clear.
Let's use the word indentation.
I'm open to change if that doesn't suit.
Well my back garden is certainly sloped. I could dig an indentation and fill it with water and for sure, the water would stay in the indentation as it was filling up, but once full, the water will overflow the indentation and then start moving away - downhill.
-
This parallax with this person here and another, there and this parallax.....etc....etc.............show me.
READ THE LINKS I posted previously. The method is fully explained step by step to you including the 'tools' used to do it. You can read for yourself can't you?
If you are in such disagreement about the 238,855 mile distance of the Moon then you must be able to present the evidence for having such a disagreement. In other words you must be able to explain how you have reached a different figure and the method used to obtain it? Describe it so this 'dummy' can understand it. Unless you have done this using a method which can be verified independently then you are in no position to question the standard figure of 238,855 miles. This standard figure has been reached using various methods which have been repeated multiple times by various independent sources, including amateur and professional astronomer all over the world. Considering some of the larger and much more complex questions modern astrophysics is trying to solve, working out the distance to the Moon is trivial.
Once I know your method I will use the same method and see if I get the same result as you did. That is what is called in science a fair test. At the moment I haven't got anything from you to compare against. The question is are you really interested in learning about this stuff or are you just interested in stringing people along and pleading completely ignorant towards everything everyone here tries to explain to you?
If you really consider yourself to be a dummy or an utter simpleton of a dunce (me) to use your own descriptions of yourself and you can't understand how we work out the distance of the Moon then I really don't think you are in a position to make wild speculations about what the speed of light is or isn't do you? Proving or disproving that would involve a bit of math which would be a little beyond the sort of thing a dummy or simpleton of a dunce would really be able to handle.
-
None of your observations prove anything for your globe.
You not liking my observations which support a globe and refute a FE does not magically mean they are consistent with a FE.
They represent massive problems for a FE, which I am yet to see any FEer try to honestly address other than as nature conspiring against them to make Earth appear to be round.
Nope. I have a concave Earth with flat, level water in and around it along with flat land along with a lot of land that has inclination.
So where is your water level?
Is it like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
With all of Australia submerged and North American and Europe and Asia dry?
As for flat land, WHERE?
Once more, the model you presented has a very obvious curve. You have your north pole vastly above the lowest point, far larger than any mountain on Earth.
As for being able to feel it, that relates to what way is down. If down is always perpendicular to the surface (or at least an average of the surface over a "small" area, such that it follows the average curve), then no, you wouldn't.
However if it was just always down, with all downs parallel to each other, then yes, you would feel it. Some sections have quite a steep incline.
And.... you shouldn't be arguing curved oceans, as if you think they're wrong and actually trying to also use them to cater for your own globe.
Can't you see how contradictory and nonsensical it appears?
Can't you see what I am actually arguing here?
I am pointing out that you are refuting yourself.
Your model is that of a curved Earth with curved water.
You don't have a flat Earth, nor flat land.
I am not saying curved water is impossible, I am saying your own model has curved water, so all your claims of "water is always flat" refutes yourself.
Moon bounce?
The experiment that was being discussed which makes no sense under your model of light magically travelling instantaneously, at which point there should be no bounce at all.
Simple trigonometry is simple.
What is not simple, is the nonsense used for so called distant stars and the so called moon....etc.
You mean the very simple trig which you cannot refute and thus dismiss as nonsense?
It has been explained repeatedly, with you just dismissing the explanation because you have no intention of accepting reality, i.e. that you are wrong.
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
Or, you can directly measure angles.
You do not need to measure the length of those lines.
I'm looking for evidence that it works outside of the normality and physicality that we know.
Why?
We/they are explaining how to do so in reality with the very real round Earth and distant moon and even more distant stars.
They aren't talking about how to do it in your "flat" but not actually flat Earth fantasy.
-
You asked how we can measure the size and the distance of the Moon using equipment available to any amateur astronomer. That has been explained to you in the finest detail but obviously that isn't good enough for you so you choose to ignore it. I haven't personally done it but if I did I would get the same answer.
I have yet to read anywhere where you have done any experiments or observations that prove you to be right and others wrong.
It's ok, I think smoke machine is going to do the KISS version of explanation. Maybe you can add to it and teach this utter simpleton of a dunce (me) just how it all stacks up to a truth or at least shows massive potential for it....because I just don't see anything other than hand waving and figures thrown out that solve nothing.
I'm hoping the , KISS sheds something more in your face reality.
I will, but I have to choose wisely, because the first kiss attempt I was going to do, has already been attempted, and requires the student to already accept the earth's globe shape and size, which you do not.
So, I will apply the KISS principle in a different way to the way my globalist compadres have. Just bare with me, I'm on a few days holiday at present.
-
Just pick a number between 1 and 5.
Let's start with your moon.
Forget the so called laser pointing mountain top sites and what not. Let's see you calculate the size and distance of your moon.
I can't help with the size of the moon, but can with the distance. Amateur HAM Radio Operators have been performing what's known as an Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) bounce to send transmissions to far flung places. One of the cool things you can do with EME is bounce a transmission off the moon and get the echo back. Calculate the time it took to make the round trip and knowing the propagation speed of a radio wave, calculate how far away the object (Moon) is. Something like this (You need to be a licensed amateur HAM Radio operator with the right equipment, but even the equipment is pretty standard for a HAM):
1) Set up the transmitter/receiver and connect it to the antenna.
2) The antenna and radio transmitter should be within line of sight of the Moon, and the receiver should not be disturbed by interference signals, such as large electric installations nearby.
3) Find out where exactly the Moon is positioned in the sky, as seen from your location at the time of the experiment.
4) Select an appropriate frequency in a VHF or UHF amateur radio band.
5) Point the antenna towards the Moon.
6) Connect the oscilloscope to the sound input of the transmitter so that it shows the signal being transmitted.
7) Connect the output of the transmitter/receiver to the second channel of the oscilloscope.
8 - Transmit a signal in Morse code or as a series of pulses that easily show on the oscilloscope.
9) On the receiver, listen for the reflection of your signal and watch it on the oscilloscope.
10) Set the transmitter/receiver in the ‘break-in mode’ to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving.
11) Adjust the antenna direction if needed.
12) Align the two signals seen on the oscilloscope and read the time delay between them from the screen.
Using the time delay, calculate the distance d to the Moon using the following equation
d = (c x t) / 2
where
d = distance of Earth to Moon in metres
c = the speed of light, 3 x 108 metres per second
t =time delay in seconds
The radio signal covers the same distance twice (Earth to the Moon, and back), hence the need to divide by 2
For example, with a delay time of 2.56 seconds:
d = [(3 x 108) x 2.56] / 2
d = 348 000 000 m
It's really as simple as that and gives the distance to the moon of approx. 384,400 km. Amateurs do this all over the world. There are even contests for who can moon bounce the farthest. People have been doing it since the 50's.
A few questions for you. Answer them as honestly as you can, if you don't mind.
!. Have you ever done what you're pushing towards me?
No.
Thanks for your honesty.
2.Are you simply in acceptance of this because it appears right but you're not physically sure how it is?
That's kind of a loaded question. There's nothing 'simple' about it. My grandfather was a HAM and I witnessed him talking to other HAM's in Austria and Japan when I was a kid, those I remember - He was on the East coast of the US (There were other ones, in other countries, I was a lad, I'm sure there were more elsewhere around the world, I don't remember where exactly). Now I don't think he was doing moon bounce transmission, more like Ionosphere ones. Moon is technically more difficult for a back and forth, not so much for an echo. So yes and no.
Ok, so you know he was doing something but not sure exactly, what.....right?
To an extent. I'd sit there with him. He had all this electronic gear, headphones and a mic that he would press a button to talk. When I was there, he'd switch it over to a little speaker so I could listen and sometimes say hello. He'd fire everything up, press the button and announce himself. He had a call sign like all HAMs do, 'W something something something, etc'. I remember him talking to HAM's in Austria and Japan. Years later, on a trip to Austria with him, I met the guy, saw his set up. I met the Japanese HAM in the States once too. So did I know what all electronically was going on, absolutely not. What I did know is that he was talking to people 1000's of KM away. HAMs are everywhere, still even to this day. It's definitely a hobby people are very passionate about.
3. What makes you so certain of this speed of light?
Great question and I knew that was coming because it's sort of the crux of the biscuit. No, I personally am not able to verify the speed of light. But I'm also not sure I can personally verify how my toaster knows when to pop up my toast on the perfect 'brown' setting I put it on.
Fair enough. I do like your honesty.
There are a million things in life that I can't personally verify exactly how they function from my internet, computer, phone all the way down to my toaster. But they work. If you have something that refutes the common knowledge of the speed of light, lay it on me.
I can't physically prove a lot of stuff....if any, depending on who it is I'm dealing with....but I can....in my own ways....prove a lot of stuff to myself in at least putting a massive massive massive question mark against a lot of mainstream so called science....which is not to be mixed up with me dismissing all of potential and hard to question, real mainstream science.
Fair enough.
As for laying it on you....how about this.
There is no speed of light, as such. What happens in this full pressurised, stacked Earth.....is instant.
It needs a little bit of explaining and I'm willing to. It's a simple explanation but I'll leave it for the next answer to save it being buried beneath all this.
I haven't heard this before, the instantaneous bit. Do explain. Ole Rømer back in the 1600's was the first guy to postulate and experimentally show that light speed was not instantaneous. Look into that, for one. For two, today we uses instruments to do so. It's by no means rocket science, as it were.
You're going to need a mountain of evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's just some guy on the web saying it's instantaneous with no evidence against 100's of years of people measuring it. So far, your claim has no merit.
But I don't think you have that. And it's not like it hasn't been tested and measured ad nauseam. So if you would like to contest it, you need some really strong evidence. Otherwise, it's a known value that is used the world over to great success. Balls in your court on that.
Who uses it?
What I mean is, how is it used.
Pretty much every electronic thing that computes something. If my dumb toaster had a digital clock in it, the chip that runs it is engineered around the speed of light. It's a great determinate of processor speeds and such. Things we use every day. It's a huge measurement part of GPS, really at its core. And this one I did not know, the accuracy of the "meter". From wikipedia, "In 1983 the metre was defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 of a second",[88] fixing the value of the speed of light at 299792458 m/s by definition, as described below. Consequently, accurate measurements of the speed of light yield an accurate realization of the metre rather than an accurate value of c."
I mean the meter of all things. Pretty core to our ways and means in the world.
Answer these without appealing to any authority, please.
Done.
Thanks.
It might seem like I'm being a dick and maybe I am to you and others........but....... I have my reasons and I simply don't just believe something that begs massive questions.
And no, I don't think you're being a dick. Absolutely fair questions. The point being is that people, amateur radio people, do these things and it's documented all over the place. If you are really interested, contact some local HAMS in your town (They are everywhere, you'd be surprised) and ask them. Get a demo. If my grandfather were still alive, I'd ask him. But this is not some obscure thing and it's actually somewhat easily, personally verified. So if you are really interested in the 'truth' check it out for yourself. By all means, don't take my word for it.
I'm not questioning Ham radio operators, I'm questioning the stuff supposedly behind it that even they will simply follow.
If you look at it from a true skeptic's perspective, you have to ask yourself the logical question, "Do you think the 10's, probably 100's of thousands of amateur HAM's around the world since the 50's are unclear as to how their stuff works?" Like I say, like most people with a serious hobby, HAMs are a devoted group to their craft and fully geek out on all aspects of it. 10's of thousands have pointed their antenna at the moon, received an echo back in the expected, predicted amount of time and when they point it elsewhere, they don't. It doesn't get anymore empirical than that. So to say that HAMs don't know what is behind there stuff is illogical and borderline ridiculous.
If you really want to know the truth, befriend some local HAM operators and ask them to show you.
-
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
No, you absolutely do not. One line is sufficient.
Ok then let's use this one line and see how it works.
What do you do with this one line?
So, instead of you giving me 5 choices for this physical triangle and easy measurements...................let's try it with your moon and let me see you use those angles to get your distance.....and size.
If you can't do it and have to rely on others you follow then at least be honest about it.
Fine, OK, let's measure the distance to the moon.
The moon is at B. Let's have two observers, one at A and one at C. Let's call distance b one unit. Measure the angle B. You have now all the information required to calculate the distance to the moon. I've offered to explain this to you in simple steps. This involves you engaging in the process by answering the original question. Option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which is it?
So, calculate the moon distance and tell me how.
This is telling me nothing and you know it.
You use trigonometry as already described.
So let's use it.
I'm with you. You have your tools.
Tell me what I need to do to aid you to get this verification.
I need you to answer the question about triangles. Choose option 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. That's what you need to do to aid me. If I understand your position on triangles and trigonometry, then I can formulate an answer to your question in terms of concepts we both agree on.
If you have a problem with the question or the options, then explain what the problem is.
No you don't need any answer to that.
You can either show me how you measure the distance to your moon with me beside you and ready to follow your instructions to aid you, or admit that you do not know how you can do it.
I'm fine with that if this is the case.
-
I've explained it many times. Other have explained it many times.
You just come up with lines like that, saying you don't understand how it can be used like that.
Yet you can't actually point to any math that's wrong. Just your constant complaining you don't understand, that it doesn't make sense, that it just can't possibly work that way.
Maybe the problem isn't with the math, maybe it's with your inability to understand it. You still haven't show your ability to understand any of the se concepts.
Maybe it is. So maybe making it even more simple for this slow, dim witted, backward dunce that I am.
Make it easy for me to grasp.
Distances to these so called moons, stars, planets....etc.
Just show me how in easy to see steps to get your distances and sizes.
-
We live in the middle of thousands of miles of mild inclination? What does that mean in English?
If you were to walk up a very mild inclination you could end up very high and not realise it....or low, depending on where you reside in the first place....or trek.
There are a whole load of clues which would lead me to believe I was walking up a mild inclination as you call it. If it was cloudy, I'd expect to eventually emerge above the clouds. I might well feel short of breath.
Yep, there would likely be a load of clues as you trekked ever higher over thousands of miles....but, you would be walking the mild incline to as far as you could walk, until those complications set in.
I'm simply trying to highlight how the Earth in my avatar would appear to be rather than this big hump you see and steep incline.
If there were a river or stream, I'd certainly infer from the direction of flow where the low ground was and where the high ground was.
Yep, course you would...but then again this is not something I'm talking about.
If I was on a very large body of still water in a canoe (say), I would be surprised to find myself going uphill in any sense.
Of course you would. Like I said, you would be going up a stream or flowing river....or down....which again, is not what I'm talking about.
Delve: verb - To reach inside a receptacle and search for something.
What exactly are we reaching for and how do we reach inside an inclination?
Nope, there's also another meaning. Maybe I should've made it a bit more clear.
Let's use the word indentation.
I'm open to change if that doesn't suit.
Well my back garden is certainly sloped. I could dig an indentation and fill it with water and for sure, the water would stay in the indentation as it was filling up, but once full, the water will overflow the indentation and then start moving away - downhill.
Do the beaches overflow, generally?
-
This parallax with this person here and another, there and this parallax.....etc....etc.............show me.
READ THE LINKS I posted previously. The method is fully explained step by step to you including the 'tools' used to do it. You can read for yourself can't you?
If you are in such disagreement about the 238,855 mile distance of the Moon then you must be able to present the evidence for having such a disagreement. In other words you must be able to explain how you have reached a different figure and the method used to obtain it? Describe it so this 'dummy' can understand it. Unless you have done this using a method which can be verified independently then you are in no position to question the standard figure of 238,855 miles. This standard figure has been reached using various methods which have been repeated multiple times by various independent sources, including amateur and professional astronomer all over the world. Considering some of the larger and much more complex questions modern astrophysics is trying to solve, working out the distance to the Moon is trivial.
Once I know your method I will use the same method and see if I get the same result as you did. That is what is called in science a fair test. At the moment I haven't got anything from you to compare against. The question is are you really interested in learning about this stuff or are you just interested in stringing people along and pleading completely ignorant towards everything everyone here tries to explain to you?
If you really consider yourself to be a dummy or an utter simpleton of a dunce (me) to use your own descriptions of yourself and you can't understand how we work out the distance of the Moon then I really don't think you are in a position to make wild speculations about what the speed of light is or isn't do you? Proving or disproving that would involve a bit of math which would be a little beyond the sort of thing a dummy or simpleton of a dunce would really be able to handle.
Lots of typing but nothing to show me any reality.
If you can't show me or prove the reality of what you're saying, just say.
I'm not here to demand you show a reality if you can't.
I'm simply asking if anyone can, without appealing to some kind of authority.
-
OK here's less typing. Explain to me how you would measure the distance to the Moon and tell me the figure you got. Also explain why think yours is any more accurate. SO far all you've done is demand everyone else does the explaining while you sit there, dismiss it all and do nothing else.
-
None of your observations prove anything for your globe.
You not liking my observations which support a globe and refute a FE does not magically mean they are consistent with a FE.
They represent massive problems for a FE, which I am yet to see any FEer try to honestly address other than as nature conspiring against them to make Earth appear to be round.
They represent absolutely zero problems.
Nope. I have a concave Earth with flat, level water in and around it along with flat land along with a lot of land that has inclination.
So where is your water level?
Is it like this?
With all of Australia submerged and North American and Europe and Asia dry?
A soup bowl has inclination but holds water.
A dam holds water.
A moat holds water.
We aren't talking about a big smooth mountain like you think it is.
This is a big Earth and this so called mountain you think is in the avatar is gradual and you'll never reach anywhere near the peak of it, just as you would never reach anywhere near the outer mild, gradual, incline.
As for flat land, WHERE?
Once more, the model you presented has a very obvious curve. You have your north pole vastly above the lowest point, far larger than any mountain on Earth.
You regularly walk around and in your mind you spend a lot of it walking on what you perceive as flat land.
It could well be an very mild incline/decline as you walk but you will not pay too much attention to it, just as you don't pay too much attention to a house gutter that has a mild angle to it to allow water flow.
This is the type of stuff we are dealing with, generally.....and sooooo, the Earth can be seen to be flat but the real flatness is in the water.
And.... you shouldn't be arguing curved oceans, as if you think they're wrong and actually trying to also use them to cater for your own globe.
Can't you see how contradictory and nonsensical it appears?
Can't you see what I am actually arguing here?
I am pointing out that you are refuting yourself.
Your model is that of a curved Earth with curved water.
You don't have a flat Earth, nor flat land.
My entire Earth is a cell. Is a cell a square?
What my Earth is not...is a spinning ball we supposedly walk upon in a space vacuum
My curve is up....not down. t's concave but the water that settles....if flat.
I am not saying curved water is impossible, I am saying your own model has curved water, so all your claims of "water is always flat" refutes yourself.
You are saying curved water is impossible but you've now realised what you did and are now trying to put it right.
Moon bounce?
The experiment that was being discussed which makes no sense under your model of light magically travelling instantaneously, at which point there should be no bounce at all.
There is no moon bounce.
Simple trigonometry is simple.
What is not simple, is the nonsense used for so called distant stars and the so called moon....etc.
You mean the very simple trig which you cannot refute and thus dismiss as nonsense?
It has been explained repeatedly, with you just dismissing the explanation because you have no intention of accepting reality, i.e. that you are wrong.
So show me, unless you're simply backing up people who follow the global model, just for the sake of it and you have no clue how to calculate what I'm asking.
Which is it?
I'm a dummy....explain it to me so this dummy can grasp the reality, if there is one.
You need to know two lines to be able to calculate the angle of those lines to get distance.
Or, you can directly measure angles.
You do not need to measure the length of those lines.
Ok then, show me how.
Grab your tools and I'm side by side with you and awaiting orders to do what you need me to do to verify what's being said.
Over to you.
I'm looking for evidence that it works outside of the normality and physicality that we know.
Why?
We/they are explaining how to do so in reality with the very real round Earth and distant moon and even more distant stars.
They aren't talking about how to do it in your "flat" but not actually flat Earth fantasy.
Forget my Earth....show me how it works n your Earth.
-
OK here's less typing. Explain to me how you would measure the distance to the Moon and tell me the figure you got. Also explain why think yours is any more accurate. SO far all you've done is demand everyone else does the explaining while you sit there, dismiss it all and do nothing else.
I can't look up at the sky to points of light and triangulate anything and turn it into calculations for reality of distance and size.
This is why I'm asking you people to show me how you do it.
I'm not interested in book referencing. I'm interested in how you people do it.
You say it's simply one minute and then, when pushed, suddenly it becomes complicated.
So what is it?
One minute it's so easy that some historical figure managed it and the next it because ultra scientific and full of all kinds of equations and stuff.
So, show this dummy. Show me.
Get your tools and show me what I need to do to be sure of the reality.
I'm surely not asking for much...am I?
-
So for the umpteenth time, how far away do you think the Moon is and why? You must have your own method and distance otherwise you wouldn't be questioning the standard figure. The explanations of how that figure has been reached has been given to you several times already.
The way your mind works is obviously very different to the way mine (and most other peoples) works so there is no point in me explaining anything else. If you are that interested in finding out the answers to your questions go and join a local astronomy club. There are plenty of them around. Not only will they explain to self-confessed dummies like yourself they might even show you. Double result. That's if you manage to survive the first meeting before they throw you out.
-
Tell me what I need to do to aid you to get this verification.
I need you to answer the question about triangles. Choose option 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
No you don't need any answer to that.
Well here's the problem then. I do need an answer, even if you think I don't. We're stuck and have been for more than a week.
You can easily unlock this by providing an answer.
I'm surely not asking for much...am I?
All I'm asking for is a number between 1 and 5. Am I asking for too much?
Grab your tools and I'm side by side with you and awaiting orders to do what you need me to do to verify what's being said.
Over to you.
OK then, I order you to give me a number between 1 and 5. You have your orders as requested, off you go.
Here's the thing. Each of the options I've presented to you are either categorically true or false. Furthermore, they are mutually exclusive. My claim about triangles is true all of the time or it isn't true all of the time. If it isn't true all of the time then it is true some of the time or it is never true.
If you are certain you know the answer, then you can pick one of options 1, 2 or 3. You might not know for certain, that's covered by option 4.
The default option is 5. If you won't answer the question and won't explain why you won't answer the question, then that's covered by option 5 - things are true only when it suits you, in other words you are playing games.
Since you won't pick an answer, you've by default chosen option 5. Things are true only when it suits you.
Since your answer is 5, you are playing games and I won't indulge you by wasting my time with a detailed explanation you will just dismiss and ignore.
Feel free to prove me wrong, unlock the whole process and pick from 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
-
Seems to me that FE v RE is like the square peg v round hole situation. Anyone who is on the RE side will provide a RE (conventional science) explanation but anyone on the FE side will not be able accept any of those explanations because they believe in something completely different and incompatible.
It's like trying to get two people to understand each other who speak and understand one and different languages. Ain't going to work.
-
Sceptimatic seems of the opinion that if they cannot wrap their head around something, no one can.
Yes, yeah, has taken time for us to be able to calculate and measure things, did not happen overnight. Still, I see it not especially fruitful this "who did it and when and how" line of discourse. Especially as quite nonsensical things like the map he swallows hook, line, and sinker with no evidence to its verity.
-
They represent absolutely zero problems.
Is that why you continue to ignore ones which have already been brought up, like how from a high enough altitude the horizon is easily observed to be below level, even by the use of a simple water level?
Or how objects are obstructed by water, even when both the observer and object are above the water level?
They are massive problems for a FE, because a FE cannot explain any of them.
You dismissing them doesn't magically make them no longer a problem. It just shows you don't care about reality.
Nope. I have a concave Earth with flat, level water in and around it along with flat land along with a lot of land that has inclination.
So where is your water level?
Is it like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
With all of Australia submerged and North American and Europe and Asia dry?
A soup bowl has inclination but holds water.
A dam holds water.
A moat holds water.
We aren't talking about a big smooth mountain like you think it is.
This is a big Earth and this so called mountain you think is in the avatar is gradual and you'll never reach anywhere near the peak of it, just as you would never reach anywhere near the outer mild, gradual, incline.
No, we are talking about a giant bowl.
I provided an example of such a water level in your giant bowl.
Australia is submerged. Large amounts of Africa and South America are submerged.
Meanwhile the entire northern hemisphere is dry.
With your water flat, and Earth so massively curved, large regions of Earth would be entirely submerged and large regions would be entirely dry.
It doesn't matter where you try to put your flat water level, it does not match reality.
Now how about you stop with the deflection and just address the massive issue?
Do you think your water level looks like the one I have provided? If not, draw just what you think it looks like. Show me where on your bowl Earth you think this flat water level is.
As for flat land, WHERE?
Once more, the model you presented has a very obvious curve. You have your north pole vastly above the lowest point, far larger than any mountain on Earth.
You regularly walk around and in your mind you spend a lot of it walking on what you perceive as flat land.
It could well be an very mild incline/decline as you walk but you will not pay too much attention to it, just as you don't pay too much attention to a house gutter that has a mild angle to it to allow water flow.
And more pathetic deflection.
The model you presented is not a mild incline. It is a quite steep incline, which varies depending on location. It is not flat.
So no, if that is your Earth, it is not flat.
What my Earth is not...is a spinning ball we supposedly walk upon in a space vacuum
My curve is up....not down. t's concave but the water that settles....if flat.
What your Earth is not ... is flat.
Your curve is both up and down. Look at the north pole in your model. It is convex, not concave.
You are saying curved water is impossible but you've now realised what you did and are now trying to put it right.
No I'm not. Stop lying.
I am saying your model needs water to be curved, not flat, otherwise large regions of Earth would be dry while others would be submerged; you would not have the oceans that we do.
If you really think I am saying it is impossible, prove where.
Otherwise, recant your lie and trying being honest for once in your life.
There is no moon bounce.
And of course, more pathetic rejection of reality.
So show me
No. I want you to "show me" what is wrong with the logical argument I presented which shows your argument about the horizon to be pure garbage, or admit it is pure garbage.
Alternatively, address just how flat water works on your curved Earth.
After all, why bother jumping heaps far ahead when you don't even accept the basics?
You either don't accept the basic trig, or refuse to admit you do; you don't accept the fact that Earth is round.
You are doing whatever you can to avoid admitting the basic parts of all these arguments that show you are wrong.
That is a much better idea than you running about with loads of different topics to deflect from your inability to rationally defend anything you say.
Yep, there would likely be a load of clues as you trekked ever higher over thousands of miles....but, you would be walking the mild incline to as far as you could walk, until those complications set in.
The incline on your bowl Earth is quite steep.
It is a massive hump and massive incline.
Unless you have the direction of down follow this curve.
No you don't need any answer to that.
That basic trig is a fundamental part of what they are trying to show.
Unless you agree with it, or state your disagreement, you cannot progress further.
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Or try this method with your smartphone. You can do this in your backyard tonight - https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html
Or use trig and two people at known distances, as has been explained many times.
Lots of ways to do it.
We can explain all of them, but what we can't do is make you understand it. You have to do that work yourself. You have to be willing. You have to be capable. You are apparently lacking in at least one of those.
-
So for the umpteenth time, how far away do you think the Moon is and why? You must have your own method and distance otherwise you wouldn't be questioning the standard figure. The explanations of how that figure has been reached has been given to you several times already.
The way your mind works is obviously very different to the way mine (and most other peoples) works so there is no point in me explaining anything else. If you are that interested in finding out the answers to your questions go and join a local astronomy club. There are plenty of them around. Not only will they explain to self-confessed dummies like yourself they might even show you. Double result. That's if you manage to survive the first meeting before they throw you out.
You have no real clue....right?
This is why you're saying what you're saying.
It doesn't make you any the less of a person by admitting you do not know how to calculate your moon distance and size and have to rely on acceptance of what is handed to you.
If I'm wrong then show me you can do it and explain what's happening to get to your numbers.
-
Tell me what I need to do to aid you to get this verification.
I need you to answer the question about triangles. Choose option 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
No you don't need any answer to that.
Well here's the problem then. I do need an answer, even if you think I don't. We're stuck and have been for more than a week.
You can easily unlock this by providing an answer.
I'm surely not asking for much...am I?
All I'm asking for is a number between 1 and 5. Am I asking for too much?
Grab your tools and I'm side by side with you and awaiting orders to do what you need me to do to verify what's being said.
Over to you.
OK then, I order you to give me a number between 1 and 5. You have your orders as requested, off you go.
Here's the thing. Each of the options I've presented to you are either categorically true or false. Furthermore, they are mutually exclusive. My claim about triangles is true all of the time or it isn't true all of the time. If it isn't true all of the time then it is true some of the time or it is never true.
If you are certain you know the answer, then you can pick one of options 1, 2 or 3. You might not know for certain, that's covered by option 4.
The default option is 5. If you won't answer the question and won't explain why you won't answer the question, then that's covered by option 5 - things are true only when it suits you, in other words you are playing games.
Since you won't pick an answer, you've by default chosen option 5. Things are true only when it suits you.
Since your answer is 5, you are playing games and I won't indulge you by wasting my time with a detailed explanation you will just dismiss and ignore.
Feel free to prove me wrong, unlock the whole process and pick from 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
I'll accept that you cannot do it.
-
Seems to me that FE v RE is like the square peg v round hole situation. Anyone who is on the RE side will provide a RE (conventional science) explanation but anyone on the FE side will not be able accept any of those explanations because they believe in something completely different and incompatible.
It's like trying to get two people to understand each other who speak and understand one and different languages. Ain't going to work.
The operative words are, conventional science. You accept them unconditionally because it is the accepted norm for the masses and only that.
To say any other would not be telling the truth.
-
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Next question is how does that happen, you need to explain how it is done. As otherwise it is just indoctrination and force-fed world view.
-
The operative words are, conventional science.
What is the alternative? How does it work, and what evidence does it provide?
-
The incline on your bowl Earth is quite steep.
Course it is. It's in a small picture. If you look closely you can see what looks like land. That's not their real size.
Feel free to carry on playing your games. I'll answer when I see fit.
-
Then care to tell us of the more valid form of science?
-
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Next question is how does that happen, you need to explain how it is done. As otherwise it is just indoctrination and force-fed world view.
Those same friendly HAM folks can certainly explain how radios work. If there is one thing any enthusiast loves to do is show off and explain all their cool toys.
-
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Next question is how does that happen, you need to explain how it is done. As otherwise it is just indoctrination and force-fed world view.
Those same friendly HAM folks can certainly explain how radios work. If there is one thing any enthusiast loves to do is show off and explain all their cool toys.
Here's hoping they can explain it to sceptimatic in such a fashion they consider it good enough.
-
The incline on your bowl Earth is quite steep.
Course it is. It's in a small picture. If you look closely you can see what looks like land. That's not their real size.
Feel free to carry on playing your games. I'll answer when I see fit.
Does this help?
(https://i.imgur.com/IaqCsDK.png)
If it looks like a duck...
-
Tell me what I need to do to aid you to get this verification.
I need you to answer the question about triangles. Choose option 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
No you don't need any answer to that.
Well here's the problem then. I do need an answer, even if you think I don't. We're stuck and have been for more than a week.
You can easily unlock this by providing an answer.
I'm surely not asking for much...am I?
All I'm asking for is a number between 1 and 5. Am I asking for too much?
Grab your tools and I'm side by side with you and awaiting orders to do what you need me to do to verify what's being said.
Over to you.
OK then, I order you to give me a number between 1 and 5. You have your orders as requested, off you go.
Here's the thing. Each of the options I've presented to you are either categorically true or false. Furthermore, they are mutually exclusive. My claim about triangles is true all of the time or it isn't true all of the time. If it isn't true all of the time then it is true some of the time or it is never true.
If you are certain you know the answer, then you can pick one of options 1, 2 or 3. You might not know for certain, that's covered by option 4.
The default option is 5. If you won't answer the question and won't explain why you won't answer the question, then that's covered by option 5 - things are true only when it suits you, in other words you are playing games.
Since you won't pick an answer, you've by default chosen option 5. Things are true only when it suits you.
Since your answer is 5, you are playing games and I won't indulge you by wasting my time with a detailed explanation you will just dismiss and ignore.
Feel free to prove me wrong, unlock the whole process and pick from 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
I'll accept that you I cannot do it.
Just corrected that one for you.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IaqCsDK.png)
Ahem. Make it fit the page and all that...
-
You have no real clue....right?
This is why you're saying what you're saying.
It doesn't make you any the less of a person by admitting you do not know how to calculate your moon distance and size and have to rely on acceptance of what is handed to you.
If I'm wrong then show me you can do it and explain what's happening to get to your numbers.
Nope we are not playing that game anymore. Obviously you have personally done your own measurements for the distance of your Moon so what do you think the distance of your Moon is and how did you reach that figure?
If you don't provide me with specific answers I will take that to mean you can't provide specific answers and so this conversation stops here until you can.
The operative words are, conventional science. You accept them unconditionally
There you go again. Telling me what I accept or don't accept, what I do believe or what I don't believe. I'll be the judge of that thanks very much. Conventional science makes sense. Nothing that you have come up with yet makes any sense. Except to you perhaps but even then you seem to be very confused. All you have done so far is come up with someone elses drawing which in itself makes no sense whatsoever.
-
We live inside a cell.
We are covered by the skin (dome)....we live on a sort of decaying mass that would be like the set up in my avatar.
More.Of.This.Please.
The decaying mass beneath us. The impenetrable skin above us. The magic crystal at the center and its magic reflections which illuminate the world. The spirals of energy that wash over us as we swim our days blindly through some strange pulsing substance.
We live in some fanciful, magical realm that unfortunately only sceptimatic has the ability to see. Tell us more about it! Open our eyes! Are there fantastic beasts to defeat? Magical devices to obtain? Imagine the whimsical adventures to be had if only we could close our eyes to the mundane and see the wonderment around us!
-
The incline on your bowl Earth is quite steep.
Course it is.
Glad we have that covered.
So you accept your Earth is not flat at all.
Feel free to carry on playing your games. I'll answer when I see fit.
You mean feel free to carry on repeatedly showing why you are wrong, and you only respond if you think you can come up with some excuse as to why you are actually correct and otherwise you will just ignore all the refutations of your nonsense?
I'm not the one playing games here.
I'm not the one repeatedly asserting pure BS and then completely ignoring the refutations or logical consequences of it and instead deflecting in any way possible.
I'm not the one refusing to answer extremely simple questions.
I'm not the one blatantly lying about others (including what they have said).
Once more, this is a picture of your very clearly curved Earth, with an example of what a flat water level would look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
While the water level could be moved up or down (or even tilted) it is quite easy to see that it would NOT produce anything like what we observe in reality.
There is no way for continents to have water surrounding them (i.e. oceans), without them also being submerged, with this flat water level.
You cannot have your curved Earth with flat water and have any chance of it matching reality.
Do you accept this?
If not, show just what your "flat" water looks like.
Is it as "flat" as your "flat" Earth? Where it actually curves to follow the surface?
Then once you have done that, you can deal with this line of reasoning you are yet to point out a flaw with:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Just which point do you think is wrong and why?
If you can't rationally object to any of those points, why not admit your claim about the horizon on a RE is wrong; admit that the RE would have a horizon and if you are standing on Earth, close to sea level, with no tools, it will appear to be at basically eye level?
Now going to stop playing games and try responding honestly and rationally for once?
Or will you continue to ignore everything that shows you are wrong.
You have no real clue....right?
No, you are the one with no clue and no intention of getting a clue.
If I'm wrong then show me you can do it and explain what's happening to get to your numbers.
You have been shown to be wrong, and just ignored it.
I'll accept that you cannot do it.
Why?
Why does your refusal to answer simple questions to move on with the explanation mean he cannot do it?
It sure seems to be you refuse to do it, not that we can't.
The operative words are, conventional science. You accept them unconditionally because it is the accepted norm for the masses and only that.
To say any other would not be telling the truth.
No, not only that. To continually repeat this outright lie of yours would not be telling the truth.
We accept it because unlike your nonsense it actually makes sense and it has plenty of evidence to back it up.
-
It doesn't make you any the less of a person by admitting you do not know how to calculate your moon distance and size and have to rely on acceptance of what is handed to you.
So am I getting this right? You are seriously saying that unless you can do something yourself or have done something yourself, you can't say that know how to do it? Is that what you are saying?
Let me ask you then. How would you go about measuring the expansion velocity of the shockwave from a type 1a supernova explosion in another galaxy? It is something I have personally done. I will happily send you a copy of the magazine article I wrote and had published if you are interested.
-
Any vision from a level scope would increase in elevation due to a downward curvature of a globe, because everywhere you looked with unobstructed view, would take you over a downward curve. We do not witness this in any way shape or form.
What we do witness is a meeting point of sea and sky or land and sky...always.
But isn't the meeting point of the sky and land a clear indicator of a downward curve?
If the earth was round then, when we look through our level telescope, we would see where the sky appears to bend down to touch the earth. This is because the earth is also bending down but it is beyond the view of our scope. If you were able to look through the ground you would notice the horizon is the point where the earth has curved downwards so we notice the sky curving downwards at the same rate to match the ground.
So how does a telescope prove the existence of a flat earth?
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
So, you don't have any equipment to do any of this but are telling me it's all easy peasy. Hmmmm.
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Who are you reliant on, because it's clear you've never done any of this.
Or try this method with your smartphone. You can do this in your backyard tonight - https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html
Or use trig and two people at known distances, as has been explained many times.
Lots of ways to do it.
We can explain all of them, but what we can't do is make you understand it. You have to do that work yourself. You have to be willing. You have to be capable. You are apparently lacking in at least one of those.
Course you can explain. It's all on a plate for you to do so.
The bit in bold is the crux of the matter.....and this is what we are dealing with in reality.
-
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Next question is how does that happen, you need to explain how it is done. As otherwise it is just indoctrination and force-fed world view.
Keep up the good work, it saves me from telling people.
-
You asked how we can measure the size and the distance of the Moon using equipment available to any amateur astronomer. That has been explained to you in the finest detail but obviously that isn't good enough for you so you choose to ignore it. I haven't personally done it but if I did I would get the same answer.
I have yet to read anywhere where you have done any experiments or observations that prove you to be right and others wrong.
It's ok, I think smoke machine is going to do the KISS version of explanation. Maybe you can add to it and teach this utter simpleton of a dunce (me) just how it all stacks up to a truth or at least shows massive potential for it....because I just don't see anything other than hand waving and figures thrown out that solve nothing.
I'm hoping the , KISS sheds something more in your face reality.
I will, but I have to choose wisely, because the first kiss attempt I was going to do, has already been attempted, and requires the student to already accept the earth's globe shape and size, which you do not.
So, I will apply the KISS principle in a different way to the way my globalist compadres have. Just bare with me, I'm on a few days holiday at present.
Fair enough.
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
So, you don't have any equipment to do any of this but are telling me it's all easy peasy. Hmmmm.
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Who are you reliant on, because it's clear you've never done any of this.
It's all in #762 here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2286339#msg2286339
You need to fathom and explain how 10's of thousands of extremely zealous amateurs about their HAM hobby have no idea what they have been doing for the past 70 or so years.
Better yet, if you were a true sceptic seeking the truth, you'd reach out to some HAM enthusiasts (they are everywhere) and ask them for a demo. I can guarantee a HAM club or individual would be more than happy to show you. If you are not a true sceptic, you would just sit there at your keyboard and deny without having the slightest idea as to why other than the notions inside your head. The latter seems very limiting and not very genuine. I suspect you'll choose the latter because your own personal indoctrination in your belief system is actually stronger than any of ours through schools and textbooks.
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
So, you don't have any equipment to do any of this but are telling me it's all easy peasy. Hmmmm.
Can you show me air stacking, expanding, and contracting? I don't want to see a diagram, I need you to actually show me. I need to see that it does exactly as you say it does.
Can you?
-
To an extent. I'd sit there with him. He had all this electronic gear, headphones and a mic that he would press a button to talk. When I was there, he'd switch it over to a little speaker so I could listen and sometimes say hello. He'd fire everything up, press the button and announce himself. He had a call sign like all HAMs do, 'W something something something, etc'. I remember him talking to HAM's in Austria and Japan. Years later, on a trip to Austria with him, I met the guy, saw his set up. I met the Japanese HAM in the States once too. So did I know what all electronically was going on, absolutely not. What I did know is that he was talking to people 1000's of KM away. HAMs are everywhere, still even to this day. It's definitely a hobby people are very passionate about.
We know we can talk to people all over the known world. We know we can do so in real quick time. A tiny delay from, say, England to Australia.
Thousands of miles.
Speed of light at supposed 186,000 miles per second?.....
As for laying it on you....how about this.
There is no speed of light, as such. What happens in this full pressurised, stacked Earth.....is instant.
It needs a little bit of explaining and I'm willing to. It's a simple explanation but I'll leave it for the next answer to save it being buried beneath all this.
I haven't heard this before, the instantaneous bit. Do explain. Ole Rømer back in the 1600's was the first guy to postulate and experimentally show that light speed was not instantaneous. Look into that, for one. For two, today we uses instruments to do so. It's by no means rocket science, as it were.
You're going to need a mountain of evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's just some guy on the web saying it's instantaneous with no evidence against 100's of years of people measuring it. So far, your claim has no merit.
I have no issues with people measuring a bounce back. We can measure the time it takes for a ball to hit a wall and come back and if we add more energy to the throw, the bounce back is much faster.
It's all about seeing through the complicated to the bare bones of why.
I have no physical answer that speaks of truth to people.
I do have my own thoughts on it which can happily be dismissed out of hand by whoever.
When I hand out facts I'll be sure to say so.
However, I'd like the same return with individuals handing out facts or acceptance of facts by nothing more than appeals/adherence to authority in the mainstream.
When I say instant, I mean action and then reaction being instant.
Newtons cradle gives a big clue to this.
Also, so does this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RRkgDFd/811q2h-VPGRL-AC-SL1500-1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
But I don't think you have that. And it's not like it hasn't been tested and measured ad nauseam. So if you would like to contest it, you need some really strong evidence. Otherwise, it's a known value that is used the world over to great success. Balls in your court on that.
Who uses it?
What I mean is, how is it used.
Pretty much every electronic thing that computes something. If my dumb toaster had a digital clock in it, the chip that runs it is engineered around the speed of light. It's a great determinate of processor speeds and such. Things we use every day. It's a huge measurement part of GPS, really at its core. And this one I did not know, the accuracy of the "meter". From wikipedia, "In 1983 the metre was defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 of a second",[88] fixing the value of the speed of light at 299792458 m/s by definition, as described below. Consequently, accurate measurements of the speed of light yield an accurate realization of the metre rather than an accurate value of c."
I mean the meter of all things. Pretty core to our ways and means in the world.
Yep...and we do deal with stuff that seems almost instant.
It doesn't have to mean 186,000 miles per second.
Answer these without appealing to any authority, please.
Done.
Thanks.
It might seem like I'm being a dick and maybe I am to you and others........but....... I have my reasons and I simply don't just believe something that begs massive questions.
And no, I don't think you're being a dick. Absolutely fair questions. The point being is that people, amateur radio people, do these things and it's documented all over the place. If you are really interested, contact some local HAMS in your town (They are everywhere, you'd be surprised) and ask them. Get a demo. If my grandfather were still alive, I'd ask him. But this is not some obscure thing and it's actually somewhat easily, personally verified. So if you are really interested in the 'truth' check it out for yourself. By all means, don't take my word for it.
I'm not questioning Ham radio operators, I'm questioning the stuff supposedly behind it that even they will simply follow.
If you look at it from a true skeptic's perspective, you have to ask yourself the logical question, "Do you think the 10's, probably 100's of thousands of amateur HAM's around the world since the 50's are unclear as to how their stuff works?" Like I say, like most people with a serious hobby, HAMs are a devoted group to their craft and fully geek out on all aspects of it. 10's of thousands have pointed their antenna at the moon, received an echo back in the expected, predicted amount of time and when they point it elsewhere, they don't. It doesn't get anymore empirical than that. So to say that HAMs don't know what is behind there stuff is illogical and borderline ridiculous.
If you really want to know the truth, befriend some local HAM operators and ask them to show you.
You can be a whizz with a computer and not know what is happening inside it. Seasoned car mechanics can fix and diagnose problems with your car and even do a diagnostic check but it doesn't mean they know what's behind the equipment used.
There's lots of thing people do know and lots of stuff people think they know which may or may not be exactly what it says on the tin...kind of thing.
-
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Next question is how does that happen, you need to explain how it is done. As otherwise it is just indoctrination and force-fed world view.
Those same friendly HAM folks can certainly explain how radios work. If there is one thing any enthusiast loves to do is show off and explain all their cool toys.
A Lamborghini owner can show off his/her new toy and open it up to show it's glory. It doesn't mean they know what's went into it all from start to finish.
-
It doesn't make you any the less of a person by admitting you do not know how to calculate your moon distance and size and have to rely on acceptance of what is handed to you.
So am I getting this right? You are seriously saying that unless you can do something yourself or have done something yourself, you can't say that know how to do it? Is that what you are saying?
Unless you can witness what you are told then all you can rely on is being told.
I can show you my new home made cardboard clock and tell you tiny galloping unicorns run within it....but if you can't see them then you are reliant on what I tell you.
If you then decide to use this info to tell others about it and claim it to be what I told you and then someone asks you " did you actually open it up to see those galloping unicorns?" then you can either lie and say you have, or you can say " no, but I saw the clock and the person told me it whilst I was standing right there."
It's not a truth....right?
Let me ask you then. How would you go about measuring the expansion velocity of the shockwave from a type 1a supernova explosion in another galaxy?
I wouldn't. They don't exist as far as I'm concerned.
It is something I have personally done.
Tell me how you personally done this and what equipment you used to verify it to be real.
I will happily send you a copy of the magazine article I wrote and had published if you are interested.
I can send you a copy of a story I wrote. What does it prove?
-
Any vision from a level scope would increase in elevation due to a downward curvature of a globe, because everywhere you looked with unobstructed view, would take you over a downward curve. We do not witness this in any way shape or form.
What we do witness is a meeting point of sea and sky or land and sky...always.
But isn't the meeting point of the sky and land a clear indicator of a downward curve?
Yes.....the downward curve of the concave sky. The dome.
This meets water and you have your horizon line to your very own eye level, at all tmes.
If the earth was round then, when we look through our level telescope, we would see where the sky appears to bend down to touch the earth.
Round as in a globe?
If the Earth was a globe in the way we are told, you would only see sky looking through a scope as the Earth would always be curving downwards under your horizontally level, view.
This is because the earth is also bending down but it is beyond the view of our scope.
Nope.
It would be beyond the view of your scope because it would be well under it, curving downwards with each millimetre, assuming calm.
If you were able to look through the ground you would notice the horizon is the point where the earth has curved downwards so we notice the sky curving downwards at the same rate to match the ground.
Looking through the ground?
So how does a telescope prove the existence of a flat earth?
Simple. Set up level and especially at eye level of an upright person (to save argument).... the earth directly under that person would not be seen but the meeting of the sky to sea at distance would come into line.
If that person was on a globe as we are told, the ground would not be seen directly under the person and would always be curving downwards and away from that scope.
It would be impossible to bring Earth/water and sky to a meeting point.
It doesn't matter how its dressed up.
-
You seem to have missed the bit about where I asked you to tell me what you think the distance of the Moon is how you managed to 'prove' it to yourself. I'm not replying to anything else you say until you have told me that.
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
So, you don't have any equipment to do any of this but are telling me it's all easy peasy. Hmmmm.
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Who are you reliant on, because it's clear you've never done any of this.
It's all in #762 here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2286339#msg2286339
You need to fathom and explain how 10's of thousands of extremely zealous amateurs about their HAM hobby have no idea what they have been doing for the past 70 or so years.
Better yet, if you were a true sceptic seeking the truth, you'd reach out to some HAM enthusiasts (they are everywhere) and ask them for a demo. I can guarantee a HAM club or individual would be more than happy to show you. If you are not a true sceptic, you would just sit there at your keyboard and deny without having the slightest idea as to why other than the notions inside your head. The latter seems very limiting and not very genuine. I suspect you'll choose the latter because your own personal indoctrination in your belief system is actually stronger than any of ours through schools and textbooks.
It's pointless you telling me this when you have no clue yourself.
You are simply selling me stuff because you blindly accept explanations.
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
So, you don't have any equipment to do any of this but are telling me it's all easy peasy. Hmmmm.
Can you show me air stacking, expanding, and contracting? I don't want to see a diagram, I need you to actually show me. I need to see that it does exactly as you say it does.
Can you?
No.
-
You seem to have missed the bit about where I asked you to tell me what you think the distance of the Moon is how you managed to 'prove' it to yourself. I'm not replying to anything else you say until you have told me that.
I can't measure a hologram.
-
Ok, so you know he was doing something but not sure exactly, what.....right?
To an extent. I'd sit there with him. He had all this electronic gear, headphones and a mic that he would press a button to talk. When I was there, he'd switch it over to a little speaker so I could listen and sometimes say hello. He'd fire everything up, press the button and announce himself. He had a call sign like all HAMs do, 'W something something something, etc'. I remember him talking to HAM's in Austria and Japan. Years later, on a trip to Austria with him, I met the guy, saw his set up. I met the Japanese HAM in the States once too. So did I know what all electronically was going on, absolutely not. What I did know is that he was talking to people 1000's of KM away. HAMs are everywhere, still even to this day. It's definitely a hobby people are very passionate about.
We know we can talk to people all over the known world. We know we can do so in real quick time. A tiny delay from, say, England to Australia.
Thousands of miles.
Speed of light at supposed 186,000 miles per second?.....
I don't remember a delay when my grandfather was using his HAM radio to talk to his buddy in Japan fro m the US.
As well it doesn't have to mean it's not 186,000 miles a second. For one, it's measurable, as I've already mentioned. For two, as I've already mentioned, it's used to calculate data transfers and the engineering required to meet the needs of computational designers, from simple computer chips to the accuracy of GPS.
Whether you like it or not, your mobile phone uses the speed of light measurement as does your computer. So it's weirdly hypocritical to just straight up deny something when you use and rely on that something everyday. It's also really weird.
As for laying it on you....how about this.
There is no speed of light, as such. What happens in this full pressurised, stacked Earth.....is instant.
It needs a little bit of explaining and I'm willing to. It's a simple explanation but I'll leave it for the next answer to save it being buried beneath all this.
I haven't heard this before, the instantaneous bit. Do explain. Ole Rømer back in the 1600's was the first guy to postulate and experimentally show that light speed was not instantaneous. Look into that, for one. For two, today we uses instruments to do so. It's by no means rocket science, as it were.
You're going to need a mountain of evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's just some guy on the web saying it's instantaneous with no evidence against 100's of years of people measuring it. So far, your claim has no merit.
I have no issues with people measuring a bounce back. We can measure the time it takes for a ball to hit a wall and come back and if we add more energy to the throw, the bounce back is much faster.
It's all about seeing through the complicated to the bare bones of why.
I have no physical answer that speaks of truth to people.
I do have my own thoughts on it which can happily be dismissed out of hand by whoever.
When I hand out facts I'll be sure to say so.
However, I'd like the same return with individuals handing out facts or acceptance of facts by nothing more than appeals/adherence to authority in the mainstream.
When I say instant, I mean action and then reaction being instant.
Newtons cradle gives a big clue to this.
Also, so does this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RRkgDFd/811q2h-VPGRL-AC-SL1500-1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
FYI, even Newton's cradle has been measured. And a clue is that's it's not instantaneous. Dependent upon the material used, we'll say steel, it's the speed of sound for that material. It looks something like this.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9171dfca8a50f237efce44963ebc8b11)
And is measured/calculated like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9J4RANU.png)
But I don't think you have that. And it's not like it hasn't been tested and measured ad nauseam. So if you would like to contest it, you need some really strong evidence. Otherwise, it's a known value that is used the world over to great success. Balls in your court on that.
Who uses it?
What I mean is, how is it used.
Pretty much every electronic thing that computes something. If my dumb toaster had a digital clock in it, the chip that runs it is engineered around the speed of light. It's a great determinate of processor speeds and such. Things we use every day. It's a huge measurement part of GPS, really at its core. And this one I did not know, the accuracy of the "meter". From wikipedia, "In 1983 the metre was defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 of a second",[88] fixing the value of the speed of light at 299792458 m/s by definition, as described below. Consequently, accurate measurements of the speed of light yield an accurate realization of the metre rather than an accurate value of c."
I mean the meter of all things. Pretty core to our ways and means in the world.
Yep...and we do deal with stuff that seems almost instant.
It doesn't have to mean 186,000 miles per second.
See above.
Answer these without appealing to any authority, please.
Done.
Thanks.
It might seem like I'm being a dick and maybe I am to you and others........but....... I have my reasons and I simply don't just believe something that begs massive questions.
And no, I don't think you're being a dick. Absolutely fair questions. The point being is that people, amateur radio people, do these things and it's documented all over the place. If you are really interested, contact some local HAMS in your town (They are everywhere, you'd be surprised) and ask them. Get a demo. If my grandfather were still alive, I'd ask him. But this is not some obscure thing and it's actually somewhat easily, personally verified. So if you are really interested in the 'truth' check it out for yourself. By all means, don't take my word for it.
I'm not questioning Ham radio operators, I'm questioning the stuff supposedly behind it that even they will simply follow.
If you look at it from a true skeptic's perspective, you have to ask yourself the logical question, "Do you think the 10's, probably 100's of thousands of amateur HAM's around the world since the 50's are unclear as to how their stuff works?" Like I say, like most people with a serious hobby, HAMs are a devoted group to their craft and fully geek out on all aspects of it. 10's of thousands have pointed their antenna at the moon, received an echo back in the expected, predicted amount of time and when they point it elsewhere, they don't. It doesn't get anymore empirical than that. So to say that HAMs don't know what is behind there stuff is illogical and borderline ridiculous.
If you really want to know the truth, befriend some local HAM operators and ask them to show you.
You can be a whizz with a computer and not know what is happening inside it. Seasoned car mechanics can fix and diagnose problems with your car and even do a diagnostic check but it doesn't mean they know what's behind the equipment used.
There's lots of thing people do know and lots of stuff people think they know which may or may not be exactly what it says on the tin...kind of thing.
Understood, sure, there are lots of things that you can be a whiz at and not know the underlying properties. But are you saying that no one knows the underlying properties of things they are whiz at? That seems unlikely. It's basically saying no one knows anything. Again, highly unlikely.
Take the moon bounce for example. Thousands of people have done it and do it and get the expected/predicted results when they are pointing their antenna's at the moon. When they don't point their antenna's at the moon, they don't get the results they want. Seems pretty empirical to me.
Again, if you want the truth, actually seek it out. Ask a HAM for a demo. Or, if you would prefer to not know the truth one way or the other, just sit there and be satisfied with what you think. It's up to you. But if you don't seek the truth, you are no less indoctrinated than the rest of us.
-
I can't measure a hologram.
Ok that's it. I'm outta this. Complete waste of time.
-
I don't remember a delay when my grandfather was using his HAM radio to talk to his buddy in Japan fro m the US.
As well it doesn't have to mean it's not 186,000 miles a second. For one, it's measurable, as I've already mentioned. For two, as I've already mentioned, it's used to calculate data transfers and the engineering required to meet the needs of computational designers, from simple computer chips to the accuracy of GPS.
Whether you like it or not, your mobile phone uses the speed of light measurement as does your computer. So it's weirdly hypocritical to just straight up deny something when you use and rely on that something everyday. It's also really weird.
FYI, even Newton's cradle has been measured. And a clue is that's it's not instantaneous. Dependent upon the material used, we'll say steel, it's the speed of sound for that material.
Actually I'm using the cradle as a representation of molecular transfer just like that pin pusher. Immediate reaction to action. You could call it instant but the issue is in the energy applied over distance.
And this is the supposed speed of light carry on.
Understood, sure, there are lots of things that you can be a whiz at and not know the underlying properties. But are you saying that no one knows the underlying properties of things they are whiz at? That seems unlikely. It's basically saying no one knows anything. Again, highly unlikely.
Admit it yourself....there's lots of things happening and are not truly understood as to why. Do you accept that?
Take the moon bounce for example. Thousands of people have done it and do it and get the expected/predicted results when they are pointing their antenna's at the moon. When they don't point their antenna's at the moon, they don't get the results they want. Seems pretty empirical to me.
So all this mountain top observatory and moon ping is now not needed when you can simply do it with your phone?
I don't buy into any of it.
Again, if you want the truth, actually seek it out. Ask a HAM for a demo. Or, if you would prefer to not know the truth one way or the other, just sit there and be satisfied with what you think. It's up to you. But if you don't seek the truth, you are no less indoctrinated than the rest of us.
I'd love the truth but I won't find the truth in just words. I will find it by seeing proof.
I don't just accept things to be true just for the sake of it but I am willing to accept things. There's reasoning in that so try and understand what I'm saying, here.
-
I don't remember a delay when my grandfather was using his HAM radio to talk to his buddy in Japan fro m the US.
As well it doesn't have to mean it's not 186,000 miles a second. For one, it's measurable, as I've already mentioned. For two, as I've already mentioned, it's used to calculate data transfers and the engineering required to meet the needs of computational designers, from simple computer chips to the accuracy of GPS.
Whether you like it or not, your mobile phone uses the speed of light measurement as does your computer. So it's weirdly hypocritical to just straight up deny something when you use and rely on that something everyday. It's also really weird.
FYI, even Newton's cradle has been measured. And a clue is that's it's not instantaneous. Dependent upon the material used, we'll say steel, it's the speed of sound for that material.
Actually I'm using the cradle as a representation of molecular transfer just like that pin pusher. Immediate reaction to action. You could call it instant but the issue is in the energy applied over distance.
And this is the supposed speed of light carry on.
Who said Newton's cradle or the pin thing reacts at the speed of light? No one. Just saying that these things are measurable and measured. And the measurements are useful in engineering the things you use everyday. There's no mystery there.
Understood, sure, there are lots of things that you can be a whiz at and not know the underlying properties. But are you saying that no one knows the underlying properties of things they are whiz at? That seems unlikely. It's basically saying no one knows anything. Again, highly unlikely.
Admit it yourself....there's lots of things happening and are not truly understood as to why. Do you accept that?
Of course. But at the same time there are plenty of people that do know the underlying property of things. You make it seem like no one knows anything about anything. Which is absurd considering that people build and design amazing things you use everyday.
Take the moon bounce for example. Thousands of people have done it and do it and get the expected/predicted results when they are pointing their antenna's at the moon. When they don't point their antenna's at the moon, they don't get the results they want. Seems pretty empirical to me.
So all this mountain top observatory and moon ping is now not needed when you can simply do it with your phone?
I don't buy into any of it.
What's this about a phone? I never said anything about a phone. I'm saying that people do this with their HAM radio gear. It's not magic and I've given you all the information needed to do it especially asking a HAM to demo it for you. I certainly don't expect you to buy into any of it. But if you really wanted truth and knowledge, you might do something about it. But I understand doing so may be too frightening for you.
Again, if you want the truth, actually seek it out. Ask a HAM for a demo. Or, if you would prefer to not know the truth one way or the other, just sit there and be satisfied with what you think. It's up to you. But if you don't seek the truth, you are no less indoctrinated than the rest of us.
I'd love the truth but I won't find the truth in just words. I will find it by seeing proof.
I don't just accept things to be true just for the sake of it but I am willing to accept things. There's reasoning in that so try and understand what I'm saying, here.
Sure you do, you absolutely accept things to be true for the sake it. You've got the whole breathing dome membrane carbonite projecting sun thing that you accept as being true with zero evidence of any of it. Don't start playing holier than now games. You blindly accept things every waking moment of every day just like the rest of us. If you didn't, you'd never get on a plane. You'd never use GPS. You'd never even make a cell call. Face it, you're just as indoctrinated as anyone else. You're not special.
-
Yes.....the downward curve of the concave sky. The dome.
No, the downwards curve of Earth.
If it was the dome, then you would need to see the point of intersection, effectively the very edge of Earth.
That is not what is seen.
This meets water and you have your horizon line to your very own eye level, at all tmes.
Except in plenty of cases were it isn't.
If the Earth was a globe in the way we are told, you would only see sky looking through a scope as the Earth would always be curving downwards under your horizontally level, view.
STOP REPEATING THE SAME LIE!
That lie has already been refuted multiple times.
You continually refuse to engage with the refutation of it, unable to show a single fault with the refutation.
Once more, which point do you disagree with and why? (unless you can actually say which point and why, every time you repeat that statement you are doing nothing more than blatantly lying to everyone and showing you have no concern for the truth at all.):
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Now, going to stop just repeating the same lie and either admit it is an outright lie, or try to rationally engage in the refutation of your lie and say just what point you think is wrong and why?
It would be beyond the view of your scope because it would be well under it, curving downwards with each millimetre, assuming calm.
And another outright lie, already exposed as a lie.
Once more, unless your scope has a tiny FOV or you are quite some distance from Earth, it would be well within the scope.
If you were able to look through the ground you would notice the horizon is the point where the earth has curved downwards so we notice the sky curving downwards at the same rate to match the ground.
Looking through the ground?
Yes, looking through.
i.e. if Earth was made of glass so you could look through it you would see the horizon is just the part of Earth with the greatest angle of elevation, with the ground/sea continuing past it and continuing to curve down.
Not hard to understand.
If that person was on a globe as we are told, the ground would not be seen directly under the person
So now you are back to claiming a round Earth is invisible?
Even after you already admitted that if you were to look straight down you would see the ground?
It would be impossible to bring Earth/water and sky to a meeting point.
Then as you have already admitted that looking down you see ground/sea, what is between them?
What should appear in your vision between the ground directly below and the sky above?
Either there should be some magical extra entity between, or they need to meet
It is literally impossible for them to not meet without this magical obstruction.
It doesn't matter how its dressed up.
Yes, it doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, it is still an outright lie, which has already been refuted.
-
To an extent. I'd sit there with him. He had all this electronic gear, headphones and a mic that he would press a button to talk. When I was there, he'd switch it over to a little speaker so I could listen and sometimes say hello. He'd fire everything up, press the button and announce himself. He had a call sign like all HAMs do, 'W something something something, etc'. I remember him talking to HAM's in Austria and Japan. Years later, on a trip to Austria with him, I met the guy, saw his set up. I met the Japanese HAM in the States once too. So did I know what all electronically was going on, absolutely not. What I did know is that he was talking to people 1000's of KM away. HAMs are everywhere, still even to this day. It's definitely a hobby people are very passionate about.
We know we can talk to people all over the known world. We know we can do so in real quick time. A tiny delay from, say, England to Australia.
Thousands of miles.
But can you do it without the internet or a phone line?
I have no physical answer that speaks of truth to people.
Then why claim light is instantaneous rather than accepting the well established speed of light?
Why not try the experiment I suggested?
When I say instant, I mean action and then reaction being instant.
Newtons cradle gives a big clue to this.
Also, so does this.
No, they don't.
You would need to be able to observe it at an extremely high speed to tell if it is instant or not for something so small.
Yep...and we do deal with stuff that seems almost instant.
It doesn't have to mean 186,000 miles per second.
But the point is they are NOT instant. It is that lack of it being instant which allows so many things to happen, including things like GPS.
If it was instant, GPS would not work.
Unless you can witness what you are told then all you can rely on is being told.
And if you truly want to believe that, dismissing all the evidence obtained by countless people, then stop asking us, and go do it yourself.
And of course, still no rational objection to any of the simple line of reasoning which shows your claim about the horizon to be complete garbage,
and no explanation of just how you magically have flat water on your very clearly curved Earth, and still manage to get oceans like observed in reality.
-
I can't measure a hologram
OK prove to me that the Moon is a hologram. How is a hologram created?
-
I can't measure a hologram
OK prove to me that the Moon is a hologram. How is a hologram created?
Kubrick’s famous movie The Shining depicted the director’s admission to his assistance in the moon landing hoax, but the evidence in the film had to be pointed out by Jay Weidner, who pointed out in one scene that:
Danny sits on the floor playing with his trucks, he wears a sweater with a picture of Apollo 11 on the front, and Danny rises from the floor as if he’s launching the rocket.
Such details were only included in the film because of Kubrick’s involvement in the whole scheme. With all things considered, it can be confidently said that there is no evidence that NASA ever actually made it to the moon, which refutes a huge part of the generally accepted theory that the moon is real at all.
(Emphasis mine)
That's it. WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED!
EDIT: It continues:
Roughly $200 billion was spent on the Apollo program. This money obviously never went towards any actual space research, and was never used to fund expeditions for the previously mentioned twelve astronauts to walk across the nonexistent lunar surface. Instead, all of that money was funneled into an underground shadow government lead by John F. Kennedy after his assassination was faked, which was just another lie told to the masses by the deceitful U.S. government.
JFK is alive.
-
How do we measure your moon distance. We can get to the size after this.
Bounce a laser off the Moon and time it. This takes NASA level equipment.
So, you don't have any equipment to do any of this but are telling me it's all easy peasy. Hmmmm.
I'm sorry, did you miss all the other methods I gave that can be done by amateur equipment? I gave ONE example you need some expensive equipment for, I'm sorry if reading comprehension is beyond you, or perhaps you're just being deliberately dishonest.
Bounce a radio signal off the Moon and time it. Your local HAM club probably knows someone who could do this, and you could stand right next to them and watch! It's been done countless of times by radio operators.
Who are you reliant on, because it's clear you've never done any of this.
So you are not willing to see for yourself. Too afraid of what the results might be? It would be harder to dismiss all of science if you saw some of it up close I suppose. We can take this as you surrendering on this method then. If you are not willing to look at the evidence, you have no credibility at all.
Or try this method with your smartphone. You can do this in your backyard tonight - https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html
Or use trig and two people at known distances, as has been explained many times.
Lots of ways to do it.
We can explain all of them, but what we can't do is make you understand it. You have to do that work yourself. You have to be willing. You have to be capable. You are apparently lacking in at least one of those.
Course you can explain. It's all on a plate for you to do so.
The bit in bold is the crux of the matter.....and this is what we are dealing with in reality.
Are you claiming we can't measure distance? Are you claiming I can't drive 10 miles and know how far I have gone?
So now you don't think it's possible to measure distance between two points. Well, if you can't understand how to measure things then no wonder you are so confused.
If you can't accept even simple things, then there really is no point to having any rational discussion with you.
-
No Sceptimatic is just claiming, and has already proved that he lives in a little universe all of his own where the laws of nature and reality are completely different to the one the rest of us live in.
There is obviously a portal somewhere which connects our universe and his and which opens occasionally allowing him to communicate with us. I just wish I could find a way of locking that portal shut. Permanently.
-
I know it's a waste of time, but might as well just do a walkthrough of how you could calculate the approximate distance to the moon using amateur equipment and simple trigonometry. I've not performed this exact experiment as a whole, but one time or another done each individual step, so I know it works.
Let's have two observers, each with a sensible camera, such as a Canon D60 and a lens zoomed in to 130mm focal length.
Observer 1 takes a photo, which is then cropped to show the part we're interested in. With this camera zoomed in to 130mm focal length, we'd expect the image to look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/yx9LjVr.png)
D60 sensor has 3074 x 2048 pixels, physical size is 22.7 x 15.1mm, meaning each pixel is 7.38μm in size.
The angular size of each pixel in radians is the pixel size / focal length.
Converting the length values to μm and the angle to arcseconds gives:
θ = 180/𝜋 * 60 * 60 * 7.38 / 130000 = 11.71 arcseconds per pixel at 130mm focal length.
The moon in the picture has a diameter of 161 pixels. At 11.71 arcseconds per pixel, that puts the moon's angular diameter at 31.3 arcminutes, half a degree, which is about right and a useful check to verify our calculation so far.
We have calibrated our image and can now measure a distance in pixels between any two points and convert to an angle in arcseconds by multiplying by 11.71.
So let's have the second observer take a photo at the same time. The two observers are 2360km apart. Call this distance d.
(https://i.imgur.com/ikSh0C3.png)
Notice the moon has moved relative to the fixed star. How much has it moved? Well if we combined the two photos and lined the star images up, we would see the moon has moved and we could measure the distance, but if we do it the other way around and line the two moons up we can measure the amount the star has apparently shifted instead. The answer is the same, because the movement is relative, but the lining up and measuring is easier and more accurate if done this way:
(https://i.imgur.com/voTX11V.png)
The two star images are 92 pixels apart, so they are 1077 arcseconds apart.
Now we can calculate the approximate distance to the moon from the formula:
d / (2 tan (φ / 2))
The value is approximate for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't take any account of the curvature of the earth between the two observers. Secondly, the images aren't exactly hi res, so measuring pixel distances is imprecise, but it should give a result within 15% or so. Let's plug the numbers in and see:
2360 / (2 tan (1077 / (2 * 60 * 60)) = 451,981km +/- 15% = 384,484km to 519.778km
The moon's actual distance varies between 356,500km and 406,700km, so we're certainly in the right ballpark.
NB: This example is based on the real experiment performed here: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart. (http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart.)
-
Love it. But it will all be wasted on Sceptimatic.
-
Love it. But it will all be wasted on Sceptimatic.
*sigh* I know. I should just give up. It's the hope that kills you.
-
Love it. But it will all be wasted on Sceptimatic.
He will just claim triangles don't work in space. :|
-
Love it. But it will all be wasted on Sceptimatic.
He will just claim triangles don't work in space. :|
I think it'll be something do do with "genuinely made triangles" or "physical triangles". In his universe there seem to be several types of triangle. There even appear to be right angled triangles which don't contain a 90 degree angle.
I think which kind of triangle you are allowed to use may be governed by some magical rule connected with the mouldy decaying stuff that we're all apparently living on in our bowl shaped sloping/no sloping world.
-
Thing is that for people like Scepti reality exists only in their mind. They make things up as they go along so what they say makes sense only to them. Since they make the rules about what is real and true they can never be wrong about anything. How wonderful life would be if the same could be said for the rest of us! What is their secret!?!
If Scepti wants the Moon that exists in his mind to be a hologram then so be it. I'm sure that on the Mars that exists in his mind Martians are also common place. They don't need to prove anything to anyone other than themselves. Which is exactly why he never explains anything. He doesn't think he needs to.
-
I can't measure a hologram
OK prove to me that the Moon is a hologram. How is a hologram created?
Wait, what?
As a student of scepti's "model" since it's fruition (I was there and have the t-shirt to prove it), I don't much take part in the discussion any more. I burnt out on too many early monster threads and you only want to go round in circles so many times. However I do check in to see what exciting new ad-hoc explanation he comes up with for some new corner he's trapped in.
However the fundamentals don't usually change that often, so when they do it is worthy of note. This is a new one.
The original model had what we call the sun was actually a reflection of a beam of light created by a giant crystal atop a Sauron type tower on a mountain at the North Pole. This tower cast a giant laser like beam at the "perfectly reflective" ice dome that covers the flat earth (what we call stars are reflections of other crystals lying around in the snow at the North pole).
You are probably now thinking that this can't even explain something as basic as why it is dark on one part of the earth, while it is light on another. Or how the sun could be rising and setting at the same time for different observers. Of course it doesn't and never will, but as you now realise, that's not the point.
Anyway to the moon: this also doesn't actually exist and is simply a reflection of the sun reflection from the other side of the dome. So now to hear that this has changed and the moon is a hologram is quite exciting. I will rejoin the dance once more, as it look like other are taking a seat anyway.
Scepti, what has caused this significant alteration to your model? What new data have you come across? What new exciting observation have you made? Where does this hologram get projected from and by whom? Questions, questions, questions!
-
It is truly fascinating to read some of these posts. This stuff you mention about Scepti takes imagination and fantasy to another level. It really does. Take the description of the Sun for example. Brilliant. Unlike sunlight, a laser is a beam of monochromatic light but that's another story. But if it makes him happy then that's all that matters. We are all free to believe whatever we want to believe.
As for getting trapped in... given the way the world is at the moment it is so easy to feel trapped. So this sort of thing is a kind of welcome release from all that. I certainly don't take any of it seriously.
-
You seem to have missed the bit about where I asked you to tell me what you think the distance of the Moon is how you managed to 'prove' it to yourself. I'm not replying to anything else you say until you have told me that.
I can't measure a hologram.
If you and I were to meet in real life, and you told me you were a flat earther and wanted me to prove the distance to the moon, to begin with, this is how I would do it.
Tool number one: hand-held lidar used by police to detect speeding drivers and to accurately measure distances of objects at traffic accident scenes.
I would go into great detail explaining to you how the laser in the device works to measure distance and how it's different functions work in the hands of a police officer. You and I would use it in conjunction with a measuring tape and moving cars until you are satisfied with how it works, its capabilities, and it's accuracy.
If need be, we would pull the laser apart into each of its components, for you to get your head fully around how it fully works.
Tool number 2: The McDonald Observatory in Texas.
Now that you have an understanding of how a laser can be used to measure distance, it's time to step it up a notch at the McDonald University, in Texas. At this point I would pass the buck to a worker at the observatory to explain how the laser they use, when aimed at the moon, is able to accurately measure the distance to the moon.
-
What's this about a phone? I never said anything about a phone. I'm saying that people do this with their HAM radio gear. It's not magic and I've given you all the information needed to do it especially asking a HAM to demo it for you. I certainly don't expect you to buy into any of it. But if you really wanted truth and knowledge, you might do something about it. But I understand doing so may be too frightening for you.
It was in the link you gave me. Look back.
Sure you do, you absolutely accept things to be true for the sake it. You've got the whole breathing dome membrane carbonite projecting sun thing that you accept as being true with zero evidence of any of it.
That's my theory and I have my reasons for it which I've well explained,w hetehr you people think so, or not.
I don't pass it off as a truth. It's my belief of the potential of it.
When I pass it off as factual, then you can go on a rant and it'll have some merit.
Don't start playing holier than now games. You blindly accept things every waking moment of every day just like the rest of us. If you didn't, you'd never get on a plane. You'd never use GPS. You'd never even make a cell call. Face it, you're just as indoctrinated as anyone else. You're not special.
If you paid attention you'd understand that I accept most things in life. It doesn't mean I have to fully believe what's behind it all.
GPS can just as easily be ground position stations as opposed to satellites.
Just like gravity and nuclear and lots of other stuff may be totally different to what we've been coaxed into believing. You don't think so and that's your mindset. I don't buy into a lot of it and I question it, whether you think it shouldn't be questioned.
Your issue is, you argue for stuff and you have no real clue about the reality, if you are honest with yourself.
-
Yes.....the downward curve of the concave sky. The dome.
No, the downwards curve of Earth.
If it was the dome, then you would need to see the point of intersection, effectively the very edge of Earth.
That is not what is seen.
I'm sure you understand our eyes do not see as far as you think they do and I'm sure you know that our eyes are dependent on light.
You also know that atmosphere creates a barrier when looking over distance....especially horizontally.
Feel free to argue against this but you would only be arguing with yourself.
So why you talk about an edge of Earth when dealing with me, is odd, when you clearly know my Earth does not have one.
-
I have no physical answer that speaks of truth to people.
Then why claim light is instantaneous rather than accepting the well established speed of light?
Why not try the experiment I suggested?
I gave my opinion on it being instant but by instant, it does not mean it reaches everyone in an instant.
It depends on energy applied, like I said.
-
I can't measure a hologram
OK prove to me that the Moon is a hologram. How is a hologram created?
You already made your position clear.
I can't measure a hologram.
Ok that's it. I'm outta this. Complete waste of time.
-
Are you claiming we can't measure distance?
Nope. We can measure distance if we have reference points. Real reference points.
Are you claiming I can't drive 10 miles and know how far I have gone?
How would you know if your milometer was not working?
Sign posts?
How would you know if it wasn't already mapped for you?
So now you don't think it's possible to measure distance between two points.
I can measure distance if I know what it is I'm measuring the distance to.
Still no real answers from you people about your moon and points of light.
If you can't accept even simple things, then there really is no point to having any rational discussion with you.
So don't do it. Deck out and have the rational discussions with those who you see as, rational. It's easy to do if you put your mind to it.
-
Everything Scepti says now simply reinforces how my reply #821 is 100% correct.
-
I know it's a waste of time, but might as well just do a walkthrough of how you could calculate the approximate distance to the moon using amateur equipment and simple trigonometry. I've not performed this exact experiment as a whole, but one time or another done each individual step, so I know it works.
Let's have two observers, each with a sensible camera, such as a Canon D60 and a lens zoomed in to 130mm focal length.
Observer 1 takes a photo, which is then cropped to show the part we're interested in. With this camera zoomed in to 130mm focal length, we'd expect the image to look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/yx9LjVr.png)
D60 sensor has 3074 x 2048 pixels, physical size is 22.7 x 15.1mm, meaning each pixel is 7.38μm in size.
The angular size of each pixel in radians is the pixel size / focal length.
Converting the length values to μm and the angle to arcseconds gives:
θ = 180/𝜋 * 60 * 60 * 7.38 / 130000 = 11.71 arcseconds per pixel at 130mm focal length.
The moon in the picture has a diameter of 161 pixels. At 11.71 arcseconds per pixel, that puts the moon's angular diameter at 31.3 arcminutes, half a degree, which is about right and a useful check to verify our calculation so far.
We have calibrated our image and can now measure a distance in pixels between any two points and convert to an angle in arcseconds by multiplying by 11.71.
So let's have the second observer take a photo at the same time. The two observers are 2360km apart. Call this distance d.
(https://i.imgur.com/ikSh0C3.png)
Notice the moon has moved relative to the fixed star. How much has it moved? Well if we combined the two photos and lined the star images up, we would see the moon has moved and we could measure the distance, but if we do it the other way around and line the two moons up we can measure the amount the star has apparently shifted instead. The answer is the same, because the movement is relative, but the lining up and measuring is easier and more accurate if done this way:
(https://i.imgur.com/voTX11V.png)
The two star images are 92 pixels apart, so they are 1077 arcseconds apart.
Now we can calculate the approximate distance to the moon from the formula:
d / (2 tan (φ / 2))
The value is approximate for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't take any account of the curvature of the earth between the two observers. Secondly, the images aren't exactly hi res, so measuring pixel distances is imprecise, but it should give a result within 15% or so. Let's plug the numbers in and see:
2360 / (2 tan (1077 / (2 * 60 * 60)) = 451,981km +/- 15% = 384,484km to 519.778km
The moon's actual distance varies between 356,500km and 406,700km, so we're certainly in the right ballpark.
NB: This example is based on the real experiment performed here: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart. (http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart.)
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
Makes no sense to be fair.
It's like saying you managed to look at a house from your back garden and to the right of it you see someone's security light.
You measure the distance to it and then tell your friend who lives a few doors to the left of you to go in to his back garden and view your house and that same security light.
That security light is obviously going to look much closer to your house, to him, than it is, to you.
So what are you measuring?
Explain this simply.
Then you can tell me why your moon has this massive discrepancy.
-
I can't measure a hologram
OK prove to me that the Moon is a hologram. How is a hologram created?
Wait, what?
As a student of scepti's "model" since it's fruition (I was there and have the t-shirt to prove it), I don't much take part in the discussion any more. I burnt out on too many early monster threads and you only want to go round in circles so many times. However I do check in to see what exciting new ad-hoc explanation he comes up with for some new corner he's trapped in.
However the fundamentals don't usually change that often, so when they do it is worthy of note. This is a new one.
The original model had what we call the sun was actually a reflection of a beam of light created by a giant crystal atop a Sauron type tower on a mountain at the North Pole. This tower cast a giant laser like beam at the "perfectly reflective" ice dome that covers the flat earth (what we call stars are reflections of other crystals lying around in the snow at the North pole).
You are probably now thinking that this can't even explain something as basic as why it is dark on one part of the earth, while it is light on another. Or how the sun could be rising and setting at the same time for different observers. Of course it doesn't and never will, but as you now realise, that's not the point.
Anyway to the moon: this also doesn't actually exist and is simply a reflection of the sun reflection from the other side of the dome. So now to hear that this has changed and the moon is a hologram is quite exciting. I will rejoin the dance once more, as it look like other are taking a seat anyway.
Scepti, what has caused this significant alteration to your model? What new data have you come across? What new exciting observation have you made? Where does this hologram get projected from and by whom? Questions, questions, questions!
Nothing has changed.
The hologram is simply a reflection. No change there.
I've mentioned it many times so...if you've been taking notice, you would know this.
As for crystals laid in the snow......noooooo.
You see, it's all well and good you making claims of what I postulate but at least try and get it right.
If you're stuck you can always look back into the topic you said you took notice of before you burned out.
-
You seem to have missed the bit about where I asked you to tell me what you think the distance of the Moon is how you managed to 'prove' it to yourself. I'm not replying to anything else you say until you have told me that.
I can't measure a hologram.
If you and I were to meet in real life, and you told me you were a flat earther and wanted me to prove the distance to the moon, to begin with, this is how I would do it.
Tool number one: hand-held lidar used by police to detect speeding drivers and to accurately measure distances of objects at traffic accident scenes.
I would go into great detail explaining to you how the laser in the device works to measure distance and how it's different functions work in the hands of a police officer. You and I would use it in conjunction with a measuring tape and moving cars until you are satisfied with how it works, its capabilities, and it's accuracy.
If need be, we would pull the laser apart into each of its components, for you to get your head fully around how it fully works.
Tool number 2: The McDonald Observatory in Texas.
Now that you have an understanding of how a laser can be used to measure distance, it's time to step it up a notch at the McDonald University, in Texas. At this point I would pass the buck to a worker at the observatory to explain how the laser they use, when aimed at the moon, is able to accurately measure the distance to the moon.
First of all, I'm quite happy to accept the lasers on Earth, these days. I'm more than happy to accept we know the distances to many many areas of this Earth.
But let's not get sidetracked by all this stuff and get back to the knowing reality of yourself, as an instance, in you absolutely knowing.....without assistance of authority..... distances to objects or points of light, like you told me happened in the early days, with these so called scientists of the time and the tools they apparently used to be close to accurate, given today's technological change.
I asked for simplicity and I have yet to see it.
Let me make this a bit simpler and we can work for it.
I stand you in a spot in an open area. You do not know it and do not know the terrain in the distance.
I have two big hills in the distance of unknown size, to you....but to me, they are 1 mile apart and is 1 mile away from you with you inbetween and one is 500 feet high and the other is 1000 feet high.
The 500 foot high hill is 1 mile from you, with the 1000 feet high hill, 2 miles away.
On top of the 500 foot hill are two 10 feet diameter lights. On top of the 1000 feet high hill, I have two 20 feet diameter lights.
All you know at this points is....you see 2 hills and 2 sets of two lights.
You do not have the benefit of scientific calculators, nor lasers.
You can use me in any form you want to (no interfering, mind you....let's keep this civil and unmolesting ;)...
Show me how you physically come to the figures I have given you.........bearing in mind what you start out knowing.
Your full honestly on this without appealing to anything or anyone, other than the tools you have.....and myself as your reference if need be.
-
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
As I'm sure you know (deep down somewhere) the Moon... ok my Moon has an elliptical orbit. The figures above relate to the points of perigee and apogee..yes? Nearest and furthest points in orbit. You might have heard the popular term 'super Moon' which is also known as a perigee full Moon.
As for your Moon... well that's anyones guess.
-
Ok, sceptimatic. The only tool I will ask for is a measuring wheel with the circumference of the wheel being 5 feet. Is that a reasonable request?
Failing that, otherwise, I know how to pace out in one metre strides. Just give me a metre ruler with cms on one edge and inches and feet on the other edge, and a pen and paper. I'll use the ruler to practice getting my strides the right distance.
I can pace out all the distances I need, record them on pen and paper, and then do the conversions from metres to feet by multiplying the figure I arrive at in meters by 3.28 to arrive at the answer in feet.
(It would be faster though, if you let me use a 4wd, setting the trip metre to zero first to measure each land distance, with the measuring wheel on the backseat to use atop each hill.)
I can use the pen and paper and my eyesight to accurately work out the angles of your two hills, then using that to work out the height of each.
Will this be accurate enough?
My question to you though, is if you accept the use of lasers to measure distances, what's the problem with just using lasers to measure the distance of earth to the moon? I can break down the process very easily, because I use lasers to measure distances everytime I go to work.
-
GPS can just as easily be ground position stations as opposed to satellites.
No, not with the math involved, which you can verify yourself.
It also stands no chance with your instantaneous light.
what we've been coaxed into believing.
You mean what the evidence supports. Most people don't need to be coaxed into accepting relaity.
Your issue is, you argue for stuff and you have no real clue about the reality, if you are honest with yourself.
No, that would be you. You argue against things and have no clue about reality.
For example, your repeatedly lie about the horizon on a RE.
I'm sure you understand our eyes do not see as far as you think they do and I'm sure you know that our eyes are dependent on light.
You also know that atmosphere creates a barrier when looking over distance....especially horizontally.
Feel free to argue against this but you would only be arguing with yourself.
No, I am clearly arguing against the lies you spout, with you appearing to be completely incapable of honestly and rationally justifying these lies, or even engaging in anything resembling a rational discussion of them. Although I suppose you could say that means I am not actually arguing with anyone, as that would require you to rationally and honestly engage with the discussion.
I know that our eyes are not magically limited by distance.
Instead it is based upon resolving ability and the amount of light reaching them.
I know that the atmosphere, after enough distance, would result in a haze, similar to a very foggy day, which would NOT produce a horizon.
Now again, can you point out any problem with this line of reasoning? If not, can you admit that what you have said about the horizon is an outright lie?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
I gave my opinion on it being instant but by instant, it does not mean it reaches everyone in an instant.
It depends on energy applied, like I said.
So by "instant" you mean not actually instant and instead travelling at a very fast, but finite speed?
As for it depending on energy applied, that is also wrong. Once more, you can do the simple test I described above (but vary the energy) and see.
Makes no sense to be fair.
If it makes no sense, why are you only capable of just dismissing it? Why aren't you capable of rationally pointing out just what is wrong with it?
Then you can tell me why your moon has this massive discrepancy.
What discrepancy? Do you mean how it doesn't fit in your model, but works fine with the real round Earth?
Or do you mean how the distance varies due to its elliptical orbit?
-
I know it's a waste of time, but might as well just do a walkthrough of how you could calculate the approximate distance to the moon using amateur equipment and simple trigonometry. I've not performed this exact experiment as a whole, but one time or another done each individual step, so I know it works.
Let's have two observers, each with a sensible camera, such as a Canon D60 and a lens zoomed in to 130mm focal length.
Observer 1 takes a photo, which is then cropped to show the part we're interested in. With this camera zoomed in to 130mm focal length, we'd expect the image to look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/yx9LjVr.png)
D60 sensor has 3074 x 2048 pixels, physical size is 22.7 x 15.1mm, meaning each pixel is 7.38μm in size.
The angular size of each pixel in radians is the pixel size / focal length.
Converting the length values to μm and the angle to arcseconds gives:
θ = 180/𝜋 * 60 * 60 * 7.38 / 130000 = 11.71 arcseconds per pixel at 130mm focal length.
The moon in the picture has a diameter of 161 pixels. At 11.71 arcseconds per pixel, that puts the moon's angular diameter at 31.3 arcminutes, half a degree, which is about right and a useful check to verify our calculation so far.
We have calibrated our image and can now measure a distance in pixels between any two points and convert to an angle in arcseconds by multiplying by 11.71.
So let's have the second observer take a photo at the same time. The two observers are 2360km apart. Call this distance d.
(https://i.imgur.com/ikSh0C3.png)
Notice the moon has moved relative to the fixed star. How much has it moved? Well if we combined the two photos and lined the star images up, we would see the moon has moved and we could measure the distance, but if we do it the other way around and line the two moons up we can measure the amount the star has apparently shifted instead. The answer is the same, because the movement is relative, but the lining up and measuring is easier and more accurate if done this way:
(https://i.imgur.com/voTX11V.png)
The two star images are 92 pixels apart, so they are 1077 arcseconds apart.
Now we can calculate the approximate distance to the moon from the formula:
d / (2 tan (φ / 2))
The value is approximate for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't take any account of the curvature of the earth between the two observers. Secondly, the images aren't exactly hi res, so measuring pixel distances is imprecise, but it should give a result within 15% or so. Let's plug the numbers in and see:
2360 / (2 tan (1077 / (2 * 60 * 60)) = 451,981km +/- 15% = 384,484km to 519.778km
The moon's actual distance varies between 356,500km and 406,700km, so we're certainly in the right ballpark.
NB: This example is based on the real experiment performed here: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart. (http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart.)
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
Makes no sense to be fair.
It's like saying you managed to look at a house from your back garden and to the right of it you see someone's security light.
You measure the distance to it and then tell your friend who lives a few doors to the left of you to go in to his back garden and view your house and that same security light.
That security light is obviously going to look much closer to your house, to him, than it is, to you.
So what are you measuring?
Explain this simply.
Then you can tell me why your moon has this massive discrepancy.
I just measured a room in my house. 5 paces, so that's 5 metres. I mean it's going to be exactly 5.000 metres right? No possibility of an error creeping in, accurate to a nanometre.
So I'm measuring the distance to the moon. I've worked out the size of a camera sensor pixel is 7.8μm. That's accurate to 1 decimal place. So it could be anywhere between 7.750 and 7.849μm. That's our first error margin. Then I've said the camera is zoomed in to 130mm. That could be anywhere between 125 and 135mm. Then I've used that to calculate arcseconds per pixel, which again is rounded to 2dp. All these errors are adding up and we've not even taken the photo yet.
Did we use a multi-million dollar telescope to take the image? No, an off the shelf camera. Is the picture ultra high res? Hardly. Zoom in on the star, it's so badly smudged it takes up 5 pixels, so my 92 pixel width in reality is +/- 10 pixels because there are two indistinct smudged 5 pixel star images.
All of these errors accumulate, which limits the accuracy of the calculation. Finally, I haven't even bothered to account for the curvature of the earth, because that makes the maths more difficult.
Sure, if you have access to a couple of multi-million dollar telescopes, top of the range CCD sensors and do the complex maths to account for the earth's curvature, you'll reduce the error margins very significantly, but they won't disappear. If you want accurate, bounce a laser off the moon instead. This is an amateur experiment with amateur kit and that implies a wide margin for error. But the crucial part is the answer is not 32 miles or anything stupid, it's within 15% of the real figure.
Your security light strawman example is complete nonsense. Has no relevance whatsoever. Your example is nothing like what I've presented and just demonstrates your complete inability to understand.
Explain this simply.
Sure. It goes like this:
I go into a hardware store. You are behind the counter.
You: "Hi, here to help, whatever you want, give me your order and I'll jump right to it, tell me what you need?"
Me: "I need a hammer".
You: "You don't need that"
Me: "???"
That's more or less word for word how this discussion went except I asked for a number between 1 and 5 and you said I didn't need that.
You can't do complicated and you won't engage at all with a simple step by step approach, so either way, unless you are willing to give a little in return, you'll never be able to understand how this works. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean you haven't been given a correct answer.
-
The hologram is simply a reflection.
So the moon is a holographic reflection of the sun, and the sun is just the reflected light from a magic radiative crystal in a tower at the north pole. Totally reasonable.
As for crystals laid in the snow......noooooo.
Of course not, that would just be silly.
-
What's this about a phone? I never said anything about a phone. I'm saying that people do this with their HAM radio gear. It's not magic and I've given you all the information needed to do it especially asking a HAM to demo it for you. I certainly don't expect you to buy into any of it. But if you really wanted truth and knowledge, you might do something about it. But I understand doing so may be too frightening for you.
It was in the link you gave me. Look back.
I don't remember which link, I've olny been talking about HAM. So just think about HAM radio. Go find some enthusiastic hobbiest to show you. You may actually learn something, god forbid.
Sure you do, you absolutely accept things to be true for the sake it. You've got the whole breathing dome membrane carbonite projecting sun thing that you accept as being true with zero evidence of any of it.
That's my theory and I have my reasons for it which I've well explained,w hetehr you people think so, or not.
I don't pass it off as a truth. It's my belief of the potential of it.
When I pass it off as factual, then you can go on a rant and it'll have some merit.
Well, there's theory with no evidence. That would just be a notion, a musing. Then there's theory with evidence . That would be actionable, useful, used. And close to reality. Your's is just the former. Which is fine.
Don't start playing holier than now games. You blindly accept things every waking moment of every day just like the rest of us. If you didn't, you'd never get on a plane. You'd never use GPS. You'd never even make a cell call. Face it, you're just as indoctrinated as anyone else. You're not special.
If you paid attention you'd understand that I accept most things in life. It doesn't mean I have to fully believe what's behind it all.
GPS can just as easily be ground position stations as opposed to satellites.
Not in the middle of the Pacific. And yes, I've actually talked to someone very near and dear to me who I trust implicitly on their Sat phone while she was 1800 miles south of Hawaii and thousands more from any other land mass on a 2 handed sailing trip from the US to Tahiti. And she was the navigatrix and was using GPS and real-time weather charts the entire crossing there and back.
Just like gravity and nuclear and lots of other stuff may be totally different to what we've been coaxed into believing. You don't think so and that's your mindset. I don't buy into a lot of it and I question it, whether you think it shouldn't be questioned.
Your issue is, you argue for stuff and you have no real clue about the reality, if you are honest with yourself.
Again, stop with the high and mighty crap. You argue for stuff all the time that you have no idea the reality of. Dome membrane and carbonite sun with hologram moon for one. You wont even accept how a simple pressure gauge works even though the reality is that millions of people around the world use them in a way you don't understand. I mean where do you get off saying things like that? Enough with the "if you are honest with yourself" shit. That has no place here especially coming from you. You are no less indoctrinated than anyone else - You refuse to accept how reality works for the vast majority of us just as the vast majority refuses to accept how your reality works. So, enough.
-
I don't buy into a lot of it and I question it, whether you think it shouldn't be questioned.
Just out of interest give me one example of something you buy into and accept as true without questioning it? Is there such a thing?
-
The hologram is simply a reflection. No change there.
Nah, originally it was just a reflection - you can search your own posts if you like. So how does a reflection of a light beam become a hologram? What is your definition of a hologram?
As for crystals laid in the snow......noooooo.
So, tell me, how are the crystals laid out?
-
The hologram is simply a reflection. No change there.
Nah, originally it was just a reflection - you can search your own posts if you like. So how does a reflection of a light beam become a hologram? What is your definition of a hologram?
As for crystals laid in the snow......noooooo.
So, tell me, how are the crystals laid out?
Here are some older answers I found....
what suspends the Moon in the sky? Does the Moon float on top of the stacked air?
The moon is a reflection of what's in the centre of Earth.
What is the reason for the planets in the sky that move independently of the stars?
Everything you see in the sky that is not man made is a reflection from the centre of Earth.
What are those things I see zooming across the sky that my APP tells me are satellites?
Could be a variation of things.
Regular ice fall from under the dome.
What was the Hale-Bopp comet that I saw in the 90's and why was the white tale and blue tale going in different directions...
Just a large dome icicle friction glowing and turning slowly back to its gaseous state in the atmospheric upper stack.
how do these fit in a Flat Earth model that has stacked air and (we are assuming) a sky dome...
The dome houses all our atmospheric needs.
What is outside of it we cannot see because we, as the roganisms we are can only see/sense what colours and frequencies we do.
The blackness to our vision outside the dome would be what we as humans would consider a void that absorbs all light/colours/frequencies.
Basically it's something we cannot see and don't really know about.
What we do know is what is reflected back from that blackness due to the inner dome acting like a mirror against that blackness.
What we see is what's going on inside this dome but we can only see some of it because our telescopes are not powerful enough to see it all, except some can see more than others and they're on mountains and inside big aircraft.
You did ask.
what keeps these things from not falling to Earth? Where does the buoyancy come into play?
All the stuff that's not man made will all basically friction burn back to gases.
I would say, maybe on very rare occasions would we be atmospherically blasted by one too large to friction burn up totally until it comes closer to out lower atmosphere.
The pressure wave could create damage and potentially wipe out small areas.
The thing is it would most likely happen closer to the coldest parts of Earth as it gets spiralled around the circle.
-
Anyone care to explain why when I lose my cell phone signal in a steep and narrow valley on holiday my GPS app still works perfectly.
Anyone care to explain why my car satnav works all the time once it has locked onto a satellite signal yet I can see the cell phone signal comes and goes throughout my journey.
If Sceptis claims about GPS not coming fro satellites is right then if I don't have a cell phone signal then my GPS signal should be lost as well.
-
Ok, sceptimatic. The only tool I will ask for is a measuring wheel with the circumference of the wheel being 5 feet. Is that a reasonable request?
Failing that, otherwise, I know how to pace out in one metre strides. Just give me a metre ruler with cms on one edge and inches and feet on the other edge, and a pen and paper. I'll use the ruler to practice getting my strides the right distance.
I can pace out all the distances I need, record them on pen and paper, and then do the conversions from metres to feet by multiplying the figure I arrive at in meters by 3.28 to arrive at the answer in feet.
(It would be faster though, if you let me use a 4wd, setting the trip metre to zero first to measure each land distance, with the measuring wheel on the backseat to use atop each hill.)
I can use the pen and paper and my eyesight to accurately work out the angles of your two hills, then using that to work out the height of each.
Will this be accurate enough?
My question to you though, is if you accept the use of lasers to measure distances, what's the problem with just using lasers to measure the distance of earth to the moon? I can break down the process very easily, because I use lasers to measure distances everytime I go to work.
Show me how you're going to do it all as if I was there with you.
Explain what you're doing and how you use your figures and angles.
Bit by bit for this dummy.
-
Are you claiming we can't measure distance?
Nope. We can measure distance if we have reference points. Real reference points.
What the heck is a 'real reference point' in your mind?
Are you claiming I can't drive 10 miles and know how far I have gone?
How would you know if your milometer was not working?
Sign posts?
How would you know if it wasn't already mapped for you?
Uh. My 'milometer' works just fine. Are you now claiming that all cars, all planes, busses, trains all have faulty measuring devices? That all surveyors can't actually measure distances either? Why? Because you can't understand how to use a ruler? Do you know how length works?
These 'milometers' are not complicated. You know how big the wheels are. You count how many times they go around, multiply by PI and there is your distance.
Yet you think we can't do this? What part do you think is impossible, measuring the size of a wheel or counting how many times it spins? Which part confuses you?
So now you don't think it's possible to measure distance between two points.
I can measure distance if I know what it is I'm measuring the distance to.
Still no real answers from you people about your moon and points of light.
That doesn't make sense. You need to know what your measuring the distance to? Know it how, in the Biblical sense? What does that even mean?
We answered you a hundred times about the Moon. You just can't understand the concepts. If everything in the sky is just confusing points of light that you can't understand, that's your problem, not the entire rest of the world. ::)
-
Scepti, is this still how the seasons apparently work in your model:
"As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection."
I've no idea what that meant back in the day and I've still no idea, but wondered if this was still part the scepti doctrine?
-
Your security light strawman example is complete nonsense. Has no relevance whatsoever. Your example is nothing like what I've presented and just demonstrates your complete inability to understand.
I Don't think so. It's no different to what you're postulating with your angles.
Explain this simply.
Sure. It goes like this:
I go into a hardware store. You are behind the counter.
You: "Hi, here to help, whatever you want, give me your order and I'll jump right to it, tell me what you need?"
Me: "I need a hammer".
You: "You don't need that"
Me: "???"
That's more or less word for word how this discussion went except I asked for a number between 1 and 5 and you said I didn't need that.
You can't do complicated and you won't engage at all with a simple step by step approach, so either way, unless you are willing to give a little in return, you'll never be able to understand how this works. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean you haven't been given a correct answer.
I don't need to play complicated and have no need to engage in anything like it.
It appears you can't explain stuff in a simple way.
It's like you believe life is ultra complicated with this stuff and appeal to authority as to how you come to the figures you do...as if they were your physical truth's, which they are not.
-
Your security light strawman example is complete nonsense. Has no relevance whatsoever. Your example is nothing like what I've presented and just demonstrates your complete inability to understand.
I Don't think so. It's no different to what you're postulating with your angles.
Explain this simply.
Sure. It goes like this:
I go into a hardware store. You are behind the counter.
You: "Hi, here to help, whatever you want, give me your order and I'll jump right to it, tell me what you need?"
Me: "I need a hammer".
You: "You don't need that"
Me: "???"
That's more or less word for word how this discussion went except I asked for a number between 1 and 5 and you said I didn't need that.
You can't do complicated and you won't engage at all with a simple step by step approach, so either way, unless you are willing to give a little in return, you'll never be able to understand how this works. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean you haven't been given a correct answer.
I don't need to play complicated and have no need to engage in anything like it.
It appears you can't explain stuff in a simple way.
It's like you believe life is ultra complicated with this stuff and appeal to authority as to how you come to the figures you do...as if they were your physical truth's, which they are not.
If you want it simple, then we take it a step at a time and it goes like this. I present a step. I ask you a simple question, to make sure you are still with me, otherwise there's no point carrying on. You either engage with this process or you don't. Your choice. If you don't then we're stuck.
There's nothing complex in what I've presented, but since you absolutely refuse to take it a step at a time, all I can do is throw it all at you. That overloads you and you complain it's too complicated, when in fact it's just too many steps in one go.
If you think basic trigonometry is complicated, well it might be for you, but not for me. I can't help you out with that.
You continue to ask what we need from you. You ask us to give you orders to follow. When we tell you what we need you to do, you then refuse to honour your side of the bargain. What's the point in asking what we need if you then point blank refuse to provide it?
You claim I have appealed to authority. No I haven't. Everything I've presented I've either derived from first principles or it's a step I've performed myself at one time or another, so it's something I have personally verified.
-
Again, stop with the high and mighty crap. You argue for stuff all the time that you have no idea the reality of.
The very same can be said of you. You only believe you know the reality because you are schooled into that belief.
If not then show me where your reality comes from just your own physical observational proofs....otherwise don't throw stones at me in the glass house and complain about me throwing them.
Dome membrane and carbonite sun with hologram moon for one.
I don't expect you to follow it. You asked, or others did and I answered. I'm not creating a school of indoctrination, I'm merely answering questions put to me.
It's not my issue if those answers create frustration and amazement or utter denial.
I'm just as perplexed with gravity and a spinning ball in a vacuum with oceans acting like we see.....etc.....etc.....etc, so I can well understand how something contrary to all that will create an almost personal insult to anyone firmly believing of it.
However, my digs are at the model, not the people who believe it.
You wont even accept how a simple pressure gauge works even though the reality is that millions of people around the world use them in a way you don't understand.
I've never been shown how it works in your world.
Can you briefly explain what happens.
You know my thoughts, so tell me how yours works.......from your own mind.
I mean where do you get off saying things like that? Enough with the "if you are honest with yourself" shit.
That has no place here especially coming from you.
It's not about getting off, it's about ensuring a person is being honest in their assumptions.....no more sinister than that.
Accept it and move on just as I accept your attitude towards me.
You are no less indoctrinated than anyone else - You refuse to accept how reality works for the vast majority of us just as the vast majority refuses to accept how your reality works. So, enough.
We're all indoctrinated. Life is one massive indoctrination from child to adult.
Your issue seems to be thinking I'm having a dig at those who are indoctrinated. It's like you take stuff personally.
I regularly say this,a s well.
"Keep this as a reference".
The reason I do say this is, it ensures that people like yourself, who seem to take stuff a bit too personal and serious...getting frustrated along the way, can look back to what I ask you to reference and be in the knowledge of what I'm saying.
In this case I'm saying I agree we ......not.... you ....are all indoctrinated.
The only difference being, is some of us question certain aspects of it it and some of us don't.
-
I don't buy into a lot of it and I question it, whether you think it shouldn't be questioned.
Just out of interest give me one example of something you buy into and accept as true without questioning it? Is there such a thing?
Lots of stuff.
-
Yes.....the downward curve of the concave sky. The dome.
No, the downwards curve of Earth.
If it was the dome, then you would need to see the point of intersection, effectively the very edge of Earth.
That is not what is seen.
I'm sure you understand our eyes do not see as far as you think they do and I'm sure you know that our eyes are dependent on light.
You also know that atmosphere creates a barrier when looking over distance....especially horizontally.
Feel free to argue against this but you would only be arguing with yourself.
So why you talk about an edge of Earth when dealing with me, is odd, when you clearly know my Earth does not have one.
And how far do you think our eyes can see?
-
Ok, sceptimatic. The only tool I will ask for is a measuring wheel with the circumference of the wheel being 5 feet. Is that a reasonable request?
Failing that, otherwise, I know how to pace out in one metre strides. Just give me a metre ruler with cms on one edge and inches and feet on the other edge, and a pen and paper. I'll use the ruler to practice getting my strides the right distance.
I can pace out all the distances I need, record them on pen and paper, and then do the conversions from metres to feet by multiplying the figure I arrive at in meters by 3.28 to arrive at the answer in feet.
(It would be faster though, if you let me use a 4wd, setting the trip metre to zero first to measure each land distance, with the measuring wheel on the backseat to use atop each hill.)
I can use the pen and paper and my eyesight to accurately work out the angles of your two hills, then using that to work out the height of each.
Will this be accurate enough?
My question to you though, is if you accept the use of lasers to measure distances, what's the problem with just using lasers to measure the distance of earth to the moon? I can break down the process very easily, because I use lasers to measure distances everytime I go to work.
Show me how you're going to do it all as if I was there with you.
Explain what you're doing and how you use your figures and angles.
Bit by bit for this dummy.
1. We place a mark on the measuring wheel and use the ruler to confirm the circumference is 5 feet.
2. We set the measuring wheel to zero.
3. You find the biggest stick around, and spend the next half an hour jamming it in the ground where we stand, while I watch you.
4. We decide where the closest point to us on the tall mountain is, and walk to it.
5. We stop at where we feel is the base of the mountain.
6. You take the figure on the measuring wheel counter, and multiply it by 5.
7. I, spend half an hour teaching you how to multiply a three digit figure and one digit figure.
8. We, decide the figure we arrive at, is correct.
9. You, spend the next half an hour jamming another stick in the ground where we stand, watching me eat cheesecake.
10. We, set the counter on the measuring wheel back to zero, and walk around the base of the mountain, returning to the stick you just jammed in the ground.
11. You, multiply the figure on the counter by 5, and arrive at an answer of 2 miles.
12. I, sketch on the paper, a diagram of where we started, with a line to the tall mountain, and a circle with the circumference of the tall mountain, with the figures we've arrived at.
13. We, then decide on the closest point at the base of the tall mountain to the base of the smaller mountain.
14. You, spend the next half an hour jamming a large stick in the ground at that point at the base of the tall mountain, on the circumference of its base, watching me, drink down my first mid-strength can of carlton cold beer.
15, You, ask politely for a beer, and are reminded whose idea this was.
16. You, drink stagnant water from a nearby pond, which is coated in a brown film with flies buzzing over some floating dead animals.
17. You, enjoy the next half an hour of no vomiting and diahorea.
18. You, remind me half an hour later, of how much of a dummy you are, watching me drink my next ice cold beer, shaking my head.
19. You drink the remainder of my beer as some form of hydration, reminding me, not to breathe through my nose less than 3 meters from you.
20. Finally, we set the counter on the measuring wheel to zero and walk to the nearest spot at the base of the smaller hill.
21. You, successfully multiply the figure we arrive at, by five, to be 1 mile, and watch me add this to the diagram I am drawing.
22. We, set the counter on the measuring wheel to zero and walk the base of the smaller mountain, and then we multiply the result by 5.
23. We choose the closest spot on the circumference of the hill to the original stick you jammed in the ground, where we started from.
24. We set the counter on the measuring wheel to zero and walk to that stick.
25. You, multiply the end result by 5 and arrive at an answer of 1 mile.
26. I sit down, take out a peeled boiled egg from my knapsack, and suck it.
27. You ask for an egg of your own to suck, and I reach into my knapsack and hand you a freshly picked mexican chilly.
28. You then, shake your head, wondering how we will measure the height of each mountain.
29. I hand you a walkie talkie, and take out my binoculars.
30. I instruct you to walk to the stick you placed at the base of the tall mountain.
31. I instructvyou to set the counter on the measuring wheel to zero and to ascend the mountain until the ground is level, and to stop.
32. You use the walkie talkie to tell me the figure on the measuring wheel. I multiply that figure by 5 to arrive at 1,000 feet.
33. You set the measuring wheel to zero and walk the diameter of the light on top.
34. I multiply your answer of 4 by 5 to arrive at a diameter of 20 feet.
35. You walk to the smaller hill and to the stick you jammed in the ground closest to our starting point.
36. You, set the counter to zero and ascend the smaller hill until it is flat at the top, and communicate that figure.
37. I multiply that figure by five to arrive at an answer of 500 feet.
38. I instruct you to set the counter of the measuring wheel and walk the diameter of the light on top, arriving at an answer of 2, which when multiplied gives an answer of 10 feet diameter for each light.
Mission accomplished.
Is this the part where you tell me, you and I aren't allowed to move from where we are standing? You could have told that rule, earlier.
-
It appears you can't explain stuff in a simple way.
No, it can be, you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit with your fantasy.
Just like it can be shown in a simple way that a RE would have a horizon, such as by showing a hill or a ball, or by a simple line of reasoning which I laid out which you are still yet to point out any flaw with.
The very same can be said of you.
Can it actually though, or is that just your dismissal?
Once more, plenty of us have actually obtained evidence ourselves. It isn't simply us just accepting whatever we are told.
If not then show me where your reality comes from just your own physical observational proofs.
For you to just dismiss them all?
You wont even accept how a simple pressure gauge works even though the reality is that millions of people around the world use them in a way you don't understand.
I've never been shown how it works in your world.
Can you briefly explain what happens.
It has been explained to you repeatedly.
There are several different types, the simplest is a membrane which the gas pushes against, with a spring on the other side.
The gas pressure acting on the membrane creates a force which compresses the spring. The spring applies a force based upon how compressed it is, approximated via hook's law, i.e. a linear relationship.
These 2 forces move the membrane until the force is balanced.
A needle is attached to the spring and as the spring is compressed the needle moves.
Not hard to understand.
Another type is a mercury barometer, in this type the air pressure pushes down the fluid, forcing it up into the tube. The weight of the mercury in the tube applies a pressure based upon its height. Again, pretty easy to understand.
It's not about getting off, it's about ensuring a person is being honest in their assumptions.....no more sinister than that.
Then why do you never ensure that you are being honest?
Why do you continually repeat the same refuted lies?
Why do you continually deflect or ignore arguments against your position?
Why do you never honestly engage with the refutation of those lies?
For example:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
The only difference being, is some of us question certain aspects of it it and some of us don't.
No, the difference is some of us actually have obtained evidence, while others completely ignore or dismiss evidence and rational arguments and continually spout nonsense to pretend reality is wrong.
-
I'm merely answering questions put to me.
What a joke. I've asked you the same question, over and over. Pick a number between 1 and 5.
You don't answer the question, you don't even attempt to answer the question, you wriggle and squirm and evade and deflect. The nearest you've come to answering is when you told me I didn't need to know.
You say you are ready to take orders, then refuse to follow them. You ask what we need and then refuse to provide what we ask for. You are one of the most dishonest posters I've ever come across.
-
Here's an example of what JB is on about I ask
Just out of interest give me one example of something you buy into and accept as true without questioning it? Is there such a thing?
Scepti replies:
"Lots of stuff"
What kind of an answer is that? OK then give me just one example of what comes under the heading of lots of stuff.
-
Here's an example of what JB is on about I ask
Just out of interest give me one example of something you buy into and accept as true without questioning it? Is there such a thing?
Scepti replies:
"Lots of stuff"
What kind of an answer is that? OK then give me just one example of what comes under the heading of lots of stuff.
How about denpressure, or Earth being flat?
He seems to accept that hook line and sinker without any questioning at all.
-
I used to know someone who would deliberately take on the opposite view to the majority (regardless of what was being discussed) just because it gave him a personal sense of being special, clever or better than everyone else. He would always have an answer to everything and expected everyone to agree with him. Similar to sibling rivalry I suppose. The reality was that everyone else just thought he was arrogant.
Scepti talks about us being 'indoctrinated'. But surely when it comes to science the opposite is true. Scientists spend more of their life questioning things and in effect trying to prove themselves wrong than most ordinary people in the street do. They are always asking why does that do that, what would happen if we were to do this, when and why did that happen, why does gravity only ever attract things but a magnet both attracts and repels? That is what science is all about. Creating questions and trying to find the answers. Most of the time when a single question is answered it opens the door to more questions. To be 'indoctrinated' means taking things for granted and that is certainly not something that any scientist can be accused of doing. That is my understanding of what science is anyway. Others may disgree.
Seems to me that Scepti has a very fixed idea of what the Earth - indeed the entire universe - is like. His understanding of being 'indoctrinated' actually means anyone who holds a different view about anything to him. Which takes me back to my arrogant friend. Since no one else seems to 'teach' Sceptis model then there must be underlying reasons for that.
It makes me wonder where or how Scepti was ever educated and by who. Given that he doesn't seem to trust or accept what anyone else says other than himself.
-
I’ve understood Sceptimatic got their information from their uncle.
-
Ah yes - everyone needs a wise old uncle!
-
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
As I'm sure you know (deep down somewhere) the Moon... ok my Moon has an elliptical orbit. The figures above relate to the points of perigee and apogee..yes? Nearest and furthest points in orbit. You might have heard the popular term 'super Moon' which is also known as a perigee full Moon.
As for your Moon... well that's anyones guess.
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well....like I said......it's the mainstream norm and many simply do follow it, usually to the letter.
-
The hologram is simply a reflection. No change there.
Nah, originally it was just a reflection - you can search your own posts if you like. So how does a reflection of a light beam become a hologram? What is your definition of a hologram?
A reflection. Holographic images are just reflections to the point of showing.
As for crystals laid in the snow......noooooo.
So, tell me, how are the crystals laid out?
Possibly something like this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nz0fm5fD/FTETlr2-Imgur.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Anyone care to explain why when I lose my cell phone signal in a steep and narrow valley on holiday my GPS app still works perfectly.
There are many many instances where cell phones do not work in remote areas and also in certain built up areas. Why?
I know people who live only a few hundred feet elevation over 1 mile and their cell phone signals are abysmal.
Cell towers, not satellites.
Anyone care to explain why my car satnav works all the time once it has locked onto a satellite signal yet I can see the cell phone signal comes and goes throughout my journey.
It depends on the ground positioning stations and the strength of signal being transmitted. No man made satellites.
-
Scepti, is this still how the seasons apparently work in your model:
"As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection."
I've no idea what that meant back in the day and I've still no idea, but wondered if this was still part the scepti doctrine?
Basically it means the dome expands and contracts as the internal energy loses then replenishes as it moves around the centre of the mound, internally.
-
You need to know what your measuring the distance to? Know it how, in the Biblical sense? What does that even mean?
Pay attention.
A ball of unknown size and distance, to you. Find the size and the distance.
Simple....isn't it?
Show me and explain exactly why you know the distance.
I'll help.
I know it to be a beach ball painted to look exactly like a tennis ball and it is 1 mile away in the calm salt flats.
Over to you.
We answered you a hundred times about the Moon. You just can't understand the concepts. If everything in the sky is just confusing points of light that you can't understand, that's your problem, not the entire rest of the world. ::)
No, you didn't. You mumbled your ways through it and didn't give full reasons for the measurement.....appealing to NASA magnificence of tools far greater than your tools, iirc.
-
If you want it simple, then we take it a step at a time and it goes like this. I present a step. I ask you a simple question, to make sure you are still with me, otherwise there's no point carrying on. You either engage with this process or you don't. Your choice. If you don't then we're stuck.
There's nothing complex in what I've presented, but since you absolutely refuse to take it a step at a time, all I can do is throw it all at you. That overloads you and you complain it's too complicated, when in fact it's just too many steps in one go.
If you think basic trigonometry is complicated, well it might be for you, but not for me. I can't help you out with that.
You continue to ask what we need from you. You ask us to give you orders to follow. When we tell you what we need you to do, you then refuse to honour your side of the bargain. What's the point in asking what we need if you then point blank refuse to provide it?
You claim I have appealed to authority. No I haven't. Everything I've presented I've either derived from first principles or it's a step I've performed myself at one time or another, so it's something I have personally verified.
Ok...step for step.
Miss nothing out and do not go any further until I'm happy about each step.
-
Yes.....the downward curve of the concave sky. The dome.
No, the downwards curve of Earth.
If it was the dome, then you would need to see the point of intersection, effectively the very edge of Earth.
That is not what is seen.
I'm sure you understand our eyes do not see as far as you think they do and I'm sure you know that our eyes are dependent on light.
You also know that atmosphere creates a barrier when looking over distance....especially horizontally.
Feel free to argue against this but you would only be arguing with yourself.
So why you talk about an edge of Earth when dealing with me, is odd, when you clearly know my Earth does not have one.
And how far do you think our eyes can see?
That's just the entire point. Its the, how far your eyes can see which creates your horizon line. It's your horizontal convergence points of sky and sea.
Reference this so you don't need to ask again.
-
1. We place a mark on the measuring wheel and use the ruler to confirm the circumference is 5 feet.
2. We set the measuring wheel to zero.
3. You find the biggest stick around, and spend the next half an hour jamming it in the ground where we stand, while I watch you.
4. We decide where the closest point to us on the tall mountain is, and walk to it.
5. We stop at where we feel is the base of the mountain.
I'll stop you here.
You can't walk to your moon or your sun or your stars, so you're not walking to a mountain.
You gauge it from where you're stood, just like you would if you were to do it with your so called points of light.
-
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well....like I said......it's the mainstream norm and many simply do follow it, usually to the letter.
And that's the best you can come up with for a reply now is it. Disappointing! For someone who clearly believes they have such an amazing knowledge of reality I would have expected better. I really would.
-
the difference is some of us actually have obtained evidence, while others completely ignore or dismiss evidence and rational arguments and continually spout nonsense to pretend reality is wrong.
I don't see any evidence from any of you. I see plenty of appeals to so called authority, both present and historical.
-
Here's an example of what JB is on about I ask
Just out of interest give me one example of something you buy into and accept as true without questioning it? Is there such a thing?
Scepti replies:
"Lots of stuff"
What kind of an answer is that? OK then give me just one example of what comes under the heading of lots of stuff.
I accept cars work by using petrol and diesel whilst operating with pistons....etc.
What do you want me to say?
I said I accept lots of things. Just accept that.
What I don't accept, are the things I'm arguing against, which people like yourself simply cast off and me accepting nothing.
If I can't physically verify something but have no need or desire to question...I'll accept it. It does not mean I believe it wholeheartedly...so learn to distinguish.
The stuff I'm arguing against, I'm questioning because I don't believe nor accept.
-
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well....like I said......it's the mainstream norm and many simply do follow it, usually to the letter.
And that's the best you can come up with for a reply now is it. Disappointing! For someone who clearly believes they have such an amazing knowledge of reality I would have expected better. I really would.
You can't explain why it supposedly happens, can you?
-
If you want it simple, then we take it a step at a time and it goes like this. I present a step. I ask you a simple question, to make sure you are still with me, otherwise there's no point carrying on. You either engage with this process or you don't. Your choice. If you don't then we're stuck.
There's nothing complex in what I've presented, but since you absolutely refuse to take it a step at a time, all I can do is throw it all at you. That overloads you and you complain it's too complicated, when in fact it's just too many steps in one go.
If you think basic trigonometry is complicated, well it might be for you, but not for me. I can't help you out with that.
You continue to ask what we need from you. You ask us to give you orders to follow. When we tell you what we need you to do, you then refuse to honour your side of the bargain. What's the point in asking what we need if you then point blank refuse to provide it?
You claim I have appealed to authority. No I haven't. Everything I've presented I've either derived from first principles or it's a step I've performed myself at one time or another, so it's something I have personally verified.
Ok...step for step.
Miss nothing out and do not go any further until I'm happy about each step.
In the unlikely event that you're finally now ready to engage in the process... Step 1. Pick a number between 1 and 5.
Since I know you'll never answer that question for reasons of your own which you will never care to share, I offer an alternative approach...
Step 1: Find a collaborator you trust who is currently a couple of thousand km or so away from you. You will need to know the actual distance - figure it out somehow. You both need an identical DSLR with an appropriate lens, let's say a fixed 135mm focal length. Find a time when you can both see the moon at the same time and when there is a reasonably bright star fairly close, so your pictures will contain both moon and star. Both of you take a photo at the same time.
That's step 1. OK with this?
-
I said I accept lots of things. Just accept that.
That's rich coming from you - the person who wants us to 'explain to this dummy' how anything you don't accept or believe in works from first principles. Simple observations which anyone can do. Yet anything you say we are just supposed to 'accept'.
So by the same token then I will say to you that everything I have said about astronomy is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. You will just have to accept that as well. It's easy to accept anything you believe in isn't it.
What I admire about you Scepti is that all you have come up with so far is someone elses fantasy diagram from 1893 and suddenly you think you know better than all of the great minds of science put together. That's just brilliant.
You can't explain why it supposedly happens, can you?
Absolutely I can. You just won't accept it.
-
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
As I'm sure you know (deep down somewhere) the Moon... ok my Moon has an elliptical orbit. The figures above relate to the points of perigee and apogee..yes? Nearest and furthest points in orbit. You might have heard the popular term 'super Moon' which is also known as a perigee full Moon.
As for your Moon... well that's anyones guess.
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well....like I said......it's the mainstream norm and many simply do follow it, usually to the letter.
So, briefly. Astronomers over centuries struggled to figure out planetary orbits. They came up with all sorts of complicated ideas. In the 17th century Tycho Brahe compiled the most accurate data of stars and planets ever achieved. Kepler analysed this data, tried many different ideas and eventually realised an ellipse fitted the orbit of mars perfectly. He speculated that all orbits were elliptical. It was a controversial and not uniformly accepted idea, however others then worked with that idea and it proved to be correct. At the time, nobody had the first clue why this should be so, but it clearly was.
Later on Isaac Newton developed a whole new branch of mathematics (calculus) and was able to prove that a force, whose magnitude was inversely proportional to distance squared, acting between two bodies - a massive one and a much smaller one - would produce an elliptical orbit.
So initially, it was guesswork, fitting different shaped orbits to the data to see what worked. Later on came a theory to explain why this would be, then came the mathematics to confirm the theory.
There were no discrepancies, there were just data and ideas to explain the data. One turned out to be correct. We "buy into it" because it works.
Correction: inversely proportional to distance squared, not distance.
-
I said I accept lots of things. Just accept that.
That's rich coming from you - the person who wants us to 'explain to this dummy' how anything you don't accept or believe in works from first principles. Simple observations which anyone can do.
So by the same token then I will say to you that everything I have said about astronomy is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. You will just have to accept that as well. It's easy to accept anything you believe in isn't it.
What I admire about you Scepti is that all you have come up with so far is someone elses fantasy diagram from 1893 and suddenly you think you know better than all of the great minds of science put together. That's just brilliant.
You can't explain why it supposedly happens, can you?
Absolutely I can. You just won't accept it.
Explain it then, instead of waffling on.
-
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
As I'm sure you know (deep down somewhere) the Moon... ok my Moon has an elliptical orbit. The figures above relate to the points of perigee and apogee..yes? Nearest and furthest points in orbit. You might have heard the popular term 'super Moon' which is also known as a perigee full Moon.
As for your Moon... well that's anyones guess.
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well....like I said......it's the mainstream norm and many simply do follow it, usually to the letter.
So, briefly. Astronomers over centuries struggled to figure out planetary orbits. They came up with all sorts of complicated ideas. In the 17th century Tycho Brahe compiled the most accurate data of stars and planets ever achieved. Kepler analysed this data, tried many different ideas and eventually realised an ellipse fitted the orbit of mars perfectly. He speculated that all orbits were elliptical. It was a controversial and not uniformly accepted idea, however others then worked with that idea and it proved to be correct. At the time, nobody had the first clue why this should be so, but it clearly was.
Later on Isaac Newton developed a whole new branch of mathematics (calculus) and was able to prove that a force, whose magnitude was inversely proportional to distance, acting between two bodies - a massive one and a much smaller one - would produce an elliptical orbit.
So initially, it was guesswork, fitting different shaped orbits to the data to see what worked. Later on came a theory to explain why this would be, then came the mathematics to confirm the theory.
There were no discrepancies, there were just data and ideas to explain the data. One turned out to be correct. We "buy into it" because it works.
Of course it works. It's been made to work.
Just like everything else.
Now then, you've explained the story, so tell me how it works.
The old historical scientists seemed to manage it, so I'm sure you could explain it to me and tell me how and why these so called planets do elliptical orbits.
-
Now then, you've explained the story, so tell me how it works.
First you explain how your diagram from 1893 works better than anything else explained to you so far.
-
356,500 km or 406,700 km?......
As I'm sure you know (deep down somewhere) the Moon... ok my Moon has an elliptical orbit. The figures above relate to the points of perigee and apogee..yes? Nearest and furthest points in orbit. You might have heard the popular term 'super Moon' which is also known as a perigee full Moon.
As for your Moon... well that's anyones guess.
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well....like I said......it's the mainstream norm and many simply do follow it, usually to the letter.
So, briefly. Astronomers over centuries struggled to figure out planetary orbits. They came up with all sorts of complicated ideas. In the 17th century Tycho Brahe compiled the most accurate data of stars and planets ever achieved. Kepler analysed this data, tried many different ideas and eventually realised an ellipse fitted the orbit of mars perfectly. He speculated that all orbits were elliptical. It was a controversial and not uniformly accepted idea, however others then worked with that idea and it proved to be correct. At the time, nobody had the first clue why this should be so, but it clearly was.
Later on Isaac Newton developed a whole new branch of mathematics (calculus) and was able to prove that a force, whose magnitude was inversely proportional to distance, acting between two bodies - a massive one and a much smaller one - would produce an elliptical orbit.
So initially, it was guesswork, fitting different shaped orbits to the data to see what worked. Later on came a theory to explain why this would be, then came the mathematics to confirm the theory.
There were no discrepancies, there were just data and ideas to explain the data. One turned out to be correct. We "buy into it" because it works.
Of course it works. It's been made to work.
Just like everything else.
Now then, you've explained the story, so tell me how it works.
The old historical scientists seemed to manage it, so I'm sure you could explain it to me and tell me how and why these so called planets do elliptical orbits.
I can't get you to agree to the simplest part of trigonometry using right angled triangles. Wouldn't know where to start with you with calculus, sorry. Do your own research on that topic.
Why don't we leave it at: we use ellipses because they happen to fit the data. The why is unimportant.
-
We have to simply 'accept' anything that Scepti tells us without any explanations from him. Mainly because he knows that everything he is claiming he can't explain. So I think its only fair that Scepti does the same for anything we tell him don't you. Problem is when we do explain things to him he won't accept it.
Whenever I point my telescope towards the pre-calculated positions of all the planets I find they match the actual positions of the planets on any given night. I see the planet in the sky (Mars at the moment), I punch in the coordinates given in my copy of the BAA Handbook, my telescope slews over to Mars and there it is in my eyepiece. There has to be a reason why all that works so well. Or should I just 'accept' it.
-
I don't see any evidence from any of you
Because you choose to ignore it.
The reason I see no point in gathering any evidence for you, with me gathering it personally is because you clearly reject any evidence obtained by others. Why would I be any different? From your point of view, any evidence I provide to you which I have obtained myself is no better than any evidence anyone else has obtained and provided to you.
If you truly think all that other evidence provided by countless people is fake, then YOU are the one that needs to get the evidence for yourself. Asking us for it is just more dishonesty.
You are still yet to deal with the evidence provided by me right at the start, with photos clearly showing the horizon to be below eye level, below the point of convergence.
You are still yet to deal with similar photos provided by others.
You are still yet to deal with the photo of the hill, clearly showing the equivalent of a horizon.
You are yet to honestly deal with anything that refutes your position.
Instead you just ignore it or dismiss it.
Once more:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Going to actually try to address these massive problems for you?
Or will you continue with the same childish tactics of ignoring it and pretending it isn't a problem.
Elliptical orbit was made up to cater for the discrepancies , just like everything else. You buy into it because...well
It makes sense, it is described by simple laws rather than aiming for perfection with everything, and it is supported by plenty of evidence, i.e. it actually allows us to make predictions and test them.
One simple observation which clearly shows elliptical orbits is measuring the angular size of the moon over a month, or many months, and seeing how it varies insignificantly over a day (so it clearly has nothing to do with the distance to it changing significantly as it flies over different parts of a fantasy flat Earth), but does vary significantly (but still not noticeably without a device to actually measure it) over a month.
This shows, beyond any sane doubt, that the Moon's orbit around Earth is elliptical.
Likewise, we can do something similar with the orbit of Mars. We can observe how it appears when it is at opposition and again measure the angular size of it and see how it varies over the course of many years.
This shows that either Mars' orbit is elliptical, Earth's orbit is elliptical, or both.
We can also look at the equation of time or analemma, with it matching quite well to Earth having an elliptical orbit and axial tilt.
So just like so much else, we accept it because it is what the evidence supports.
Meanwhile you reject it and dismiss it as nonsense simply because it doesn't match your fantasy. You are unable to show any problem with it (other than it being an approximation which is already well known), you have no rational reason at all to dismiss it.
There are many many instances where cell phones do not work in remote areas and also in certain built up areas. Why?
I know people who live only a few hundred feet elevation over 1 mile and their cell phone signals are abysmal.
Cell towers, not satellites.
And this just further shoots yourself in the foot.
It clearly shows that cell towers and phone reception works fundamentally different to GPS, likely because cell phones use towers (or other high locations) on Earth to provide coverage to a small area which can be significantly limited by terrain; while GPS is supplied by satellites covering the entire globe and is much less sensitive to terrain as a small hill can't block the signal to satellites far above.
That's just the entire point. Its the, how far your eyes can see which creates your horizon line.
No, its not.
It is the curvature of Earth that makes it (or mountains or the like).
We know it has nothing to do with how far we can see as we can see objects beyond the horizon, but not the bottom of them.
If it was an issue of how far we can see, we wouldn't have a horizon.
Instead we would see the ground, and then just darkness above.
If you want to claim that it is some magic that magically changes how far you can see so you can see the tops, you would still have a large region of darkness. It wouldn't magically converge.
And as plenty of images have already shown, IT IS NOT THE CONVERGENCE POINT!
The convergence point is infinitely far away, not the finite distance to the horizon.
Reference this so you stop repeating the same crap again and again.
You can't walk to your moon or your sun or your stars, so you're not walking to a mountain.
You gauge it from where you're stood, just like you would if you were to do it with your so called points of light.
No, we don't need to walk all the way to the mountain.
We need to walk to establish a baseline from which we can measure angles to determine the distance to the mountain.
You want us to just discard all the groundwork, start with absolutely nothing and then directly measure the distance to the moon. That simply isn't how it works.
You can't explain why it supposedly happens, can you?
It is trivial to explain, but how about you deal with all the issues already raised against your claims rather than trying to bury us with your BS?
Especially as you have asked for explanations plenty of time just to dismiss them without showing any problem with them, or just ignore them entirely and ask again.
If you genuinely want an explanation you can easily look it up yourself.
Now stop demanding we explain things and instead start explaining things yourself.
If you need something to start with, then go through the simple line of reasoning I provided before which clearly shows that a RE would have a horizon which is basically at eye level when you are standing on Earth, and explain just what step you think is wrong. If you can't, admit that it isn't wrong and that your claims about the horizon on a RE are wrong.
-
I'm going to leave all this to you guys now. Got too much else to do which is far more important than carrying on with this. Keep up the good work!
-
1. We place a mark on the measuring wheel and use the ruler to confirm the circumference is 5 feet.
2. We set the measuring wheel to zero.
3. You find the biggest stick around, and spend the next half an hour jamming it in the ground where we stand, while I watch you.
4. We decide where the closest point to us on the tall mountain is, and walk to it.
5. We stop at where we feel is the base of the mountain.
I'll stop you here.
You can't walk to your moon or your sun or your stars, so you're not walking to a mountain.
You gauge it from where you're stood, just like you would if you were to do it with your so called points of light.
Lol! You'll stop me there. That was kind of an important point to mention, don't you think? You could have stopped me earlier when you approved my tools of choice being a 5 foot circumference, measuring wheel, and my legs.
Ok, we are standing in your chosen spot, looking at your two mountains. You believing the earth is flat, and me, the earth is a globe. (You really know how to throw a party!)
Ok, perfect. I'll stand here watching the the horizon moving down, while you watch the sun moving up. I'll watch the western horizon moving up at sunset as you watch the sun moving down behind the western horizon.
Good times!
But night time is the big time. We can watch all the stars and moon in fixed positions with each other, moving across the night sky while new stars pop up on the eastern horizon as stars at the Western horizon move behind the western horizon. You will be bewildered by what you're seeing, unable to explain any of it.
So, you tell me. What tools am I allowed to use to measure the distances you want me to measure?
-
Don't waste your time guys. Scepti is not interested in anything we have to say. All he cares about is how his belief system makes him (in his opinion) smarter than anyone else. The more we push him the more convinced he will be that he is right. If that makes him happy then I'm pleased for him.
I'm sure he will have more carrots to dangle in front of us. But I'm not biting anymore.
-
Now then, you've explained the story, so tell me how it works.
First you explain how your diagram from 1893 works better than anything else explained to you so far.
My diagram isn't from 1893. I used that set up because it's close to my thoughts. I've explained it enough times but maybe you weren't around, then.
However, feel free to bring it up as much as you want.
You don't need to explain your elliptical orbit, unless you can do it from your own proof. If you can't then admit you can't and accept that your reliance on it is down to acceptance of being told what it does.
-
Why don't we leave it at: we use ellipses because they happen to fit the data. The why is unimportant.
They don't happen to just fit the data...they're made to fit.
And the why is vitally important if it speaks the truth.
Admit you have no clue and are reliant on being told and sold whatever it is on mainstream offer.
-
The reason I see no point in gathering any evidence for you, with me gathering it personally is because you clearly reject any evidence obtained by others.
Or you have none and can only offer what was handed to you on a plate.
Just be honest, it's nothing to be shamed of.
-
I'm going to leave all this to you guys now. Got too much else to do which is far more important than carrying on with this. Keep up the good work!
Make sure you stick to it this time.
-
1. We place a mark on the measuring wheel and use the ruler to confirm the circumference is 5 feet.
2. We set the measuring wheel to zero.
3. You find the biggest stick around, and spend the next half an hour jamming it in the ground where we stand, while I watch you.
4. We decide where the closest point to us on the tall mountain is, and walk to it.
5. We stop at where we feel is the base of the mountain.
I'll stop you here.
You can't walk to your moon or your sun or your stars, so you're not walking to a mountain.
You gauge it from where you're stood, just like you would if you were to do it with your so called points of light.
Lol! You'll stop me there. That was kind of an important point to mention, don't you think? You could have stopped me earlier when you approved my tools of choice being a 5 foot circumference, measuring wheel, and my legs.
Ok, we are standing in your chosen spot, looking at your two mountains. You believing the earth is flat, and me, the earth is a globe. (You really know how to throw a party!)
Ok, perfect. I'll stand here watching the the horizon moving down, while you watch the sun moving up. I'll watch the western horizon moving up at sunset as you watch the sun moving down behind the western horizon.
Good times!
But night time is the big time. We can watch all the stars and moon in fixed positions with each other, moving across the night sky while new stars pop up on the eastern horizon as stars at the Western horizon move behind the western horizon. You will be bewildered by what you're seeing, unable to explain any of it.
So, you tell me. What tools am I allowed to use to measure the distances you want me to measure?
Any tools that clearly shows size and distance from where you are stood.
-
Don't waste your time guys. Scepti is not interested in anything we have to say. All he cares about is how his belief system makes him (in his opinion) smarter than anyone else. The more we push him the more convinced he will be that he is right. If that makes him happy then I'm pleased for him.
I'm sure he will have more carrots to dangle in front of us. But I'm not biting anymore.
You just did. You're now trying to school everyone into not bothering.
If you can't handle it then just deck out and let other take it on.
If they want to deck out then allow them to deck out on their own.
This is what peer pressure is.
You can't provide real proof so you take a strop and turn it onto me not providing real proof, when I've told you time and time again that I don;t present my stuff as facts if I don't feel i have proof.
It's just that, some things I do believe I have proof and water level is a major one that cannot be denied with honesty but can and does get denied with magical mysteries and blatant nonsense.
-
Now then, you've explained the story, so tell me how it works.
First you explain how your diagram from 1893 works better than anything else explained to you so far.
My diagram isn't from 1893. I used that set up because it's close to my thoughts. I've explained it enough times but maybe you weren't around, then.
However, feel free to bring it up as much as you want.
You don't need to explain your elliptical orbit, unless you can do it from your own proof. If you can't then admit you can't and accept that your reliance on it is down to acceptance of being told what it does.
Nobody needs to prove why it should be an elliptical orbit. The point is Kepler tried various options and realised an elliptical orbit fits all the available data. It therefore works as a model for what we observe. There doesn't have to be an underlying explanation for why it works, it's a model. The only thing that matters is, does the model fit all the observations. If it does (and this one does), then it's a good model, we accept it's a good model and we all get on with our lives.
If someone later comes up with a better model and that fits the observations better than the previous model, then we accept the new model and move on from there. That's the scientific method in action and how we make progress.
Very often the new model is a lot more complicated and for most purposes the old model is still used because it's still good enough and it's a whole lot easier to work with.
For example Newton's model is still used for almost everything because it's accurate enough for almost everything and a whole lot easier to work with than Einstein's model.
In Kepler's time, we were happy to use the elliptical model because it fit the data. We didn't need a why and we didn't have one. Newton came along later and gave a why, a mathematical justification for Kepler's ideas, which simply strengthened the model.
-
Why don't we leave it at: we use ellipses because they happen to fit the data. The why is unimportant.
They don't happen to just fit the data...they're made to fit.
And the why is vitally important if it speaks the truth.
Admit you have no clue and are reliant on being told and sold whatever it is on mainstream offer.
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
-
You need to know what your measuring the distance to? Know it how, in the Biblical sense? What does that even mean?
Pay attention.
A ball of unknown size and distance, to you. Find the size and the distance.
Simple....isn't it?
Show me and explain exactly why you know the distance.
I'll help.
I know it to be a beach ball painted to look exactly like a tennis ball and it is 1 mile away in the calm salt flats.
Over to you.
We answered you a hundred times about the Moon. You just can't understand the concepts. If everything in the sky is just confusing points of light that you can't understand, that's your problem, not the entire rest of the world. ::)
No, you didn't. You mumbled your ways through it and didn't give full reasons for the measurement.....appealing to NASA magnificence of tools far greater than your tools, iirc.
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
-
If you can't handle it then just deck out and let other take it on.
If I choose to 'deck out' for a while it is not because I 'can't handle it' as you so eloquently put it. I can handle any of your nonsense and lots more besides. After all I do plenty of question and answer sessions on space with the under 10s. Even they seem to have a better handle on reality than you do. But I do put a few things slightly higher up the priority list of things to do. When it comes to reading your posts I include watching paint dry in that list. Otherwise I might decide it's worth me tapping in a few words. In this time of gloom across the world it's kind of fun and enlightening (a posh word for entertaining) for me reading whatever you might come up with next.
If you think you have got a much better explanation for how the Universe works than anyone else has come up with so far then please share it so we can all cast our critical eye over it. If you are right then you stand to earn a fortune from it but you will have to share it with a few people first because they will need to verify it first before anyone will pay out a cent/penny or whatever your currency is. Then there is the testing process which will take years before it is even considered as a possible replacement to our current science models. Many alternative theories to many different aspects of physics are proposed every year. The vast majority of them never make it past the doodle pad stage. You would have to fully document everything in your theory including all the independent references. Simply saying it is true because you believe it is simply won't cut it in the real world.
If you say that 1893 diagram is only 'close' to your idea then what is different about your version? I won't go through the full list or reasons why that particular diagram is a complete fantasy as it would take far too long.
Must go now as I am busy designing and building a particle accelerator in my garden shed so I can re-discover the higgs particle for you and explain how I did it. I doubt you would accept the officially published paper about it so I guess I will have to do it myself instead. Heaven knows where I will get the funding from to actually build the accelerator but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
All your 'explanations' are so vague.. take this one for example:
It's just that, some things I do believe I have proof and water level is a major one that cannot be denied
You 'believe' you have proof do you? OK then explain why you 'believe' you have proof. Proof of what exactly? As for water level... what does that prove? That the Earth is flat? I don't think so. Actually hang on a sec.. I have just floated a bubble level on a puddle about 6ft across and the bubble was dead level. Gosh you must be right after all!
-
1. We place a mark on the measuring wheel and use the ruler to confirm the circumference is 5 feet.
2. We set the measuring wheel to zero.
3. You find the biggest stick around, and spend the next half an hour jamming it in the ground where we stand, while I watch you.
4. We decide where the closest point to us on the tall mountain is, and walk to it.
5. We stop at where we feel is the base of the mountain.
I'll stop you here.
You can't walk to your moon or your sun or your stars, so you're not walking to a mountain.
You gauge it from where you're stood, just like you would if you were to do it with your so called points of light.
Lol! You'll stop me there. That was kind of an important point to mention, don't you think? You could have stopped me earlier when you approved my tools of choice being a 5 foot circumference, measuring wheel, and my legs.
Ok, we are standing in your chosen spot, looking at your two mountains. You believing the earth is flat, and me, the earth is a globe. (You really know how to throw a party!)
Ok, perfect. I'll stand here watching the the horizon moving down, while you watch the sun moving up. I'll watch the western horizon moving up at sunset as you watch the sun moving down behind the western horizon.
Good times!
But night time is the big time. We can watch all the stars and moon in fixed positions with each other, moving across the night sky while new stars pop up on the eastern horizon as stars at the Western horizon move behind the western horizon. You will be bewildered by what you're seeing, unable to explain any of it.
So, you tell me. What tools am I allowed to use to measure the distances you want me to measure?
Any tools that clearly shows size and distance from where you are stood.
So, you'll let me use my Police lidar and drone?
Lidar is no different to the laser they measure the distance of the moon from the earth. A drone is no different to the rocket ships that have been sent to the moon. I can do it all from standing still at your chosen spot.
Agreed?
-
Anyone care to explain why when I lose my cell phone signal in a steep and narrow valley on holiday my GPS app still works perfectly.
Anyone care to explain why my car satnav works all the time once it has locked onto a satellite signal yet I can see the cell phone signal comes and goes throughout my journey.
If Sceptis claims about GPS not coming fro satellites is right then if I don't have a cell phone signal then my GPS signal should be lost as well.
Sceptis claims about GPS signal not coming from satellites, is wrong.
GPS iuse satellites, while your cell phone use cell towers.
-
Sceptis claims about GPS signal not coming from satellites, is wrong.
Of course it is. Just like all his other claims are wrong as well.
-
The reason I see no point in gathering any evidence for you, with me gathering it personally is because you clearly reject any evidence obtained by others.
Or you have none and can only offer what was handed to you on a plate.
Just be honest, it's nothing to be shamed of.
Follow your own advice. I have been being honest this entire time.
I told you of the evidence I obtained myself, and you just dismiss it, saying it isn't a problem for your fantasy, but with no explanation of how these things work in your fantasy.
Just why should any of us waste our time going out specifically for you to obtain evidence for you, when you dismiss all the available evidence?
Be honest, admit you have no rational basis for any of the pure garbage you spout, you have no rational objections to any of the refutations of your nonsense.
Be honest, and actually deal with the evidence provided or admit you have no interest in any evidence obtained by anyone other than you.
Be honest and deal with the multitude of issues with your nonsense which you continually ignore.
Be honest and stop ignoring the vast majority of what I say so you can pretend there is nothing wrong with the garbage you spout.
Once more, care to deal with any of these issues:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
If not, why not be honest and admit you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting whatever you can to pretend your model works; or be honest and admit you have no concern for the truth.
They don't happen to just fit the data...they're made to fit.
Yes, unlike your nonsense were reality itself is manipulated to match your fantasy, science uses reality to determine what is true and has the model fit the data.
The planets were observed to be in particular locations which match elliptical orbits, so we accept that the planets are in elliptical orbits.
Do you dislike having models based upon evidence (i.e. reality)?
Admit you have no clue and are reliant on being told and sold whatever it is on mainstream offer.
Why would anyone admit to your insult and strawman?
Perhaps you should admit that? And as well as that admit your model is pure nonsense which explains nothing and that you have no rational, honest objection to mainstream science?
Just because you have no clue doesn't mean no one else does.
Any tools that clearly shows size and distance from where you are stood.
So does that mean we can use known distances between 2 locations, such as the known distance between 2 locations on the round Earth?
I've told you time and time again that I don;t present my stuff as facts
Yes, you have lied to us repeatedly, why repeatedly providing your baseless nonsense as facts.
For example, this post of yours here:
Here's something very simple. Very very simple.
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
The fact that you see an horizon should absolutely verify that, at the very least we do not live on top of a globe and especially one that's supposedly rotating.
There is nothing in that post which indicates this is just your wild speculation rather than something you think of as a fact.
You are presenting this outright lie that the RE wouldn't have a horizon as a fact.
Even after it has been refuted several times with you just ignoring that refutation, you continue to provide this same lie as a fact.
It's just that, some things I do believe I have proof and water level is a major one that cannot be denied with honesty but can and does get denied with magical mysteries and blatant nonsense.
Yes, you are a wonderful example of that, denying the reality of how level water works and appeal to nonsense and mysteries and deflection.
Simple observations of level water obstructing the view to an object which is above the water, by an observer that is above the water, shows that this level water is curved.
But rather than accept that, you just appeal to pure nonsense, or deflect and ignore.
Likewise level water clearly shows that at a high enough altitude, the horizon is below eye level, but again you ignore that.
Level water is a clear and simple proof that Earth is round, which cannot be denied with any honesty and rational thought.
But instead of accepting this clear proof as Earth being round, you treat it as if everyone should just blindly accept that level water is magically held flat rather than level, for no reason at all, and with absolutely no evidence to support your wild claim, and no rational refutation of the evidence refuting you.
You treat it as if something which disproves your wild claims instead magically proves them.
-
Sceptimatic has never lied. He's just answered questions the best he can from his flat earth mindset. He would be only too aware of the level of ignorance, denial, and uneducatedness required to truly maintain a flat earth belief. Let's leave our emotions at the door, keep it light, and have a bit of harmless fun with the ideas.
I'll play the game a little longer with him/her and see where it leads. Hopefully he hasn't tapped out.
-
Nobody needs to prove why it should be an elliptical orbit. The point is Kepler tried various options and realised an elliptical orbit fits all the available data.
It therefore works as a model for what we observe. There doesn't have to be an underlying explanation for why it works, it's a model.
The only thing that matters is, does the model fit all the observations. If it does (and this one does), then it's a good model, we accept it's a good model and we all get on with our lives.
If someone later comes up with a better model and that fits the observations better than the previous model, then we accept the new model and move on from there. That's the scientific method in action and how we make progress.
Very often the new model is a lot more complicated and for most purposes the old model is still used because it's still good enough and it's a whole lot easier to work with.
For example Newton's model is still used for almost everything because it's accurate enough for almost everything and a whole lot easier to work with than Einstein's model.
In Kepler's time, we were happy to use the elliptical model because it fit the data. We didn't need a why and we didn't have one. Newton came along later and gave a why, a mathematical justification for Kepler's ideas, which simply strengthened the model.
Yep, you're happy to use any model that appears to fit the mindset. In this case it fits a global mindset but there's no logical reason as to why it fits.
Your vacuum of space and what we are told about it, gives no realistic logic to these so called elliptical orbits but, because observations do not cater for a ball, all kinds of stuff has to be added in.
Elliptical orbits make no sense where a globe is concerned.
However, you're right about what you said at the start of your post.
Nobody needs to prove why. It's just the same as most of the stuff. Nobody needs to prove it...just accept it.
You and many many others do that and fair enough.
I absolutely do not and, until someone does provide absolute truth to it.
-
Why don't we leave it at: we use ellipses because they happen to fit the data. The why is unimportant.
They don't happen to just fit the data...they're made to fit.
And the why is vitally important if it speaks the truth.
Admit you have no clue and are reliant on being told and sold whatever it is on mainstream offer.
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
-
As for water level... what does that prove? That the Earth is flat? I don't think so. Actually hang on a sec.. I have just floated a bubble level on a puddle about 6ft across and the bubble was dead level. Gosh you must be right after all!
You've basically just answered the question yourself.
The problem you have is....it's just too easy and your so called science does not accept the ease for which this is...because, to accept it would destroy the global model that was schooled into us all, so make it up magical mysteries to cater for a globe, instead.
All you are doing is following a mass indoctrination that that tells you a line is really a hump. It's so nonsensical but that's the power of mass indoctrination.
-
So, you'll let me use my Police lidar and drone?
Lidar is no different to the laser they measure the distance of the moon from the earth. A drone is no different to the rocket ships that have been sent to the moon. I can do it all from standing still at your chosen spot.
Agreed?
And you say I'm difficult.
Let's make this easier.
You claim you can measure distances. You've harked back to the times of old where people have shown how apparently easy it is to gauge distances of points of light.
Naturally I would assume they didn't send drones to mountains or lasers to lights in the sky....etc....etc.
So here's the key.
Gather up whatever tools you need based on what those so scientists had at their disposal and from your stand point, tell me how you find the distances and size of the objects I mentioned.
If you want to argue for your drone and ladar, then explain that to me in terms of your standpoint and your moon size and distance, before moving on to your so called stars.
-
But instead of accepting this clear proof as Earth being round, you treat it as if everyone should just blindly accept that level water is magically held flat rather than level
Level/flat water is there for all to see, who can see and who are willing to see. It's not hid behind a cloak. It's not disguised behind equations. It's in your face and testable and repeatable and observable.
It's so simple. Maybe tool simple to grasp by those that adhere to a mass indoctrinated belief system that tells them a flat stick has a big hump on it, even if it cannot be observed.
-
Sceptimatic has never lied. He's just answered questions the best he can from his flat earth mindset. He would be only too aware of the level of ignorance, denial, and uneducatedness required to truly maintain a flat earth belief. Let's leave our emotions at the door, keep it light, and have a bit of harmless fun with the ideas.
I'll play the game a little longer with him/her and see where it leads. Hopefully he hasn't tapped out.
It's not a game to me but I can see why you people would think so because, at times, I feel like some of you lot are game playing.
But you are right, let's leave emotions at the door. It serves no purpose other than creating frustration for some.
-
You've basically just answered the question yourself.
The problem you have is....it's just too easy and your so called science does not accept the ease for which this is...because, to accept it would destroy the global model that was schooled into us all, so make it up magical mysteries to cater for a globe, instead.
All you are doing is following a mass indoctrination that that tells you a line is really a hump. It's so nonsensical but that's the power of mass indoctrination.
Just more of the same old waffle (as you would say) from you... and missing my point entirely. As someone on the 'other' FE site would say, if you have nothing new to offer (you keep repeating yourself) then don't bother posting.
-
So, you'll let me use my Police lidar and drone?
Lidar is no different to the laser they measure the distance of the moon from the earth. A drone is no different to the rocket ships that have been sent to the moon. I can do it all from standing still at your chosen spot.
Agreed?
And you say I'm difficult.
Let's make this easier.
You claim you can measure distances. You've harked back to the times of old where people have shown how apparently easy it is to gauge distances of points of light.
Naturally I would assume they didn't send drones to mountains or lasers to lights in the sky....etc....etc.
So here's the key.
Gather up whatever tools you need based on what those so scientists had at their disposal and from your stand point, tell me how you find the distances and size of the objects I mentioned.
If you want to argue for your drone and ladar, then explain that to me in terms of your standpoint and your moon size and distance, before moving on to your so called stars.
Difficult? Lol! How far back into human history do you expect me to travel? Can you at least pick a century and stick with it? Not even the Amish are this backwards!
I dont think your mountain analogy compared to the sun, moon and stars, is very effective. With mountains, whatever the century, people would have paced out the distances, or made accurate guestimations from the time it takes to ride their horses there, during daylight hours.
Even so, even our long distant neanderthal ancestors would have had keenness of sight to see, the further back you travel from any given mountain, the more it starts to disappear from the ground up. (Gee, sceptimatic, I wonder why that is? ::))
So, give me a century, sceptimatic...
-
But instead of accepting this clear proof as Earth being round, you treat it as if everyone should just blindly accept that level water is magically held flat rather than level
Level/flat water is there for all to see, who can see and who are willing to see. It's not hid behind a cloak. It's not disguised behind equations. It's in your face and testable and repeatable and observable.
It's so simple. Maybe tool simple to grasp by those that adhere to a mass indoctrinated belief system that tells them a flat stick has a big hump on it, even if it cannot be observed.
Didn't your parents ever let you play with a microscope when you were a kid? Place a drop of water of any size on a glass slide for your microscope, and you will see it is curved, spherical before it lands on the slide. No cloaks or daggers, sceptimatic, just plain old fashioned eyesight.
-
Sceptimatic has never lied.
This comes down to what you deem to be a lie.
As far as I am concerned, if you choose to ignore arguments presented against a false claim and continue to repeat that false claim, you are lying.
but there's no logical reason as to why it fits.
Except those that you choose to ignore or dismiss as illogical.
Guess what? You not liking it doesn't magically mean it isn't logical.
because observations do not cater for a ball
And again you repeat the same lie.
You are yet to provide a single example of an observation which doesn't fit the ball. Instead you just provided lies where you claim they don't fit because you completely lie about what you would expect for a ball.
Elliptical orbits make no sense where a globe is concerned.
And yet another baseless claim.
WHY?
What makes you say they make no sense?
Just because they are part of mainstream science and supported by mountains of evidence?
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
No, you can't. Like his example provided, there is no way to make a triangular orbit fit the observations.
Likewise, there is no way to make a circular orbit fit the observations.
To do so would mean that you can make a triangle an ellipse.
If you truly believe that nonsense, feel free to provide a triangle which is magically an ellipse.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product
Except those which you reject ....and that's the key.
You don't care about if it works or not, as you have no intention of ever accepting something that shows you are wrong.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain what is wrong with my simple line of reasoning which shows beyond any sane doubt that the RE would produce a horizon and many other issues you have chosen to ignore as you have no answer.
As for water level... what does that prove? That the Earth is flat? I don't think so. Actually hang on a sec.. I have just floated a bubble level on a puddle about 6ft across and the bubble was dead level. Gosh you must be right after all!
You've basically just answered the question yourself.
So the answer is that it in no way proves Earth is flat and instead it is a massive leap to claim it does?
If not, that hasn't answered the question.
Level water is not flat water.
Level/flat water is there for all to see
Level water surely is, where it clearly obstructs the view to objects above it, clearly showing it is curved.
Flat water can't be found anywhere.
It is so difficult to find you can't provide any evidence of its existence at all and instead just repeatedly assert that it exists.
Level water disproves the FE, as level water IS NOT FLAT!
Again:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
-
Why don't we leave it at: we use ellipses because they happen to fit the data. The why is unimportant.
They don't happen to just fit the data...they're made to fit.
And the why is vitally important if it speaks the truth.
Admit you have no clue and are reliant on being told and sold whatever it is on mainstream offer.
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
Oh really? Well let's see what you can do with this then.
Here's some data. A set of 9 locations, lat/long. Why don't you tell us how to fit these locations to a triangle. I mean you can make anything fit right?
(29.6171075,-98.10138231)
(29.02446902,-97.82744134)
(28.70913268,-97.13379844)
(28.81864784,-96.34501684)
(29.30177115,-95.83017622)
(29.93244385,-95.83017622)
(30.41556716,-96.34501684)
(30.52508232,-97.13379844)
(30.20974598,-97.82744134)
I mean, I plotted them and this is what it looks like to me...
(https://i.imgur.com/9p5OaPk.png)
An ellipse sure seems to fit rather well wouldn't you say. But you can make anything fit right, so just join all the points up with a triangle for us.
This is exactly what Kepler did. Analysed the data, gathered by Tycho Brahe. It fitted with an ellipse. But according to you that doesn't mean anything because you can just make anything fit right? Go ahead then, show us how.
If you are struggling, maybe start with a triangle from Sweet Home to Flatonia via Round Top :)
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
You have danced around and avoided this long enough. You keep claiming everyone is wrong, but how do YOU know?
How big is the Moon.
How far away is the Moon.
Explain how you know this. Describe how YOU measured it.
If you can't... well that is an answer too.
-
I’ve understood Sceptimatic got their information from their uncle.
Really??? You mean he just heard it from his uncle and believed it? Thats fairly disappointing, I thought he was at least making it up himself.
Is the whole thing, or just the magic crystal and us living in some sort of "cell" part?
-
I’ve understood Sceptimatic got their information from their uncle.
Really??? You mean he just heard it from his uncle and believed it? Thats fairly disappointing, I thought he was at least making it up himself.
Is the whole thing, or just the magic crystal and us living in some sort of "cell" part?
I have no further information. I saw that on another forum where sceptimatic was peddling their wares. Who made the uncle an authority sceptimatic believes I have no clue.
I would like to know more of the ice crystals in the dome, and the central light source, and how said uncle provided the evidence for those.
-
I’ve understood Sceptimatic got their information from their uncle.
Really??? You mean he just heard it from his uncle and believed it? Thats fairly disappointing, I thought he was at least making it up himself.
Is the whole thing, or just the magic crystal and us living in some sort of "cell" part?
I have no further information. I saw that on another forum where sceptimatic was peddling their wares. Who made the uncle an authority sceptimatic believes I have no clue.
I would like to know more of the ice crystals in the dome, and the central light source, and how said uncle provided the evidence for those.
Scepti and his uncle?
(https://i.imgur.com/LFGpUBL.png)
-
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
You should know... you are clearly an expert at that.
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle. Accepting what he's told. But then again if you are told what you want to hear then I guess that's different isn't it.
If someone told Scepti that the Earth really was flat then he would accept that without question. If someone else said no that is rubbish, the Earth is a globe then he would want it explained from first principles. Step by step so the dummy could understand.
-
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle.
Fun fact: scepti's uncle is a North Korean dissident. His family fled the regime and made their home in the UK.
I mean, it's the most believable thing he's said, so why not?
-
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
Your personal experiences make you an expert on this.
-
You've basically just answered the question yourself.
The problem you have is....it's just too easy and your so called science does not accept the ease for which this is...because, to accept it would destroy the global model that was schooled into us all, so make it up magical mysteries to cater for a globe, instead.
All you are doing is following a mass indoctrination that that tells you a line is really a hump. It's so nonsensical but that's the power of mass indoctrination.
Just more of the same old waffle (as you would say) from you... and missing my point entirely. As someone on the 'other' FE site would say, if you have nothing new to offer (you keep repeating yourself) then don't bother posting.
This seems to apply to you.
All you're doing is having digs and thinking they somehow, work.
-
So, you'll let me use my Police lidar and drone?
Lidar is no different to the laser they measure the distance of the moon from the earth. A drone is no different to the rocket ships that have been sent to the moon. I can do it all from standing still at your chosen spot.
Agreed?
And you say I'm difficult.
Let's make this easier.
You claim you can measure distances. You've harked back to the times of old where people have shown how apparently easy it is to gauge distances of points of light.
Naturally I would assume they didn't send drones to mountains or lasers to lights in the sky....etc....etc.
So here's the key.
Gather up whatever tools you need based on what those so scientists had at their disposal and from your stand point, tell me how you find the distances and size of the objects I mentioned.
If you want to argue for your drone and ladar, then explain that to me in terms of your standpoint and your moon size and distance, before moving on to your so called stars.
Difficult? Lol! How far back into human history do you expect me to travel? Can you at least pick a century and stick with it? Not even the Amish are this backwards!
I dont think your mountain analogy compared to the sun, moon and stars, is very effective. With mountains, whatever the century, people would have paced out the distances, or made accurate guestimations from the time it takes to ride their horses there, during daylight hours.
Even so, even our long distant neanderthal ancestors would have had keenness of sight to see, the further back you travel from any given mountain, the more it starts to disappear from the ground up. (Gee, sceptimatic, I wonder why that is? ::))
So, give me a century, sceptimatic...
It's not about giving you a century. It's about you showing me how you prove a distance and size from what I gave you.
You know the situation. You know it's from a standpoint and you know it was all supposedly done throughout history....so just show me how you manage it.
-
Didn't your parents ever let you play with a microscope when you were a kid? Place a drop of water of any size on a glass slide for your microscope, and you will see it is curved, spherical before it lands on the slide. No cloaks or daggers, sceptimatic, just plain old fashioned eyesight.
You can feel free to use this and any other pretence. You're not showing me anything for a globe. This is easily answered with denpressure.
The water droplet is simply displacing atmosphere but atmosphere is crushing it back by its own displacement of mass so it sits inside the stack. Very simple.
Now then...seeing as you've tried to use that, how about telling me all about a bath half full of water.
Flat?
Level?
Or would you like to make something up?
You're fooling yourself, not me.
-
When was the last time you actually showed us how anything you believe in is actually true? For the last few pages all you have done is demand we show you without actually getting anything back from you.
-
Level water disproves the FE, as level water IS NOT FLAT!
Maybe in your mainstream indoctrinated world it's not but any rational person would know that calm water is flat and level.
Unless you mean waterfalls or running rivers...in which case you would have a point. Do you mean waterfalls and running rivers not being level and flat?
-
Why don't we leave it at: we use ellipses because they happen to fit the data. The why is unimportant.
They don't happen to just fit the data...they're made to fit.
And the why is vitally important if it speaks the truth.
Admit you have no clue and are reliant on being told and sold whatever it is on mainstream offer.
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
Oh really? Well let's see what you can do with this then.
Here's some data. A set of 9 locations, lat/long. Why don't you tell us how to fit these locations to a triangle. I mean you can make anything fit right?
(29.6171075,-98.10138231)
(29.02446902,-97.82744134)
(28.70913268,-97.13379844)
(28.81864784,-96.34501684)
(29.30177115,-95.83017622)
(29.93244385,-95.83017622)
(30.41556716,-96.34501684)
(30.52508232,-97.13379844)
(30.20974598,-97.82744134)
I mean, I plotted them and this is what it looks like to me...
(https://i.imgur.com/9p5OaPk.png)
An ellipse sure seems to fit rather well wouldn't you say. But you can make anything fit right, so just join all the points up with a triangle for us.
This is exactly what Kepler did. Analysed the data, gathered by Tycho Brahe. It fitted with an ellipse. But according to you that doesn't mean anything because you can just make anything fit right? Go ahead then, show us how.
If you are struggling, maybe start with a triangle from Sweet Home to Flatonia via Round Top :)
Course I'm struggling. I'm struggling to understand why you show a map with a circle?.....ellipse?.......
Are you trying to make out this is proof of elliptical so called planet orbits?
Come on man, surely you're not that desperate.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
You have danced around and avoided this long enough. You keep claiming everyone is wrong, but how do YOU know?
How big is the Moon.
How far away is the Moon.
Explain how you know this. Describe how YOU measured it.
If you can't... well that is an answer too.
I don't know how big your moon is or how far away your moon is, so why are you pushing that back to me as if I'm avoiding it.
You people are the one's avoiding it but pretending you know by using stuff like " well just go to the blah blah observatory and see the laser bounce"....and so on and so on.
If it's so easy to do then show me from your own set up or admit you can't.
-
I’ve understood Sceptimatic got their information from their uncle.
Really??? You mean he just heard it from his uncle and believed it? Thats fairly disappointing, I thought he was at least making it up himself.
Is the whole thing, or just the magic crystal and us living in some sort of "cell" part?
I have no further information. I saw that on another forum where sceptimatic was peddling their wares. Who made the uncle an authority sceptimatic believes I have no clue.
I would like to know more of the ice crystals in the dome, and the central light source, and how said uncle provided the evidence for those.
Get your facts right before you harp on.
-
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
You should know... you are clearly an expert at that.
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle. Accepting what he's told. But then again if you are told what you want to hear then I guess that's different isn't it.
If someone told Scepti that the Earth really was flat then he would accept that without question. If someone else said no that is rubbish, the Earth is a globe then he would want it explained from first principles. Step by step so the dummy could understand.
You need to try a bit harder.
-
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle.
Fun fact: scepti's uncle is a North Korean dissident. His family fled the regime and made their home in the UK.
I mean, it's the most believable thing he's said, so why not?
I had hope for you, Jimmy.
-
When was the last time you actually showed us how anything you believe in is actually true? For the last few pages all you have done is demand we show you without actually getting anything back from you.
Aren't you the one's on a flat Earth forum peddling a global model and trying to ridicule alternate theories?
So let's see what you've got because all I see from you all is appeals to what you believe is, authority.
-
This is easily answered with denpressure.
Only if by "answered" you mean just dismissed as not a problem.
Nothing is explainable with denpressure, not even why things fall.
But like always, you are just ignoring the issue.
It is a clear example that water is not flat.
Just where can we find your magically flat water?
NO WHERE!
any rational person would know that calm water is flat and level.
No, that is what insane people think.
Rational people realise that water is pretty much never flat.
You have all sorts of disturbances like waves and flowing water and the like preventing it from being flat at the small scale, and at the large scale the wildly different gravitational potential energy due to the curvature of Earth makes it not flat, although most would simply put it down to the curvature of Earth rather than specifically invoking gravitational potential energy.
Again, there are photos (which have already been provided to you), which clearly shows that level water is curved.
You are yet to provide anything which indicates level water is magically held flat.
The closest you can get is a tiny situation where the curvature is negligible.
But you ignore that negligible curvature and instead pretend that that magically means water is flat and it will magically continue to be flat even over hundreds of km.
Can you prove that the water in a bathtub is actually flat and not following the curvature of Earth (and that is after taking care of the sides which typically curve upwards by a tiny amount at that scale)?
Note, this does not mean just baselessly asserting it is flat.
Instead it requires something you hate (as it repeatedly shows your claims to be garbage): MATH and UNCERTAINTY.
You need to do the math to show what curvature you would expect for a RE for this bathtub, and then you need to show that your experimental observations, including their uncertainty, rule out that curvature.
Course I'm struggling. I'm struggling to understand why you show a map with a circle?.....ellipse?.......
That was made quite clear, to show the pure insanity of your claim.
You claim you can make anything fit anything. So make those points fit a triangle.
If your claim is true, and you can make anything fit anything, then you should be able to make these points fit a triangle.
If you can't make these points fit on a triangle (as it is mathematically impossible to do so), then your statement is pure garbage.
So rather than deflect, do what was asked to defend your insane claim, or just admit your claim was false.
Or will you continue with the same old childish antics of deflecting away from anything that shows you are wrong?
And while you are at it, you can address the other issues you continue to avoid, including the very issue you have been avoiding right from the start:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Come on man, surely you're that desperate.
Aren't you the one's on a flat Earth forum peddling a global model and trying to ridicule alternate theories?
No, we are the ones on a flat Earth forum showing that your arguments against the RE and for a FE are pure garbage.
Surely as this is a FE forum you should be more focused on establishing that Earth is flat and finding out things for a FE model rather than repeatedly questioning how people using RE models determine the distance to the moon based upon that RE.
Surely asking questions about how REers determine the distance to the moon to develop models of the universe where Earth is round is more appropriate on a RE forum.
So how about you show us what you have got.
Why don't you show us a FE model that actually works to explain reality and address the multitude of issues raised?
Why don't you show us just what is wrong with the refutations of your false claims about the globe (like how all rational thought and evidence indicates that a RE should have a horizon that would be roughly at eye level when you stand on it, while you claim it shouldn't even have a horizon)?
-
Course I'm struggling. I'm struggling to understand why you show a map with a circle?.....ellipse?.......
That was made quite clear, to show the pure insanity of your claim.
You claim you can make anything fit anything. So make those points fit a triangle.
If your claim is true, and you can make anything fit anything, then you should be able to make these points fit a triangle.
If you can't make these points fit on a triangle (as it is mathematically impossible to do so), then your statement is pure garbage.
So rather than deflect, do what was asked to defend your insane claim, or just admit your claim was false.
Or will you continue with the same old childish antics of deflecting away from anything that shows you are wrong?
I was going to answer scepti directly, but I can't add anything useful to your answer, you've done the job for me perfectly.
Sometimes, even after all the nonsense and evasion, when scepti completely misses the point, I still end up questioning myself, wondering if perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. Nah, he's just playing games as usual.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
Apart from the complete worked example I gave you with step by step instructions, photos etc. where I calculated an approximate distance to the moon which came out within 15% of the real value. Oh boo, hoo, it's too complicated for you. Only you BTW, nobody else has said it's too complicated. What does that tell you?
I've even offered to walk you through it a step at a time. I spelt out the first step, how you and a friend take two pictures simultaneously with two identical cameras. Still waiting to hear if you managed to follow that step. Or is even that too complicated for you?
-
Aren't you the one's on a flat Earth forum peddling a global model and trying to ridicule alternate theories?
Absolutely. I joined a FE forum to learn more about what the alternative theories are. And if I think they are ridiculous then I will say so. Nothing wrong with that is there? I'm only expressing my opinion in the same way you are expressing yours.
I haven't seen a rule anywhere that says no RE believers may join the forum. If no RE believers were allowed to join there wouldn't be much of a debate would there. If you don't like and don't agree with what I have to say there is nothing compelling you to reply.
-
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle.
Fun fact: scepti's uncle is a North Korean dissident. His family fled the regime and made their home in the UK.
I mean, it's the most believable thing he's said, so why not?
I had hope for you, Jimmy.
You did? In what sense?
Do you now deny that you claimed your family were North Korean dissidents?
I was taken to England to live when I was 17. My mother is English, my Father was NK and a brilliant scientist in his field and also a exceptional inventor.
I was a rich family kid and learned a lot from my Father and grandfather and uncle, who is also here in England and who is also an exceptional scientist and inventor, which is how I set up my business, with his help.
I was what people would be called, fortunate as I have no money worries and have given a lot ot the needy, including a helicopter that I refused to fly in again after a mishap, of which I had repaired at my own expense before handing it over to a worthy cause, who auctioned it off for £10,000. Am I bragging? Yes, I suppose I am - but I don't mean to.
Ok, I'm bragging.
Does it make my life less stressful? No, because I'm always thinking and always overseeing matters, even though I'm physically less involved in the business.
If there's anything else you need to know, just ask. If you want to, you can spend your time trying to trip me up. I welcome it.
-
So, you'll let me use my Police lidar and drone?
Lidar is no different to the laser they measure the distance of the moon from the earth. A drone is no different to the rocket ships that have been sent to the moon. I can do it all from standing still at your chosen spot.
Agreed?
And you say I'm difficult.
Let's make this easier.
You claim you can measure distances. You've harked back to the times of old where people have shown how apparently easy it is to gauge distances of points of light.
Naturally I would assume they didn't send drones to mountains or lasers to lights in the sky....etc....etc.
So here's the key.
Gather up whatever tools you need based on what those so scientists had at their disposal and from your stand point, tell me how you find the distances and size of the objects I mentioned.
If you want to argue for your drone and ladar, then explain that to me in terms of your standpoint and your moon size and distance, before moving on to your so called stars.
Difficult? Lol! How far back into human history do you expect me to travel? Can you at least pick a century and stick with it? Not even the Amish are this backwards!
I dont think your mountain analogy compared to the sun, moon and stars, is very effective. With mountains, whatever the century, people would have paced out the distances, or made accurate guestimations from the time it takes to ride their horses there, during daylight hours.
Even so, even our long distant neanderthal ancestors would have had keenness of sight to see, the further back you travel from any given mountain, the more it starts to disappear from the ground up. (Gee, sceptimatic, I wonder why that is? ::))
So, give me a century, sceptimatic...
It's not about giving you a century. It's about you showing me how you prove a distance and size from what I gave you.
You know the situation. You know it's from a standpoint and you know it was all supposedly done throughout history....so just show me how you manage it.
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
So, I cant use a lidar, a drone, or google maps and google earth on my phone?
Ok, there are deers on your mountains, and trees. I know how big an adult deer is. I can use the size of a deer on the mountain to work out the size and height of each mountain. When the deer stands besude each light, I can work out the diameter of each. When one of those deer stands a known distance from me, with my outstretched hand, I can work out how many hands wide it is at that distance and how wide at each mountain. From that, I can work out the distances to each mountain.
-
Didn't your parents ever let you play with a microscope when you were a kid? Place a drop of water of any size on a glass slide for your microscope, and you will see it is curved, spherical before it lands on the slide. No cloaks or daggers, sceptimatic, just plain old fashioned eyesight.
You can feel free to use this and any other pretence. You're not showing me anything for a globe. This is easily answered with denpressure.
The water droplet is simply displacing atmosphere but atmosphere is crushing it back by its own displacement of mass so it sits inside the stack. Very simple.
Now then...seeing as you've tried to use that, how about telling me all about a bath half full of water.
Flat?
Level?
Or would you like to make something up?
You're fooling yourself, not me.
That's an unusually technical explanation for you. The important thing is you've admitted water in a droplet always finds its curvature. The other important thing is you've admitted the surface of water in a half filled bath is always level, but not necessarily flat. Good work.
-
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
It's not up to Scepti to dictate the rules about what tools you can or can't use. It's up to him to come out of the stone age and start living in the same world the rest of us do. I'm sure if stone age man could have used GPS receivers to navigate he would have had no hesitation in doing so and without questioning how they worked.
Imagine a carpenter being tasked with putting up a garden shed. There is a toolbox full of tools next to you but you can't use any of those. You must make your own tools instead!
-
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle.
Fun fact: scepti's uncle is a North Korean dissident. His family fled the regime and made their home in the UK.
I mean, it's the most believable thing he's said, so why not?
I had hope for you, Jimmy.
You did? In what sense?
Do you now deny that you claimed your family were North Korean dissidents?
I was taken to England to live when I was 17. My mother is English, my Father was NK and a brilliant scientist in his field and also a exceptional inventor.
I was a rich family kid and learned a lot from my Father and grandfather and uncle, who is also here in England and who is also an exceptional scientist and inventor, which is how I set up my business, with his help.
I was what people would be called, fortunate as I have no money worries and have given a lot ot the needy, including a helicopter that I refused to fly in again after a mishap, of which I had repaired at my own expense before handing it over to a worthy cause, who auctioned it off for £10,000. Am I bragging? Yes, I suppose I am - but I don't mean to.
Ok, I'm bragging.
Does it make my life less stressful? No, because I'm always thinking and always overseeing matters, even though I'm physically less involved in the business.
If there's anything else you need to know, just ask. If you want to, you can spend your time trying to trip me up. I welcome it.
That was quite the discussion back in 2014. Especially this:
Ok, list some of the inventions that you have made?
Specialist intruder alarm. An implement for deep sea divers. A rodent deterrent. A dual lock and tap in the event of lost keys. A pressure valve cellar drainage pump. A specialist car part, anti theft. A wallpapering device for easy papering. A bathroom water aid. And much much more. There's some real specialist stuff my Father invented as well as my uncle and myself. Lots of small simple gadgets as well.
You will be using some of the stuff in your home.
A pressure valve cellar drainage pump? I wonder if it was engineered around the principles of denpressure.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
You have danced around and avoided this long enough. You keep claiming everyone is wrong, but how do YOU know?
How big is the Moon.
How far away is the Moon.
Explain how you know this. Describe how YOU measured it.
If you can't... well that is an answer too.
I don't know how big your moon is or how far away your moon is, so why are you pushing that back to me as if I'm avoiding it.
You people are the one's avoiding it but pretending you know by using stuff like " well just go to the blah blah observatory and see the laser bounce"....and so on and so on.
If it's so easy to do then show me from your own set up or admit you can't.
So you have no idea how big the moon is or where it is... but are ranting about how we are wrong.
How do you know we are wrong if you have no idea where it is?
-
Yes, it is interesting. How the fuck can one claim something is wrong when they can’t provide anything better?
-
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
It's not up to Scepti to dictate the rules about what tools you can or can't use. It's up to him to come out of the stone age and start living in the same world the rest of us do. I'm sure if stone age man could have used GPS receivers to navigate he would have had no hesitation in doing so and without questioning how they worked.
Imagine a carpenter being tasked with putting up a garden shed. There is a toolbox full of tools next to you but you can't use any of those. You must make your own tools instead!
I already stated my basic tools being a measuring wheel and pen and paper. Too advanced for him, and our legs now dont work. This is flat earth tactics and rhetoric at it's best.
Sceptimatic wont even tell how he arrived at those correct distances and measurements himself, for his little thought experiment. He won't give me his preferred century of technological advancement either. (Which seems to be the stoneage) It's like he wants to live in a bubble, like the bubble boy.
In 2020, with my satellite mobile phone, relying on satellite images, topographic maps, Google earth, maps, or my lidar and drone, it would take me 20 minutes tops, almost anywhere on the planet. That is how I would solve his riddle.
If he wont agree on earth being a sphere, I cant use maths to work out the distance to moon or the moon's size, based on sceptimstic's unknown flat earth size and shape. He knows this and is just following the flat earth argument script.
-
Can you imagine a new born in todays world being deliberately shielded from all sources of learning by its parents so it is forced to figure everything out for itself. No books, no school, no internet. Just the eyes it was born with to learn about the world (and beyond) that exists around it. Children naturally ask questions, particularly to their parents out of natural curiosity. All it gets from its parents is 'go and work it out for yourself'
What sort of person do you think would such a new born develop into? Where I live that would be classified as serious child abuse. Yet I fear on some of the remote islands in the world where access to education is severely restricted there may well be native people who have been forced to do just that. Not out of deliberate shielding but simply through lack of access to any real forms of education.
Considering all that is happening in the world at the moment and all the questions we have about what the future holds, I can't help but think that arguing about what shape the world is seems to be a bit... well trivial. But then forums like this I suppose offer a little bit of welcome relief from having to worry about anything else.
-
Just where can we find your magically flat water?
NO WHERE!
If you want to deny reality then go ahead. I understand people like yourself go with anything that keeps a spinning globe alive so It doesn't shock me to see you type this.
-
Course I'm struggling. I'm struggling to understand why you show a map with a circle?.....ellipse?.......
That was made quite clear, to show the pure insanity of your claim.
You claim you can make anything fit anything. So make those points fit a triangle.
If your claim is true, and you can make anything fit anything, then you should be able to make these points fit a triangle.
If you can't make these points fit on a triangle (as it is mathematically impossible to do so), then your statement is pure garbage.
So rather than deflect, do what was asked to defend your insane claim, or just admit your claim was false.
Or will you continue with the same old childish antics of deflecting away from anything that shows you are wrong?
I was going to answer scepti directly, but I can't add anything useful to your answer, you've done the job for me perfectly.
Sometimes, even after all the nonsense and evasion, when scepti completely misses the point, I still end up questioning myself, wondering if perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. Nah, he's just playing games as usual.
I don't think it's me playing the games. I could say the same about you but I can't be bothered to get into tit for tat, yes you are, no I'm not, games.
You've never directly explained, you've always went around certain issues when I've asked you to show me.
I'm still waiting for the distance and size from your standpoint.
You keep asking me if you can use radar or walk to the object, or drive, or whatever.
You can't walk to your points of light so show me how you get the distances I mentioned.
If you can't do it and want to argue about playing games, then just put this to bed and admit you can't or deck out as if I am playing games and your mind will be at peace.
You have no need to hang off other people's internet coat tails, surely.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
Apart from the complete worked example I gave you with step by step instructions, photos etc. where I calculated an approximate distance to the moon which came out within 15% of the real value. Oh boo, hoo, it's too complicated for you. Only you BTW, nobody else has said it's too complicated. What does that tell you?
I've even offered to walk you through it a step at a time. I spelt out the first step, how you and a friend take two pictures simultaneously with two identical cameras. Still waiting to hear if you managed to follow that step. Or is even that too complicated for you?
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
In that simplicity I would expect you to tell me how and why you came to finding the size and distance of what I gave.
How much more simple can that be.
Let's do it one step at a time.
You start and I have to agree or at least question.
You can then explain that particular piece and we can move on.
Simple enough.
However, you are free to deck out at any time. It's entirely up to you.
-
Aren't you the one's on a flat Earth forum peddling a global model and trying to ridicule alternate theories?
Absolutely. I joined a FE forum to learn more about what the alternative theories are. And if I think they are ridiculous then I will say so. Nothing wrong with that is there? I'm only expressing my opinion in the same way you are expressing yours.
I haven't seen a rule anywhere that says no RE believers may join the forum. If no RE believers were allowed to join there wouldn't be much of a debate would there. If you don't like and don't agree with what I have to say there is nothing compelling you to reply.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as you know you're on a forum that does not cater for your global model, in terms of belief.
Many of you may believe it, on this forum....of course.......but.... you get the point.
-
Sounds to me this is a classic case of Scepti being 'indoctrinated' by his uncle.
Fun fact: scepti's uncle is a North Korean dissident. His family fled the regime and made their home in the UK.
I mean, it's the most believable thing he's said, so why not?
I had hope for you, Jimmy.
You did? In what sense?
Do you now deny that you claimed your family were North Korean dissidents?
I was taken to England to live when I was 17. My mother is English, my Father was NK and a brilliant scientist in his field and also a exceptional inventor.
I was a rich family kid and learned a lot from my Father and grandfather and uncle, who is also here in England and who is also an exceptional scientist and inventor, which is how I set up my business, with his help.
I was what people would be called, fortunate as I have no money worries and have given a lot ot the needy, including a helicopter that I refused to fly in again after a mishap, of which I had repaired at my own expense before handing it over to a worthy cause, who auctioned it off for £10,000. Am I bragging? Yes, I suppose I am - but I don't mean to.
Ok, I'm bragging.
Does it make my life less stressful? No, because I'm always thinking and always overseeing matters, even though I'm physically less involved in the business.
If there's anything else you need to know, just ask. If you want to, you can spend your time trying to trip me up. I welcome it.
My life is of no concern to you.
I've said what I've said and I have no need to confirm or deny anything about it.
Like I said, I had high hoped for you.
-
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
So, I cant use a lidar, a drone, or google maps and google earth on my phone?
Ok, there are deers on your mountains, and trees. I know how big an adult deer is. I can use the size of a deer on the mountain to work out the size and height of each mountain. When the deer stands besude each light, I can work out the diameter of each. When one of those deer stands a known distance from me, with my outstretched hand, I can work out how many hands wide it is at that distance and how wide at each mountain. From that, I can work out the distances to each mountain.
You can use what you use for your stars. Hows that.
Explain how you do it so that you can prove to me how accurate it all is and how and why it is so.
Can I make this any more clear for you?
-
Didn't your parents ever let you play with a microscope when you were a kid? Place a drop of water of any size on a glass slide for your microscope, and you will see it is curved, spherical before it lands on the slide. No cloaks or daggers, sceptimatic, just plain old fashioned eyesight.
You can feel free to use this and any other pretence. You're not showing me anything for a globe. This is easily answered with denpressure.
The water droplet is simply displacing atmosphere but atmosphere is crushing it back by its own displacement of mass so it sits inside the stack. Very simple.
Now then...seeing as you've tried to use that, how about telling me all about a bath half full of water.
Flat?
Level?
Or would you like to make something up?
You're fooling yourself, not me.
That's an unusually technical explanation for you. The important thing is you've admitted water in a droplet always finds its curvature. The other important thing is you've admitted the surface of water in a half filled bath is always level, but not necessarily flat. Good work.
Feel free to play on whatever you wish. Like I said, you're fooling yourself....not me.
-
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
It's not up to Scepti to dictate the rules about what tools you can or can't use. It's up to him to come out of the stone age and start living in the same world the rest of us do. I'm sure if stone age man could have used GPS receivers to navigate he would have had no hesitation in doing so and without questioning how they worked.
Imagine a carpenter being tasked with putting up a garden shed. There is a toolbox full of tools next to you but you can't use any of those. You must make your own tools instead!
No, not at all. Just use the tools but explain how the shed goes up so I'm in no confusion. Simple enough.
You people use historical figures that somehow showed so called planet/star sizes and distance, so you are free to borrow all of their tools.
Over to you.
-
A pressure valve cellar drainage pump? I wonder if it was engineered around the principles of denpressure.
Absolutely. In my opinion, of course.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
You have danced around and avoided this long enough. You keep claiming everyone is wrong, but how do YOU know?
How big is the Moon.
How far away is the Moon.
Explain how you know this. Describe how YOU measured it.
If you can't... well that is an answer too.
I don't know how big your moon is or how far away your moon is, so why are you pushing that back to me as if I'm avoiding it.
You people are the one's avoiding it but pretending you know by using stuff like " well just go to the blah blah observatory and see the laser bounce"....and so on and so on.
If it's so easy to do then show me from your own set up or admit you can't.
So you have no idea how big the moon is or where it is... but are ranting about how we are wrong.
How do you know we are wrong if you have no idea where it is?
I'm questioning it and believe what I believe, so naturally I'm going to think you people are wrong.
However....show me you're right, with real proof and if you can't then you can't really argue anything for facts, can you?
-
Yes, it is interesting. How the fuck can one claim something is wrong when they can’t provide anything better?
That all depends on what is classed as providing anything better.
Is one theory better than another?
Is one hypothesis better than another?
Is a musing better than another?
Is one book of fiction better than another?
Is one book of fact better than another.............................................and this is the key. You see....a fact is exactly that. Something observable, testable and repeatable.
Guess what?
None of your global stuff has anything of the sort.
Flat Earth has one major thing that can be proven under these conditions, of.......observable, testable and repeatable.
By all means argue it but you asked about providing something better.
There it is.....something better and real and not hidden/cloaked behind scientific mumbo jumbo.
It's easy to start with the simple stuff. The simple stuff is the foundation for the building blocks of understanding.
-
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
It's not up to Scepti to dictate the rules about what tools you can or can't use. It's up to him to come out of the stone age and start living in the same world the rest of us do. I'm sure if stone age man could have used GPS receivers to navigate he would have had no hesitation in doing so and without questioning how they worked.
Imagine a carpenter being tasked with putting up a garden shed. There is a toolbox full of tools next to you but you can't use any of those. You must make your own tools instead!
I already stated my basic tools being a measuring wheel and pen and paper. Too advanced for him, and our legs now dont work. This is flat earth tactics and rhetoric at it's best.
Sceptimatic wont even tell how he arrived at those correct distances and measurements himself, for his little thought experiment. He won't give me his preferred century of technological advancement either. (Which seems to be the stoneage) It's like he wants to live in a bubble, like the bubble boy.
In 2020, with my satellite mobile phone, relying on satellite images, topographic maps, Google earth, maps, or my lidar and drone, it would take me 20 minutes tops, almost anywhere on the planet. That is how I would solve his riddle.
If he wont agree on earth being a sphere, I cant use maths to work out the distance to moon or the moon's size, based on sceptimstic's unknown flat earth size and shape. He knows this and is just following the flat earth argument script.
And this is your crux. Earth has to be the sphere you were schooled into, with the numbers you were schooled into, to gauge so called stars and so called planets.
You must be at an age now where you can say " you know what, I'm going to prove to myself whether these distances are true."
So get on it.
-
Can you imagine a new born in todays world being deliberately shielded from all sources of learning by its parents so it is forced to figure everything out for itself. No books, no school, no internet. Just the eyes it was born with to learn about the world (and beyond) that exists around it. Children naturally ask questions, particularly to their parents out of natural curiosity. All it gets from its parents is 'go and work it out for yourself'
What sort of person do you think would such a new born develop into? Where I live that would be classified as serious child abuse. Yet I fear on some of the remote islands in the world where access to education is severely restricted there may well be native people who have been forced to do just that. Not out of deliberate shielding but simply through lack of access to any real forms of education.
Considering all that is happening in the world at the moment and all the questions we have about what the future holds, I can't help but think that arguing about what shape the world is seems to be a bit... well trivial. But then forums like this I suppose offer a little bit of welcome relief from having to worry about anything else.
Arguing about the shape of the world is far from trivial.
And also there's being educated and there's being indoctrinated.
You grew up believing in santa clause....right?
What about the tooth fairy?
Easter bunny?
How about god will strike you down if you do bad things?
The list goes on depending on where you come from.
Life is about sorting the wheat from the chaff or simply just going along with the mixture of it.
You choose to do the latter and I try to sort the wheat from the chaff.
It is almost a fruitless task in terms of changing anything. I know that.
However, as long as I can question...even if it's just for my own mindset....I will do.
I will believe anything if I can be shown it to be a truth.
If I'm told to believe something which is hidden behind a cloak or is played out with fictional characters portraying reality...I'm going to question it.
When I was a child I grew up with all the above stuff battered into my head. You could argue that it was to my benefit. Presents for christmas, all brought to me by a man in a red and white coat and hat with reindeers and flying sledge, with parents quite happily taking the back seat to allow this fictional character to take all the credit.
Imagine that.
Easter eggs. MMMMMMMMmmmmmm.
Tooth fairy.....yesssssssssssssss, money for my baby teeth put under the pillow by the tooth fairy. And once again the parents take a back seat while the fictional character takes all the credit.
And so on.
But.....but...... they're just made up things for kids...........right?
So let's get back to school and learn about other stuff we have to believe which we cannot ever prove to be a reality.
There's nothing wrong with learning, as long as the learning is based on reality, as told and proved as just that.
There's nothing wrong with reading fiction as long as it's clear as to what it is.
There's a lot of good in life. Stuff that helps us all get along.
There are some great inventors/scientists out there with our best interests at heart.
There's also so called scientific story tellers that cannot prove a thing of what they say but can create anything from nothing and use their own so called calculations to make it appear a reality.
So you decide what is what in your mind. I know what I've decided..... and that is....to always question what cannot be proved.....until it is proved.
-
You grew up believing in santa clause....right?
What about the tooth fairy?
Easter bunny?
How about god will strike you down if you do bad things?
No I can't say I did personally.
But looking back at these 32 odd pages I see one very distinct pattern. You have repeatedly asked us to show you/explain to you about this and that, mainly the size and distance of 'our' Moon which we have. Demonstrating a number of ways of doing it. Each time you have dismissed it for various reasons but mainly because you don't want to believe it.
I also notice another distinct pattern whereby you have been asked to show us/explain to us the reasoning behind why you think your 'model' is so much better than anyone elses. So far all you have come up with is someone elses fantasy diagram.
So until you can come up with something better than anyone else and explain exactly how it works, as far as I'm concerned this discussion has no where else to go. I get it that you don't like and don't want to believe anything that mainstream science has come up with up to now, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. It just means you don't like it.
To be accepted, alternative theories or alternative models need evidence. So far you have come up with nothing. Diddly squat. Nowt. Zero.
You talk about proof. Well you have come up with your own definition of what proof means. It means no one can prove anything to you anything is true or real other than what you believe.
-
You haven't given me anything to work with, except for my eyes and observation skills. I can't move, I'm frozen in the one spot, with zero equipment and you want me to tell you how far away the mountains are, their heights, and the sizes of the lights on top.....
It's not up to Scepti to dictate the rules about what tools you can or can't use. It's up to him to come out of the stone age and start living in the same world the rest of us do. I'm sure if stone age man could have used GPS receivers to navigate he would have had no hesitation in doing so and without questioning how they worked.
Imagine a carpenter being tasked with putting up a garden shed. There is a toolbox full of tools next to you but you can't use any of those. You must make your own tools instead!
I already stated my basic tools being a measuring wheel and pen and paper. Too advanced for him, and our legs now dont work. This is flat earth tactics and rhetoric at it's best.
Sceptimatic wont even tell how he arrived at those correct distances and measurements himself, for his little thought experiment. He won't give me his preferred century of technological advancement either. (Which seems to be the stoneage) It's like he wants to live in a bubble, like the bubble boy.
In 2020, with my satellite mobile phone, relying on satellite images, topographic maps, Google earth, maps, or my lidar and drone, it would take me 20 minutes tops, almost anywhere on the planet. That is how I would solve his riddle.
If he wont agree on earth being a sphere, I cant use maths to work out the distance to moon or the moon's size, based on sceptimstic's unknown flat earth size and shape. He knows this and is just following the flat earth argument script.
And this is your crux. Earth has to be the sphere you were schooled into, with the numbers you were schooled into, to gauge so called stars and so called planets.
You must be at an age now where you can say " you know what, I'm going to prove to myself whether these distances are true."
So get on it.
Well, sceptimatic, it occurs to me, through my travels, that distances on "the indoctrinated" maps of the world, are correct. The trip meter and odometer in my car certainly aren't in on the flat earth conspiracy.
This means the shapes of continents on "the indoctrinated" maps of the world are correct, and therefore the puzzle of the worlds land masses and water masses, coming together to form a globe, is also correct. No, sceptimatic, pilots do not have to fly in arcs to account for flat earth's circular shape to get from point a to point b.
So, unlike you, I then can measure and calculate the size of this globe. You boast you believe the earth is flat, yet what's the flat shape of the earth and the flat earth size? How thick is its crust?
You have nothing. You have paradolia every time you lift your eyes to the horizon and above, and are a victim of group think and tunnel vision, through radicalisation. You see only what you expect to see.
Earth doesn't have to be a sphere because a teacher said it was, it simply is a sphere because everything adds up to it being a sphere.
Once you know the shape and size of earth, then you can work out distances to the moon, its size, stars, etc. Which is what has happened.
Get back to us, sceptimatic when you can tell us all the shape and size of this flat planet. You must be at an age now, where you can say, "You know what, I'm going to prove to myself these indoctrinated distances are untrue." So, get on with it.
-
Course I'm struggling. I'm struggling to understand why you show a map with a circle?.....ellipse?.......
That was made quite clear, to show the pure insanity of your claim.
You claim you can make anything fit anything. So make those points fit a triangle.
If your claim is true, and you can make anything fit anything, then you should be able to make these points fit a triangle.
If you can't make these points fit on a triangle (as it is mathematically impossible to do so), then your statement is pure garbage.
So rather than deflect, do what was asked to defend your insane claim, or just admit your claim was false.
Or will you continue with the same old childish antics of deflecting away from anything that shows you are wrong?
I was going to answer scepti directly, but I can't add anything useful to your answer, you've done the job for me perfectly.
Sometimes, even after all the nonsense and evasion, when scepti completely misses the point, I still end up questioning myself, wondering if perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. Nah, he's just playing games as usual.
I don't think it's me playing the games.
Oh, so you are doing it unconsciously? You might want to see someone about that.
I could say the same about you but I can't be bothered to get into tit for tat, yes you are, no I'm not, games.
You've never directly explained, you've always went around certain issues when I've asked you to show me.
I'm still waiting for the distance and size from your standpoint.
You keep asking me if you can use radar or walk to the object, or drive, or whatever.
You can't walk to your points of light so show me how you get the distances I mentioned.
If you can't do it and want to argue about playing games, then just put this to bed and admit you can't or deck out as if I am playing games and your mind will be at peace.
You have no need to hang off other people's internet coat tails, surely.
I haven't mentioned radar once. I've not once suggested walking to any object. Do you even read the posts before you answer them?
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
-
We gave you multiple, detailed ways of measuring it.
It's your turn.
Exactly how far away and how big is the moon and how do you measure it. Explain.
Yes, you've given me all kinds of ways but none that show a real end product....and that's the key.
I'm still waiting for the reality of explanation.
Apart from the complete worked example I gave you with step by step instructions, photos etc. where I calculated an approximate distance to the moon which came out within 15% of the real value. Oh boo, hoo, it's too complicated for you. Only you BTW, nobody else has said it's too complicated. What does that tell you?
I've even offered to walk you through it a step at a time. I spelt out the first step, how you and a friend take two pictures simultaneously with two identical cameras. Still waiting to hear if you managed to follow that step. Or is even that too complicated for you?
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
In that simplicity I would expect you to tell me how and why you came to finding the size and distance of what I gave.
How much more simple can that be.
Let's do it one step at a time.
You start and I have to agree or at least question.
You can then explain that particular piece and we can move on.
Simple enough.
However, you are free to deck out at any time. It's entirely up to you.
Absolutely, game on. I'll simply paste in the first step from my earlier post, which you completely failed to engage with. This time, as you've made clear, you have to agree or at least question. Let's see how this goes...
Step 1: Find a collaborator you trust who is currently a couple of thousand km or so away from you. You will need to know the actual distance - figure it out somehow. You both need an identical DSLR with an appropriate lens, let's say a fixed 135mm focal length. Find a time when you can both see the moon at the same time and when there is a reasonably bright star fairly close, so your pictures will contain both moon and star. Both of you take a photo at the same time.
That's step 1. OK with this?
For some bizarre reason, you also want to know how and why for each part of this. Utterly irrelevant, but I'll indulge you for now:
Distances - well I remember getting interested in distances when I was about 7 because I walked to school every day and one day started counting steps, so the how is by counting steps. The why was down to boredom.
Cameras - I got my first proper camera when I was 19 or so. How - well I went into a shop and bought it. Why? Well I realised if I wanted to take better photo's, I needed a better camera.
Moon - I probably got interested in the moon the first time I saw it. No idea when that was. Why? Just natural curiosity.
-
Just where can we find your magically flat water?
NO WHERE!
If you want to deny reality then go ahead. I understand people like yourself go with anything that keeps a spinning globe alive so It doesn't shock me to see you type this.
I'm not the one denying reality here.
I'm the one who fully accepts the fact that level water is curved.
You are the one continually rejecting reality and claiming that water is magically flat, but you can't provide a single example of that, nor can you refute the clear observations which show level water is not flat.
And you reject reality with lots of other points, like claiming the RE wouldn't produce a horizon, when in reality round objects do produce "horizons" and there is no reason for Earth to be any different. A clear line of reasoning was provided as to why the RE produces a horizon and why it would be at approximately eye level when you are standing on Earth, and why it drops down as you get higher. You were also provided with evidence showing it below eye level.
But you reject all that reality and instead just pretend Earth is flat.
And there are plenty more examples.
I don't think it's me playing the games.
Then what are you doing?
You claimed that you could make anything fit.
Then to disprove that claim you were provided with a series of points and prove that you can make anything fit, by showing you can make a triangle fit.
Then you just deflect however you can.
If you weren't playing games and instead were being sincere you would either show that you can fit those 9 points onto a triangle, or you would admit you can't simply fit anything.
I'm still waiting for the distance and size from your standpoint.
[/qutoe]
And that is your problem, IT IS NEVER A STANDPOINT!
People move.
People moved over Earth to determine distance on Earth.
Then once those distances were determined, angles can then be used to determine other distances, such as the distance to the moon or sun to establish the radius of Earth's orbit, which can then be used to determine the distance to nearby stars.
This now means that you aren't asking us to determine the distance as we would on a RE.
Instead you are asking us for something completely different, something that no one claims can be done and which would amount to pure magic.
You see....a fact is exactly that. Something observable, testable and repeatable.
So that Earth is round?
Testable with plenty of tests which clearly show Earth is round, and even observable when high enough, with plenty of photos of the RE, clearly showing it is round.
These tests and observations are also quite repeatedly.
So the RE has all that.
Meanwhile, the FE does not.
All the tests either can't distinguish between round or flat, or show Earth isn't flat.
There is no observation which shows Earth is flat.
So that would mean Earth is round, not flat.
If you want to claim a FE is testable and observable, then why not do what was asked long ago and tell us what observations there are that show Earth is flat?
And I don't mean your false, repeatedly refuted claims about the horizon or magically flat water.
And this is your crux. Earth has to be the sphere you were schooled into, with the numbers you were schooled into, to gauge so called stars and so called planets.
You must be at an age now where you can say " you know what, I'm going to prove to myself whether these distances are true."
No, Earth has to be the sphere that all the available evidence indicates.
But you don't want to accept that. You don't want to accept the first steps required to determine the distance to celestial objects.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
So in other words you are admitting that you are not exactly the ideal person to be claiming that the whole of the scientific community both past and present have got it all wrong!
Admitting to your naivety like this is not going to help you when it comes to asking the whole of science to adopt your model over anything else they have come up with. They would expect you to have at least some idea of what you are proposing. And a heck of a lot of evidence to back up what you are claiming. They would expect you to be able to do what you are asking everyone else to do. Explain it all in very clear, simple terms from first principles. A skill you haven't so far exactly demonstrated a great deal of competence in.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
So in other words you are admitting that you are not exactly the ideal person to be claiming that the whole of the scientific community both past and present have got it all wrong!
Admitting to your naivety like this is not going to help you when it comes to asking the whole of science to adopt your model over anything else they have come up with. They would expect you to have at least some idea of what you are proposing. And a heck of a lot of evidence to back up what you are claiming. They would expect you to be able to do what you are asking everyone else to do. Explain it all in very clear, simple terms from first principles. A skill you haven't so far exactly demonstrated a great deal of competence in.
He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he really cares if anyone believes him or not. This seems like his personal explorations of reality, and while he likes to share his opinions on them he doesn't have any need to convince other people. We are all welcome to believe whatever we want.
Still, you bring up a good point here. Sceptimatic readily admits he needs things spoon fed, dumbed down to the most basic level, before he has even the slightest chance of understanding it.
And yet, if he thought about it, he must realize he is the smartest man who has ever lived. He has ~intuited~ the nature of our universe, from the macro to the micro, he has broken free of the indoctrination that enslaves everyone else and has comprehended the world around us in a way that no one ever has before. If he were correct in these perceptions, he would be a genius the likes of which the world has never seen.
How can someone believe that the they are smart enough to elucidate the fundamentals of the universe and yet know they are too dumb to understand a triangle?
-
A pressure valve cellar drainage pump? I wonder if it was engineered around the principles of denpressure.
Absolutely. In my opinion, of course.
And your opinion does not matter as it is based on nothing.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
So in other words you are admitting that you are not exactly the ideal person to be claiming that the whole of the scientific community both past and present have got it all wrong!
Admitting to your naivety like this is not going to help you when it comes to asking the whole of science to adopt your model over anything else they have come up with. They would expect you to have at least some idea of what you are proposing. And a heck of a lot of evidence to back up what you are claiming. They would expect you to be able to do what you are asking everyone else to do. Explain it all in very clear, simple terms from first principles. A skill you haven't so far exactly demonstrated a great deal of competence in.
He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he really cares if anyone believes him or not. This seems like his personal explorations of reality, and while he likes to share his opinions on them he doesn't have any need to convince other people. We are all welcome to believe whatever we want.
Still, you bring up a good point here. Sceptimatic readily admits he needs things spoon fed, dumbed down to the most basic level, before he has even the slightest chance of understanding it.
And yet, if he thought about it, he must realize he is the smartest man who has ever lived. He has ~intuited~ the nature of our universe, from the macro to the micro, he has broken free of the indoctrination that enslaves everyone else and has comprehended the world around us in a way that no one ever has before. If he were correct in these perceptions, he would be a genius the likes of which the world has never seen.
How can someone believe that the they are smart enough to elucidate the fundamentals of the universe and yet know they are too dumb to understand a triangle?
I think I can help you out in understanding how he views himself:
I learned all I needed from my Grandfather/Father and uncle, after my school years. I had no other training for my business, apart from having the ability to invent and be a part of a family of inventors.
I live off those inventions to this very day and I am a bit part of what goes on in the business today, semi retired so to speak. I'm basically a genius in my own way, just like others are in their own way.
So there you have it, a self-confessed genius who needs things dumbed down all the time.
-
A so-called opinion that is not thought out or has no concern for evidence is an assumption not an opinion.
Addressing the issue of saying "I'm entitled to my opinion" specifically as a way to avoid new information or having to support their claim in a disagreement. It's a bad practice, and I think it's good for people to look at the ways in which they avoid questioning themselves.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/sorry-you-entitled-your-opinion-bruce-d-
-
So there you have it, a self-confessed genius who needs things dumbed down all the time.
Yeah, but he got very rich after inventing a "diving implement". So there is that.
-
I hadn't realised we have an inventor on the board! Do tell, sceptimatic. What inventions are your claim to fame?
-
I'm questioning it and believe what I believe, so naturally I'm going to think you people are wrong.
However....show me you're right, with real proof and if you can't then you can't really argue anything for facts, can you?
You've been shown more than enough times using many methods.
You admit you have no idea how far or big it is, you just refuse to accept any answers.
All you can say is you "believe what I believe" and nothing will change your mind, so why are you even asking?
-
All you can say is you "believe what I believe" and nothing will change your mind, so why are you even asking?
Because he likes the dance.
-
So you decide what is what in your mind. I know what I've decided..... and that is....to always question what cannot be proved.....until it is proved.
OK then... prove to me that the Earth is flat. If you can prove it then I will believe it. I need a bit more than just 'it looks flat' or whatever. Proof means to be able to establish as fact regardless of opinions expressed.
What fascinates me is what makes us believe what we do and why we believe what we do. At what point can we move from 'I believe' to 'I know'? You can't say you know something is true just because you believe it is true. What influences that belief? We can choose to believe anything but we cannot make something true if it isn't. Some people believe that ghosts are real. To those people I would say OK what is a ghost? Others can say they believe in God. OK so what is God?
What is the difference between saying something is true to the best of our knowledge as opposed to I know that is true?
-
You grew up believing in santa clause....right?
What about the tooth fairy?
Easter bunny?
How about god will strike you down if you do bad things?
No I can't say I did personally.
Oh, ok, you must be from a country where none of that exists. We'll I'm sure you know the majority of the known world would have been brought up on stuff like that....or do you want to deny it?
But looking back at these 32 odd pages I see one very distinct pattern. You have repeatedly asked us to show you/explain to you about this and that, mainly the size and distance of 'our' Moon which we have. Demonstrating a number of ways of doing it. Each time you have dismissed it for various reasons but mainly because you don't want to believe it.
You've shown me nothing that shows a factual proof. You've shown me certain ways of how so called stars and so called planets move and then somehow gauged distances and sizes without actually showing me how it is done in reality.
I tried to make it simple with Earthly things and I get all kinds of swerves.
I also notice another distinct pattern whereby you have been asked to show us/explain to us the reasoning behind why you think your 'model' is so much better than anyone elses.
That's because I don't think it's so much better. It's my model and I think it suits where I'm consistently delving into from my very own tests and perspective. I don't ask anyone to believe what I say. People ask me about my model and I try to explain it, to be met with "you can't prove it."
I consistently say I can't prove it, other than the basic of flat Earth, which is water level.....
But don't get shocked about me proving my stuff when the stuff you adhere to is so nonsensical....but that's not entirely your fault. It's down to mainstream peer pressure through severe indoctrination and we're all under that spell. It's just about who can do a few sidesteps from it and think alternately.
I can and you can't.... or don't want to.
So far all you have come up with is someone elses fantasy diagram.
No. I used it to give an idea of what my hypothesis is. You've been told this but still use it as some kind of argument. Feel free to do so but reference this bit so I don;t have to keep telling you this.
So until you can come up with something better than anyone else and explain exactly how it works, as far as I'm concerned this discussion has no where else to go.
Then stay out of it.
Do not correspond with me and you have no need to discuss. Maybe spend your time telling others not to, like you've been doing when you've decked out for 5 minutes.
I get it that you don't like and don't want to believe anything that mainstream science has come up with up to now, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. It just means you don't like it.
It doesn't mean it's right, either. And this is why I'm questioning it.
You cannot prove anything you're arguing for, nor against, so you're in the same boat...although I'd argue strongly that the flat Earth is in a better built boat due to one major thing...and that is water level, just as a mainstay point.
To be accepted, alternative theories or alternative models need evidence. So far you have come up with nothing. Diddly squat. Nowt. Zero.
Evidence?
It depends on what you mean by, evidence.
You have none that I can see, so where does that leave you?
You talk about proof. Well you have come up with your own definition of what proof means. It means no one can prove anything to you anything is true or real other than what you believe.
Anyone can prove something is true to me, but they have to prove it is true not just say its true because of mass appeals to authority, without actually having that proof for themselves, aside from it.
Think on that one.
-
Well, sceptimatic, it occurs to me, through my travels, that distances on "the indoctrinated" maps of the world, are correct. The trip meter and odometer in my car certainly aren't in on the flat earth conspiracy.
This means the shapes of continents on "the indoctrinated" maps of the world are correct, and therefore the puzzle of the worlds land masses and water masses, coming together to form a globe, is also correct. No, sceptimatic, pilots do not have to fly in arcs to account for flat earth's circular shape to get from point a to point b.
I have no issues with maps.
I don't travel anywhere by using a globe model. If I use a map I use a flat map.
You can argue till you're blue in the face that it supposedly represents a globe but you have no clue if you're honest.
And I know pilots won't fly in arcs to get to destinations, unless they're tipping wings to turn, but certainly not tipping the nose to cater for a globe....so yes, you're correct....they don't.
If your Earth was a globe....they would need to....but.....well.
So, unlike you, I then can measure and calculate the size of this globe.
No you can't.
You can do it based on what you believe is the calculations from what you're told about what Earth is. This means nothing for facts.
You boast you believe the earth is flat, yet what's the flat shape of the earth and the flat earth size?
It's not about boasting, it's about finding a realistic potential to what Earth is, which is ongoing. There's no boasting involved.
How thick is its crust?
I have no clue whatsoever.
You have nothing. You have paradolia every time you lift your eyes to the horizon and above, and are a victim of group think and tunnel vision, through radicalisation. You see only what you expect to see.
It's not what I expect to see, it's what I do see, which is the distance my vision allows which means my eyes converge to a point or a line where sky meets water.
This cannot happen....100% cannot happen on a globe you believe you walk upon.
Earth doesn't have to be a sphere because a teacher said it was, it simply is a sphere because everything adds up to it being a sphere.
Your teacher is just a regurgitator and you follow that process by being the next absorber and regurgitator....and so on.
Mimicking whatever is placed on the agenda....nothing more and nothing less.
Once you know the shape and size of earth, then you can work out distances to the moon, its size, stars, etc. Which is what has happened.
So you mention but I've yet to see any honest way of doing any of it.
Get back to us, sceptimatic when you can tell us all the shape and size of this flat planet.
I have no clue of the exact size. I believe we potentially live inside a cell Earth. How big it is, I do not and likely will never know.
That's mne being honest.
You must be at an age now, where you can say, "You know what, I'm going to prove to myself these indoctrinated distances are untrue." So, get on with it.
I'd like to but I need somewhere to start....and there is nowhere to start.
All I can do is look for honestly from people like yourself in showing truth, not just blind acceptance based on figures that have no relevance to reality, other than fitting a storyline from which you were indoctrinated into.
Just be honest about it all.
-
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
Then prove it.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
In that simplicity I would expect you to tell me how and why you came to finding the size and distance of what I gave.
How much more simple can that be.
Let's do it one step at a time.
You start and I have to agree or at least question.
You can then explain that particular piece and we can move on.
Simple enough.
However, you are free to deck out at any time. It's entirely up to you.
Absolutely, game on. I'll simply paste in the first step from my earlier post, which you completely failed to engage with. This time, as you've made clear, you have to agree or at least question. Let's see how this goes...
ok.
Step 1: Find a collaborator you trust who is currently a couple of thousand km or so away from you. You will need to know the actual distance - figure it out somehow. You both need an identical DSLR with an appropriate lens, let's say a fixed 135mm focal length. Find a time when you can both see the moon at the same time and when there is a reasonably bright star fairly close, so your pictures will contain both moon and star. Both of you take a photo at the same time.
That's step 1. OK with this?
Carry on.
-
Earth has to be the sphere that all the available evidence indicates.
There is no evidence that it is a sphere. None at all other than CGI and stories of fiction. And that, to me, is only evidence of deception,
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
So in other words you are admitting that you are not exactly the ideal person to be claiming that the whole of the scientific community both past and present have got it all wrong!
I'm questioning a lot of the stuff and have my own hypotheses.
I can claim that I do not believe something until I can have proof of reality. I haven't had that with what I'm arguing.
So, as for me being an ideal person. It makes no odds. I'm my own ideal person with my own values and my own questions. Simple as that.
Admitting to your naivety like this is not going to help you when it comes to asking the whole of science to adopt your model over anything else they have come up with. They would expect you to have at least some idea of what you are proposing.
And a heck of a lot of evidence to back up what you are claiming. They would expect you to be able to do what you are asking everyone else to do. Explain it all in very clear, simple terms from first principles. A skill you haven't so far exactly demonstrated a great deal of competence in.
It depends who is really the naive one's.
-
He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he really cares if anyone believes him or not. This seems like his personal explorations of reality, and while he likes to share his opinions on them he doesn't have any need to convince other people. We are all welcome to believe whatever we want.
Absolutely.
Still, you bring up a good point here. Sceptimatic readily admits he needs things spoon fed, dumbed down to the most basic level, before he has even the slightest chance of understanding it.
The way I see things is, if you want to prove something to someone...find a way to make it look like a proof. A sense maker, if you like.
It may not be an exact proof but as long as it gives food for thought then it can become an accepted answer. This is what I ask for and to dumb it all down, or strip it to it's very core, should.....if done in an honest mindeds way, show something that can be deemed a potential reality rather than the muck we are dealt behind cloaking.
And yet, if he thought about it, he must realize he is the smartest man who has ever lived. He has ~intuited~ the nature of our universe, from the macro to the micro, he has broken free of the indoctrination that enslaves everyone else and has comprehended the world around us in a way that no one ever has before. If he were correct in these perceptions, he would be a genius the likes of which the world has never seen.
How can someone believe that the they are smart enough to elucidate the fundamentals of the universe and yet know they are too dumb to understand a triangle?
I understand a triangle but then again we are not dealing with a simple triangle where your moon and stars are concerned.
You forget you're on your globe.
-
A pressure valve cellar drainage pump? I wonder if it was engineered around the principles of denpressure.
Absolutely. In my opinion, of course.
And your opinion does not matter as it is based on nothing.
Then make sure it doesn't matter by not responding and looking like it matters.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
So in other words you are admitting that you are not exactly the ideal person to be claiming that the whole of the scientific community both past and present have got it all wrong!
Admitting to your naivety like this is not going to help you when it comes to asking the whole of science to adopt your model over anything else they have come up with. They would expect you to have at least some idea of what you are proposing. And a heck of a lot of evidence to back up what you are claiming. They would expect you to be able to do what you are asking everyone else to do. Explain it all in very clear, simple terms from first principles. A skill you haven't so far exactly demonstrated a great deal of competence in.
He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he really cares if anyone believes him or not. This seems like his personal explorations of reality, and while he likes to share his opinions on them he doesn't have any need to convince other people. We are all welcome to believe whatever we want.
Still, you bring up a good point here. Sceptimatic readily admits he needs things spoon fed, dumbed down to the most basic level, before he has even the slightest chance of understanding it.
And yet, if he thought about it, he must realize he is the smartest man who has ever lived. He has ~intuited~ the nature of our universe, from the macro to the micro, he has broken free of the indoctrination that enslaves everyone else and has comprehended the world around us in a way that no one ever has before. If he were correct in these perceptions, he would be a genius the likes of which the world has never seen.
How can someone believe that the they are smart enough to elucidate the fundamentals of the universe and yet know they are too dumb to understand a triangle?
I think I can help you out in understanding how he views himself:
I learned all I needed from my Grandfather/Father and uncle, after my school years. I had no other training for my business, apart from having the ability to invent and be a part of a family of inventors.
I live off those inventions to this very day and I am a bit part of what goes on in the business today, semi retired so to speak. I'm basically a genius in my own way, just like others are in their own way.
So there you have it, a self-confessed genius who needs things dumbed down all the time.
We're all genius in our own way. Don't put yourself down.
-
So, as for me being an ideal person. It makes no odds. I'm my own ideal person with my own values and my own questions. Simple as that.
So all this time this conversation has been a complete waste of time. You have your own views on the Earth and the Universe beyond (which of course you are quite entitled to) and you have no interest in trying to establish that onto any bigger stage other than your own.
Fair enough.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
In that simplicity I would expect you to tell me how and why you came to finding the size and distance of what I gave.
How much more simple can that be.
Let's do it one step at a time.
You start and I have to agree or at least question.
You can then explain that particular piece and we can move on.
Simple enough.
However, you are free to deck out at any time. It's entirely up to you.
Absolutely, game on. I'll simply paste in the first step from my earlier post, which you completely failed to engage with. This time, as you've made clear, you have to agree or at least question. Let's see how this goes...
ok.
Step 1: Find a collaborator you trust who is currently a couple of thousand km or so away from you. You will need to know the actual distance - figure it out somehow. You both need an identical DSLR with an appropriate lens, let's say a fixed 135mm focal length. Find a time when you can both see the moon at the same time and when there is a reasonably bright star fairly close, so your pictures will contain both moon and star. Both of you take a photo at the same time.
That's step 1. OK with this?
Carry on.
That doesn't sound like agreement, so it must be a question, since you promised to respond with one or the other.
Sorry, don't understand the question, can you rephrase it.
-
So you decide what is what in your mind. I know what I've decided..... and that is....to always question what cannot be proved.....until it is proved.
OK then... prove to me that the Earth is flat. If you can prove it then I will believe it. I need a bit more than just 'it looks flat' or whatever. Proof means to be able to establish as fact regardless of opinions expressed.
Water level is all that is required. It's observable, testable and repeatable to experiment with.
You can deny it if you want to and go with your globe. That's your choice but bending reality does not make that bending, a reality.
What fascinates me is what makes us believe what we do and why we believe what we do. At what point can we move from 'I believe' to 'I know'?
Sometimes we may never know the entire truth, depending on what we're dealing with.
Do we know the dna of a mite attached to a bed bug....or is there even a mite attached to a bed bug?
If there is....is there a mite attached to the mite which is attached to the bed bug?
It's like saying, how long is a piece of string.
However, there's a lot of stuff that is hidden behind security and, yeah, it can be argued that some of it has to be..........but, this is where we go into the realms of questioning................or I do.
You can't say you know something is true just because you believe it is true.
But you people seem to do a decent job of it, without real evidence, if you are willing to admit it.
What influences that belief?
Massive indoctrination from cradle to grave.
We can choose to believe anything but we cannot make something true if it isn't.
Some people can make something appear true if it isn't. And this is the issue we're having right now.
Some people believe that ghosts are real. To those people I would say OK what is a ghost? Others can say they believe in God. OK so what is God?
Exactly. It's about what a person chooses to accept or believe.
Many people were born into a god like mindset through mass indoctrination. Many people hear god stories and see churches and are canvassed at their own doors.
Many people are told ghost stories and some people hang onto a belief system of various entities.
If you stand in front of an audience of ghost/god believers and tell them they don;t know what it is they believe in, you would likely be beaten to death or beaten up, or heckled so badly that you have to make a hasty exit.
Does this mean they're right and you are merely wrong and troublesome?
No.......but to then................yes.
This is the global mentality, too.
What is the difference between saying something is true to the best of our knowledge as opposed to I know that is true?
Nothing. As long as someone says this is true to the best of my knowledge, then that person genuinely believes something to be a truth based on the tutoring they were given....or they physically tested something and it appeared to work as told.
-
So, as for me being an ideal person. It makes no odds. I'm my own ideal person with my own values and my own questions. Simple as that.
So all this time this conversation has been a complete waste of time. You have your own views on the Earth and the Universe beyond (which of course you are quite entitled to) and you have no interest in trying to establish that onto any bigger stage other than your own.
Fair enough.
Nope. I'm on a flat Earth forum answering questions as to my thoiughts and asking questions.
I also question the global mindset.
This is what forums are for.
Why in the hell would I want to go and stand up and say " ohhh I'm totally against the spinning globe and I have this reasoning."
I know exactly how that would go and have zero intention of doing anything other than satisfying my self by trying to find the truth of lies or the reality of potentially flawed theories....or at least verifying the potential truth of what we're told.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
In that simplicity I would expect you to tell me how and why you came to finding the size and distance of what I gave.
How much more simple can that be.
Let's do it one step at a time.
You start and I have to agree or at least question.
You can then explain that particular piece and we can move on.
Simple enough.
However, you are free to deck out at any time. It's entirely up to you.
Absolutely, game on. I'll simply paste in the first step from my earlier post, which you completely failed to engage with. This time, as you've made clear, you have to agree or at least question. Let's see how this goes...
ok.
Step 1: Find a collaborator you trust who is currently a couple of thousand km or so away from you. You will need to know the actual distance - figure it out somehow. You both need an identical DSLR with an appropriate lens, let's say a fixed 135mm focal length. Find a time when you can both see the moon at the same time and when there is a reasonably bright star fairly close, so your pictures will contain both moon and star. Both of you take a photo at the same time.
That's step 1. OK with this?
Carry on.
That doesn't sound like agreement, so it must be a question, since you promised to respond with one or the other.
Sorry, don't understand the question, can you rephrase it.
Yep, I can.
You carry on with your camera experiment if you want.....but, as an aside to that, I also want to you go side by side with a historical set up that did not involve any camera and just basic tools of the time.
I want to see how each marries up to what you say is your reality.
So basically you started off with the camera's. Ok, fine.
Now start off historically in that same vein and tag team it all the way to the end.
If you can't grasp this I'll make it easier if you feel the need.
-
Sometimes we may never know the entire truth, depending on what we're dealing with.
Do we know the dna of a mite attached to a bed bug....or is there even a mite attached to a bed bug?
If there is....is there a mite attached to the mite which is attached to the bed bug?
If we know the DNA of the mite, we know the DNA of the mite. I do not understand what the rest has to do with it. You seem of the opinion if we do not know absolutely everything about everything we know nothing. Which is pure idiocy.
-
Sceptimatic, start by checking the distances on any flat map with the same distance represented on Google Earth. Google earth does take earth curvature into consideration. You will find the distances on your flat maps and google earth, match. This means the distances on your flat maps also account for curvature.
Excuse the puns, but it appears you've been 'flat' wrong about your flat maps all this time, and you can't get 'around' this fact.
If earth were a flat disc, pilots would be taking the shortest routes to destinations directly over the north pole, which they don't do, because in reality on globe earth, they aren't the shortest routes. They would also most definitely be flying in arcs to avoid crashing into your dome.
Just like your Santa claus analogy, as you grow older you discover its fiction, just like the stories your uncle Arthur used to tell you as a child, of the earth being flat. Now that you're a big person, you can investigate.
You seem to believe Antarctica is a giant ice wall around a circular Earth. So, alternatively, you could start to find out for yourself, physically. When covid restrictions lift, travel to Sydney, Australia, go on a day flight right over the south pole from one side of Antarctica to the other. You ask how I know, and this is just another piece as to how I know. I was going to work in Antarctica, to take a break from my current job.
Just like you discovered long ago what gender you are, so too did humankind discover the shape of this world.
As for your eyes converging to a point where sky meets water, isn't the sky meeting the water at your feet when you stand in the sand on the shoreline of a beach? What about in the middle of a desert where the sky meets land? How does your eye rationale account for the fact you can see further, the higher your altitude? On that matter, how far do you believe you can see? If you can see the moon, and its craters, cant your eyes already see much farther than the horizon?
As for knowing distances can be read from using a laser in a lidar, I do this every working day. So, that's how I know the science behind calculating the distance to the moon from earth, using a laser, is sound, and the results highly accurate.
Thanks for the candid discussion. I've had a particularly shit week at work and this is semi therapeutic.
-
Instead of going around in circles, let's start from simple scratch. I'm a dummy remember so I need it explaining from the very start...sooo simple....to the very end.....so simple.
In that simplicity I would expect you to tell me how and why you came to finding the size and distance of what I gave.
How much more simple can that be.
Let's do it one step at a time.
You start and I have to agree or at least question.
You can then explain that particular piece and we can move on.
Simple enough.
However, you are free to deck out at any time. It's entirely up to you.
Absolutely, game on. I'll simply paste in the first step from my earlier post, which you completely failed to engage with. This time, as you've made clear, you have to agree or at least question. Let's see how this goes...
ok.
Step 1: Find a collaborator you trust who is currently a couple of thousand km or so away from you. You will need to know the actual distance - figure it out somehow. You both need an identical DSLR with an appropriate lens, let's say a fixed 135mm focal length. Find a time when you can both see the moon at the same time and when there is a reasonably bright star fairly close, so your pictures will contain both moon and star. Both of you take a photo at the same time.
That's step 1. OK with this?
Carry on.
That doesn't sound like agreement, so it must be a question, since you promised to respond with one or the other.
Sorry, don't understand the question, can you rephrase it.
Yep, I can.
You carry on with your camera experiment if you want.....but, as an aside to that, I also want to you go side by side with a historical set up that did not involve any camera and just basic tools of the time.
I want to see how each marries up to what you say is your reality.
So basically you started off with the camera's. Ok, fine.
Now start off historically in that same vein and tag team it all the way to the end.
If you can't grasp this I'll make it easier if you feel the need.
Oh I grasp this perfectly well. You asked for a method to find the distance to the moon. I'm offering to explain to you a method to find the distance to the moon. It's a method that is simple to understand, doesn't require radar or powerful lasers or anything like that, just a couple of people, a couple of cameras, some photo editing software and simple trigonometry. Anyone could do this, even you.
You said you want me to explain this method one step at a time. You've agreed to either agree each step or ask questions, nothing more.
I present you with step 1. Basically take a couple of photos.
You immediately slam the brakes on and attempt to change the rules. Now you want to take away the cameras and you want me to abandon this approach entirely and give you some so called historical approach where I can't use any modern tools at all. You don't specify how far you want me to go back, so if I say 1610 and I'll use telescopes, no doubt you'll object to that.
No, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. You asked for a method. I'm offering you a method. This method works, you can repeat it for yourself. It uses cameras. If you don't want to hear, fine, I'll stop right there, but don't ever complain that nobody's shown you how to do this, because I'll just keep reminding you that I offered and you walked away.
-
This is what forums are for.
My take on a forum is more like an online helpdesk. All the astronomy forums I am part of are a place where people can post descriptions of problems and get solutions. I don't see much point in joining a forum if all you are going to do is post a statement to the effect of 'this is what I believe and no one is going change my mind and I don't care what anyone else thinks.'.
What do you really want to achieve by being part of forum? The original question was 'What would change your mind?' In your case nothing because you have already made up your mind. If you are simply going to put your fingers in your ears and yell 'la la la la - I can't hear you!!' to everyone else that disagrees with you or answers your demands for explanations (which you never accept because they go against what you believe in) or tries to reason with you in any way , then what do you hope to or expect to achieve?
-
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
Then prove it.
It will be my absolute pleasure to do exactly that. Just to remind ourselves...
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
So you claim you can make anything fit the data I've given you. Anything at all, according to you.
Fine, let's try and make a straight line fit the data.
This is a reductio ad absurdum mathematic proof. Proof by contradiction. We start by assuming you are correct, we follow the logic of that and there cannot be any contradictions. If we discover a single contradiction then the initial assumption is proven incorrect. Therefore you are proven incorrect.
The equation of a line is given by y = ax + b where a is the gradient of the line.
Given any two points on that line, (x1, y1), (x2, y2), the gradient is simply difference in y divided by difference in x i.e.
a = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)
Once we know a, we can rearrange the original equation to find b ...
b = y - ax
That will give us the equation of our line. Now, for this line to fit the data, all points on the line must satisfy this equation. Any point which does not satisfy the equation is a contradiction and therefore proves there is no line which fits all the data points and therefore your claim that you can fit anything to the data is mathematically disproven.
Right, let's pick two points from the data, (29.6171075, -98.10138231) and (29.02446902, -97.82744134)
a = (-97.82744134 - (-98.10138231))/ (29.02446902 - 29.6171075) = -0.462239593
b = -98.10138231 - (-0.462239593 * 29.6171075) = -84.41118259
So now we have the equation for our line:
y = -0.462239593x - 84.41118259
So if you are correct, then all of the other data points on this line must fit this equation. Let's pick another point: (30.41556716, -96.34501684)
Plug x into our equation:
y = -0.462239593 x 30.41556716 - 84.41118259 = -98.47046197
-98.47046197 ≠ -96.34501684
So this point does not fit the line. This is our contradiction, proving that there is no line which fits all the data points. Proving that it is not possible to fit anything to the data. Proving you are 100% wrong. Mathematically proven wrong.
QED
-
So you decide what is what in your mind. I know what I've decided..... and that is....to always question what cannot be proved.....until it is proved.
What fascinates me is what makes us believe what we do and why we believe what we do. At what point can we move from 'I believe' to 'I know'? You can't say you know something is true just because you believe it is true. What influences that belief? We can choose to believe anything but we cannot make something true if it isn't. Some people believe that ghosts are real. To those people I would say OK what is a ghost? Others can say they believe in God. OK so what is God?
What is the difference between saying something is true to the best of our knowledge as opposed to I know that is true?
I also find this fascinating. This interplay between belief and knowledge. I think Sceptimatic has a point that any individual actually 'knows' very little, and 'believes' quite a bit. Some are these beliefs are completely mundane, while others can be amazingly fantastical (ahem, magic crystal tower at the north pole). And it is really interesting how people come to such a vast variety of beliefs that we see in the world, and how knowledge and authority are used to get there - especially now, as we sit immersed in an incredibly deep pool of instantly available collective knowledge.
-
I understand a triangle ...
No, you dont. Geometry in general is something you clearly, clearly struggle with. Tomorrow is another day though, so always a chance for you. Good luck.
-
You've shown me nothing that shows a factual proof.
In order for it to constitute a factual proof, you would need to accept the measurements. As you reject all evidence, that would be included unless you obtain it yourself.
Methods have been provided and you have failed to show any problem with it.
I tried to make it simple with Earthly things and I get all kinds of swerves.
You mean you try to make it "simple" by making it impossible by prohibiting any tools or motion.
That's because I don't think it's so much better.
Then why do you continually act like your model works perfectly and can explain everything and repeatedly dismiss the models of mainstream science as indoctrinated nonsense that is easily refuted (while not being able to show any problem with it)?
Or is this an admission that you know you are spouting garbage?
I consistently say I can't prove it, other than the basic of flat Earth, which is water level.....
You mean flat water, which you also can't prove, and which has been refuted.
Once more, the evidence indicates that level water is curved. It is only at small scales (but not tiny) where the curvature is insignificant and thus within uncertainty of flat.
But don't get shocked about me proving my stuff when the stuff you adhere to is so nonsensical
Do you think your stuff is nonsense?
If so, how isn't that indicating that you think your nonsense is so much better?
And if you are so sure that the stuff we adhere to is nonsense, why you are completely unable to show a single problem with it? Why are you only able to dismiss it as nonsense? Why are you unable to show it to be nonsense in any honest, rational way?
Why do you continually deflect from the refutation of your claims?
I'd argue strongly that the flat Earth is in a better built boat due to one major thing...and that is water level
You mean that level water that so easily refutes it and has done so time and time again?
That makes FE much worse off.
You have none that I can see, so where does that leave you?
You ignoring the evidence doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.
That leaves us with a model which matches reality and is backed up by mountains of evidence, and leaves you with a wilful rejection of reality.
I have no issues with maps.
So you accept the maps that show a RE?
You can argue till you're blue in the face that it supposedly represents a globe but you have no clue if you're honest.
No, just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean no one does.
People who actually understand maps and understand how the scale varies across the map and the distortions present in them know that it represents a RE.
And I know pilots won't fly in arcs to get to destinations, unless they're tipping wings to turn, but certainly not tipping the nose to cater for a globe
You mean you baselessly assert pure nonsense.
The change their attitude to control their altitude and speed.
This includes pointing down the imperceptible amount to follow a globe. But there is no requirement to do it specifically to follow a globe rather than just as part of the natural attitude adjustments when flying.
No you can't.
You can do it based on what you believe is the calculations from what you're told about what Earth is.
Once more, just because you are incapable doesn't mean no one is.
We can measure it ourselves, and it is made easier with the help of others.
The simplest way to do it yourself is to go to a tall mountain of a known height and measure the angle of dip to the horizon.
You can also measure the difference in angle to the sun over a known distance, along with the easily concludable fact that the sun is very far away, much further than the size of Earth.
You can dismiss it all you want but it wont change that fact.
It's not what I expect to see, it's what I do see, which is the distance my vision allows which means my eyes converge to a point or a line where sky meets water.
Again, that was shown to be pure nonsense.
The point of convergence is NOT the horizon.
This cannot happen....100% cannot happen on a globe you believe you walk upon.
Stop just repeating the same lie again and again.
It has been explained to you repeatedly how it works. It is just like any other ball.
You are yet to refute it at all. Instead you just continually repeat the same lie again and again.
All I can do is look for honestly from people like yourself
Then perhaps you should start doing so rather than just blindly dismissing everything that shows you are wrong?
-
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
Then prove it.
YOU were the one who claimed you can make anything fit. So YOU PROVE that you can.
Stop deflecting and fit the points to a triangle.
If you would like an example of how to do so, you can construct a straight line by joining 2 points (or 3 or more co-linear points).
To make a triangle you need 3 such lines, and these 3 lines need to connect.
This means you can fit any 6 arbitrary points onto a triangle, and can only fit more if some of the points are co-linear.
There is also at least one exception I can think of where those 6 points are composed of 2 subsets with each subset being 3 co-linear points.
For example, by selecting 6 of the 9 provided points you can make this triangle:
(https://i.imgur.com/cGYZW43.png)
Notice how the other points don't match at all?
Now how about you stop deflecting and fit those 9 points onto a triangle.
There is no evidence that it is a sphere. None at all other than CGI and stories of fiction. And that, to me, is only evidence of deception,
As repeatedly pointed out, you dismissing the evidence as fake or not evidence doesn't magically make it so.
Plenty of evidence has been provided to you.
It has been explained how you can obtain evidence yourself.
You rejecting all this evidence is just you rejecting reality.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not magically mean reality is wrong, or that there is no evidence for a RE.
Water level is all that is required. It's observable, testable and repeatable to experiment with.
And it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
Once more, you can be standing above water level.
You can then observe a distant object that is also above water level.
Yet the lower portion of the object is obscured by this level water.
This means the level water is obstructing your view to the distant object.
This means that the level water is curving (unless you want to invoke magic bendy light).
There is no other way to magically obscure the lower portion of the object in a way that makes it appear that water is obscuring it.
If it was just convergence, the bottom would still be there, not appear below.
If it was a magical limit to the distance you can see, then instead of water blocking the view, the bottom would just be absent with a region of darkness or a haze of the atmosphere in its place, like the darkness between stars at night, or like a dense fog/smoke preventing you from seeing a few m in front of you.
You can deny it if you want to and go with your flat fantasy, but it just means you are choosing to reject reality.
That's your choice but wilful rejection of reality and replacing it with a flat Earth fantasy does not make that flat Earth a reality.
I'm on a flat Earth forum answering questions
No you aren't.
You are avoiding questions anyway you can.
You have been repeatedly asked what magic you think happens as you go from looking down seeing just ground/sea to looking up and seeing sky and how you avoid getting a horizon from this.
You have been repeatedly asked what is wrong with the line of reasoning I provided showing clearly that a round Earth (like the one we live on) would produce a horizon.
You have been asked several times to fit the points to a triangle as you claim you can make it fit anything.
And they are just a few examples from this thread.
You actually answering questions is so incredibly rare it isn't funny. You typically either ignore them outright or just deflect in any way you can.
While I can't be certain, I think I have seen you actually answer 2 question in this thread, and those answer were shown to be based upon a strawman of the RE, with you refusing to defend your answers.
Why in the hell would I want to go and stand up and say " ohhh I'm totally against the spinning globe and I have this reasoning."
To show your position is justified?
To show that you aren't just rejecting reality?
The only reason to not do so is if you have no reason.
-
Sceptimatic, start by checking the distances on any flat map with the same distance represented on Google Earth. Google earth does take earth curvature into consideration. You will find the distances on your flat maps and google earth, match. This means the distances on your flat maps also account for curvature.
Excuse the puns, but it appears you've been 'flat' wrong about your flat maps all this time, and you can't get 'around' this fact.
If earth were a flat disc, pilots would be taking the shortest routes to destinations directly over the north pole, which they don't do, because in reality on globe earth, they aren't the shortest routes. They would also most definitely be flying in arcs to avoid crashing into your dome.
Just like your Santa claus analogy, as you grow older you discover its fiction, just like the stories your uncle Arthur used to tell you as a child, of the earth being flat. Now that you're a big person, you can investigate.
You seem to believe Antarctica is a giant ice wall around a circular Earth. So, alternatively, you could start to find out for yourself, physically. When covid restrictions lift, travel to Sydney, Australia, go on a day flight right over the south pole from one side of Antarctica to the other. You ask how I know, and this is just another piece as to how I know. I was going to work in Antarctica, to take a break from my current job.
Just like you discovered long ago what gender you are, so too did humankind discover the shape of this world.
As for your eyes converging to a point where sky meets water, isn't the sky meeting the water at your feet when you stand in the sand on the shoreline of a beach? What about in the middle of a desert where the sky meets land? How does your eye rationale account for the fact you can see further, the higher your altitude? On that matter, how far do you believe you can see? If you can see the moon, and its craters, cant your eyes already see much farther than the horizon?
As for knowing distances can be read from using a laser in a lidar, I do this every working day. So, that's how I know the science behind calculating the distance to the moon from earth, using a laser, is sound, and the results highly accurate.
Thanks for the candid discussion. I've had a particularly shit week at work and this is semi therapeutic.
Maybe take a bit more time understanding.
-
Oh I grasp this perfectly well. You asked for a method to find the distance to the moon. I'm offering to explain to you a method to find the distance to the moon. It's a method that is simple to understand, doesn't require radar or powerful lasers or anything like that, just a couple of people, a couple of cameras, some photo editing software and simple trigonometry. Anyone could do this, even you.
You said you want me to explain this method one step at a time. You've agreed to either agree each step or ask questions, nothing more.
I present you with step 1. Basically take a couple of photos.
You immediately slam the brakes on and attempt to change the rules. Now you want to take away the cameras and you want me to abandon this approach entirely and give you some so called historical approach where I can't use any modern tools at all. You don't specify how far you want me to go back, so if I say 1610 and I'll use telescopes, no doubt you'll object to that.
No, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. You asked for a method. I'm offering you a method. This method works, you can repeat it for yourself. It uses cameras. If you don't want to hear, fine, I'll stop right there, but don't ever complain that nobody's shown you how to do this, because I'll just keep reminding you that I offered and you walked away.
1610 it is then.
-
This is what forums are for.
My take on a forum is more like an online helpdesk. All the astronomy forums I am part of are a place where people can post descriptions of problems and get solutions. I don't see much point in joining a forum if all you are going to do is post a statement to the effect of 'this is what I believe and no one is going change my mind and I don't care what anyone else thinks.'.
What do you really want to achieve by being part of forum? The original question was 'What would change your mind?' In your case nothing because you have already made up your mind. If you are simply going to put your fingers in your ears and yell 'la la la la - I can't hear you!!' to everyone else that disagrees with you or answers your demands for explanations (which you never accept because they go against what you believe in) or tries to reason with you in any way , then what do you hope to or expect to achieve?
What are you doing here?
I'm here because I see various debates. I don't have to be involved in many.
I also put out my thoughts...not for people like you but for people who question the indoctrinated system.
You people jump in and then get all frustrated when I don't bow down or understand your version of copy/paste stuff that supposedly proves this a so called globe and what not and yet I've yet to see one of you actually put the effort in from your own point of view.
It's always appeals to authority.
So who's doing the la la la stuff?
-
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
Then prove it.
It will be my absolute pleasure to do exactly that. Just to remind ourselves...
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
So you claim you can make anything fit the data I've given you. Anything at all, according to you.
Fine, let's try and make a straight line fit the data.
This is a reductio ad absurdum mathematic proof. Proof by contradiction. We start by assuming you are correct, we follow the logic of that and there cannot be any contradictions. If we discover a single contradiction then the initial assumption is proven incorrect. Therefore you are proven incorrect.
The equation of a line is given by y = ax + b where a is the gradient of the line.
Given any two points on that line, (x1, y1), (x2, y2), the gradient is simply difference in y divided by difference in x i.e.
a = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)
Once we know a, we can rearrange the original equation to find b ...
b = y - ax
That will give us the equation of our line. Now, for this line to fit the data, all points on the line must satisfy this equation. Any point which does not satisfy the equation is a contradiction and therefore proves there is no line which fits all the data points and therefore your claim that you can fit anything to the data is mathematically disproven.
Right, let's pick two points from the data, (29.6171075, -98.10138231) and (29.02446902, -97.82744134)
a = (-97.82744134 - (-98.10138231))/ (29.02446902 - 29.6171075) = -0.462239593
b = -98.10138231 - (-0.462239593 * 29.6171075) = -84.41118259
So now we have the equation for our line:
y = -0.462239593x - 84.41118259
So if you are correct, then all of the other data points on this line must fit this equation. Let's pick another point: (30.41556716, -96.34501684)
Plug x into our equation:
y = -0.462239593 x 30.41556716 - 84.41118259 = -98.47046197
-98.47046197 ≠ -96.34501684
So this point does not fit the line. This is our contradiction, proving that there is no line which fits all the data points. Proving that it is not possible to fit anything to the data. Proving you are 100% wrong. Mathematically proven wrong.
QED
Cut out the bumph and just get on with playing the simple game.
Leave all that garbage for your own mind.
You daren't play it simple because simplicity kills off what you are willing to believe.
-
You've shown me nothing that shows a factual proof.
In order for it to constitute a factual proof, you would need to accept the measurements. As you reject all evidence, that would be included unless you obtain it yourself.
Methods have been provided and you have failed to show any problem with it.
I'll accept measurements when you people can actually prove to yourselves that they work, then transfer that proof in simple form, back to me so I'm in no position to argue them.
That's it.
I don't want to see " oh but the figures aren't just easy and can be put simply" or " we know they're right because the transit of venus shows the angles to fit." Or something like that.
Show me some proof. Show me a workable reality.
If you can't and it's all based on acceptance without real evidence, then just admit to that.
-
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
Then prove it.
YOU were the one who claimed you can make anything fit. So YOU PROVE that you can.
Stop deflecting and fit the points to a triangle.
If you would like an example of how to do so, you can construct a straight line by joining 2 points (or 3 or more co-linear points).
To make a triangle you need 3 such lines, and these 3 lines need to connect.
This means you can fit any 6 arbitrary points onto a triangle, and can only fit more if some of the points are co-linear.
There is also at least one exception I can think of where those 6 points are composed of 2 subsets with each subset being 3 co-linear points.
For example, by selecting 6 of the 9 provided points you can make this triangle:
(https://i.imgur.com/cGYZW43.png)
Notice how the other points don't match at all?
Now how about you stop deflecting and fit those 9 points onto a triangle.
There is no evidence that it is a sphere. None at all other than CGI and stories of fiction. And that, to me, is only evidence of deception,
As repeatedly pointed out, you dismissing the evidence as fake or not evidence doesn't magically make it so.
Plenty of evidence has been provided to you.
It has been explained how you can obtain evidence yourself.
You rejecting all this evidence is just you rejecting reality.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not magically mean reality is wrong, or that there is no evidence for a RE.
Water level is all that is required. It's observable, testable and repeatable to experiment with.
And it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
Once more, you can be standing above water level.
You can then observe a distant object that is also above water level.
Yet the lower portion of the object is obscured by this level water.
This means the level water is obstructing your view to the distant object.
This means that the level water is curving (unless you want to invoke magic bendy light).
There is no other way to magically obscure the lower portion of the object in a way that makes it appear that water is obscuring it.
If it was just convergence, the bottom would still be there, not appear below.
If it was a magical limit to the distance you can see, then instead of water blocking the view, the bottom would just be absent with a region of darkness or a haze of the atmosphere in its place, like the darkness between stars at night, or like a dense fog/smoke preventing you from seeing a few m in front of you.
You can deny it if you want to and go with your flat fantasy, but it just means you are choosing to reject reality.
That's your choice but wilful rejection of reality and replacing it with a flat Earth fantasy does not make that flat Earth a reality.
I'm on a flat Earth forum answering questions
No you aren't.
You are avoiding questions anyway you can.
You have been repeatedly asked what magic you think happens as you go from looking down seeing just ground/sea to looking up and seeing sky and how you avoid getting a horizon from this.
You have been repeatedly asked what is wrong with the line of reasoning I provided showing clearly that a round Earth (like the one we live on) would produce a horizon.
You have been asked several times to fit the points to a triangle as you claim you can make it fit anything.
And they are just a few examples from this thread.
You actually answering questions is so incredibly rare it isn't funny. You typically either ignore them outright or just deflect in any way you can.
While I can't be certain, I think I have seen you actually answer 2 question in this thread, and those answer were shown to be based upon a strawman of the RE, with you refusing to defend your answers.
Why in the hell would I want to go and stand up and say " ohhh I'm totally against the spinning globe and I have this reasoning."
To show your position is justified?
To show that you aren't just rejecting reality?
The only reason to not do so is if you have no reason.
You've made a triangle on a circle. What's your point?
-
Oh I grasp this perfectly well. You asked for a method to find the distance to the moon. I'm offering to explain to you a method to find the distance to the moon. It's a method that is simple to understand, doesn't require radar or powerful lasers or anything like that, just a couple of people, a couple of cameras, some photo editing software and simple trigonometry. Anyone could do this, even you.
You said you want me to explain this method one step at a time. You've agreed to either agree each step or ask questions, nothing more.
I present you with step 1. Basically take a couple of photos.
You immediately slam the brakes on and attempt to change the rules. Now you want to take away the cameras and you want me to abandon this approach entirely and give you some so called historical approach where I can't use any modern tools at all. You don't specify how far you want me to go back, so if I say 1610 and I'll use telescopes, no doubt you'll object to that.
No, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. You asked for a method. I'm offering you a method. This method works, you can repeat it for yourself. It uses cameras. If you don't want to hear, fine, I'll stop right there, but don't ever complain that nobody's shown you how to do this, because I'll just keep reminding you that I offered and you walked away.
1610 it is then.
No, I've already said I'm not going down that rabbit hole. I have one method I'm willing to show you. It uses cameras, interested or not?
-
Meanwhile, you've made the utterly absurd claim that you can fit anything to any data. This claim is obviously complete nonsense and you've been pulled up on it and asked to demonstrate your utterly wrong claim by fitting a triangle to a set of data points. You can't because what you've claimed is self evidently stupid. Furthermore, you know you can't, so you attempt to divert the conversation away via some other tangent, in the forlorn hope that we'll all forget that yet again you've made a claim you cannot hope to substantiate, which has simply made you look silly. Again.
Then prove it.
It will be my absolute pleasure to do exactly that. Just to remind ourselves...
You can't make an ellipse fit the data. It either does or it doesn't. You can't just decide orbits are triangular and make a triangle fit the data. It won't.
You can make anything fit if you make it up as you go along.
So you claim you can make anything fit the data I've given you. Anything at all, according to you.
Fine, let's try and make a straight line fit the data.
This is a reductio ad absurdum mathematic proof. Proof by contradiction. We start by assuming you are correct, we follow the logic of that and there cannot be any contradictions. If we discover a single contradiction then the initial assumption is proven incorrect. Therefore you are proven incorrect.
The equation of a line is given by y = ax + b where a is the gradient of the line.
Given any two points on that line, (x1, y1), (x2, y2), the gradient is simply difference in y divided by difference in x i.e.
a = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)
Once we know a, we can rearrange the original equation to find b ...
b = y - ax
That will give us the equation of our line. Now, for this line to fit the data, all points on the line must satisfy this equation. Any point which does not satisfy the equation is a contradiction and therefore proves there is no line which fits all the data points and therefore your claim that you can fit anything to the data is mathematically disproven.
Right, let's pick two points from the data, (29.6171075, -98.10138231) and (29.02446902, -97.82744134)
a = (-97.82744134 - (-98.10138231))/ (29.02446902 - 29.6171075) = -0.462239593
b = -98.10138231 - (-0.462239593 * 29.6171075) = -84.41118259
So now we have the equation for our line:
y = -0.462239593x - 84.41118259
So if you are correct, then all of the other data points on this line must fit this equation. Let's pick another point: (30.41556716, -96.34501684)
Plug x into our equation:
y = -0.462239593 x 30.41556716 - 84.41118259 = -98.47046197
-98.47046197 ≠ -96.34501684
So this point does not fit the line. This is our contradiction, proving that there is no line which fits all the data points. Proving that it is not possible to fit anything to the data. Proving you are 100% wrong. Mathematically proven wrong.
QED
Cut out the bumph and just get on with playing the simple game.
Leave all that garbage for your own mind.
You daren't play it simple because simplicity kills off what you are willing to believe.
I've just proved you are 100% wrong. This is no longer an opinion, it's a mathematical proof. Is this the best rebuttal you can come up with? Oh dear, oh dear.
-
Sceptimatic, I understand you think you can't see further than the horizon, but then you agree you can see as far as the moon. That in itself speaks volumes about your beliefs being far removed from everyday reality.
I've already given you irrefutable proof you can test at your own leisure. Make google earth and your flat maps friends, and see if they are a perfect match when it comes to distances and measurements. Then, at the earliest opportunity, jump on a flight over the south pole.
Hell, I'll pitch in some money for the ticket.
Would be more comfortable in the believers only section of the forum? Otherwise, I can explain to you how a lidar that measures distances works? This will help you understand how laser measurements of earth to the moon works.
-
This whole discussion is no longer a battle of facts or evidence. It hasn't been for quite a while now. It is simply a battle of wits. Scepti is not interested in any of the facts, evidence or proof that we present to him. His tactic is to limit or restrict what he accepts as evidence or proof against anything he believes to such an extent that nothing he doesn't believe in from his point of view can be disproved.
By doing that he will consider himself to have outwitted everyone and therefore proved himself right. This happens a lot on the 'other' site as well. It is a popular tactic deployed by FEers. Mainly because it is the only tactic available to them. Plead ignorance to everything and you can't be proved wrong.
Another tactic used by FEers is to deliberately add a provocative line at the end of a post to increase the chance of a reply. Check Sceptis previous replies. They are full of them.
-
You people jump in and then get all frustrated when I don't bow down or understand
No, we get frustrated when you simply dismiss and deflect however you can rather than trying to genuinely understand or actually deal with the refutations of your claims.
So who's doing the la la la stuff?
You.
With you repeatedly deflecting however you can.
I'll accept measurements when you people can actually prove to yourselves that they work, then transfer that proof in simple form, back to me so I'm in no position to argue them.
Expect people HAVE explained it, and you then dismiss it.
You've made a triangle on a circle. What's your point?
Again, THAT WAS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
Why do you continue to plead such ignorance?
It shows you cannot simply make anything fit.
Are you going to accept that now?
If not, make a triangle fit those 9 points.
And of course, you still ignore basically everything.
How about you stop deflecting and either address the multitude of issues raised against your claims or admit your claims were garbage?
Again:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
-
Sceptimatic seems to be of the belief, nobody can prove the earth to be a globe in dumbed down easy steps. Therefore, flat earth belief has equal validity.
Just as a liar is forced to make up new lies to cover an original lie, so too, does sceptimatic make up his own lies, oops, I mean rules, as to how eyes work, the illuminaries in the night sky work, etc., to prove the earth is flat. When stumped, for something plausible, he claims, "I don't know."
There's no harm believing earth is flat is you choose to live a simple life. Don't let anyone ever bully you into believing the earth is a sphere, be an individual. But, most important, be honest.
-
Oh I grasp this perfectly well. You asked for a method to find the distance to the moon. I'm offering to explain to you a method to find the distance to the moon. It's a method that is simple to understand, doesn't require radar or powerful lasers or anything like that, just a couple of people, a couple of cameras, some photo editing software and simple trigonometry. Anyone could do this, even you.
You said you want me to explain this method one step at a time. You've agreed to either agree each step or ask questions, nothing more.
I present you with step 1. Basically take a couple of photos.
You immediately slam the brakes on and attempt to change the rules. Now you want to take away the cameras and you want me to abandon this approach entirely and give you some so called historical approach where I can't use any modern tools at all. You don't specify how far you want me to go back, so if I say 1610 and I'll use telescopes, no doubt you'll object to that.
No, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. You asked for a method. I'm offering you a method. This method works, you can repeat it for yourself. It uses cameras. If you don't want to hear, fine, I'll stop right there, but don't ever complain that nobody's shown you how to do this, because I'll just keep reminding you that I offered and you walked away.
1610 it is then.
No, I've already said I'm not going down that rabbit hole. I have one method I'm willing to show you. It uses cameras, interested or not?
Get on with it. Why are you so scared to explain it all so simply?
You and me.......you and me. Now,a s if I'm standing beside you....let's do what you need to do so you can explain so simply...to me..... about how this all works to get real calculations.
-
Sceptimatic, I understand you think you can't see further than the horizon, but then you agree you can see as far as the moon. That in itself speaks volumes about your beliefs being far removed from everyday reality.
Maybe, or is it your belief's that are far removed from reality?
It shows me that the moon is close...and not only close...but a reflection off the dome I'm my honest opinion.
Can I prove it?.............Obviously not....but it all makes sense to me and you are welcome to shake your head and tell me I don't have any evidence.
The problem is....as you do that....you also do not have any real evidence of the claims you go with.
I've already given you irrefutable proof you can test at your own leisure. Make google earth and your flat maps friends, and see if they are a perfect match when it comes to distances and measurements. Then, at the earliest opportunity, jump on a flight over the south pole.
Hell, I'll pitch in some money for the ticket.
You've given me zero proof and you know it.
You've given me what you are told is your truth but you cannot verify any of it to be so, other than that reliance of appeals to authority.
If you think you can prove it then show me....otherwise it's all about best guesses.
Would be more comfortable in the believers only section of the forum? Otherwise, I can explain to you how a lidar that measures distances works? This will help you understand how laser measurements of earth to the moon works.
You can explain here or in pm if you want undivided attention.
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
It's not anything magical, it's about your eye itself bringing top and bottom into convergence as far as the light can be reached and this is your horizon line in a wide area. It can become your vanishing point in a restricted area of focus, like a tunnel or a tree lined, straight, railway track.
Anything shown to be below eye level in a picture is merely cheating tactics and it's plain to see.
What surprises me is, you are capable of doing these experiments that 100% prove what I'm saying....and yet you sit here pretending otherwise.
It takes the simplest stuff to show a flat Earth in terms of water and also the simplest of stuff to understand the horizon.
Why you people don't bother to look, is beyond me. Does it scare you?
-
Sceptimatic seems to be of the belief, nobody can prove the earth to be a globe in dumbed down easy steps. Therefore, flat earth belief has equal validity.
Just as a liar is forced to make up new lies to cover an original lie, so too, does sceptimatic make up his own lies, oops, I mean rules, as to how eyes work, the illuminaries in the night sky work, etc., to prove the earth is flat. When stumped, for something plausible, he claims, "I don't know."
There's no harm believing earth is flat is you choose to live a simple life. Don't let anyone ever bully you into believing the earth is a sphere, be an individual. But, most important, be honest.
I wonder who's telling the lies?
I wonder who is believing those lies?
Who is naive?
Who are scared to veer from the crowd and think for themselves?
Who are the frustrated one's when others won't sing to the same tune?
Conundrums.
-
Oh I grasp this perfectly well. You asked for a method to find the distance to the moon. I'm offering to explain to you a method to find the distance to the moon. It's a method that is simple to understand, doesn't require radar or powerful lasers or anything like that, just a couple of people, a couple of cameras, some photo editing software and simple trigonometry. Anyone could do this, even you.
You said you want me to explain this method one step at a time. You've agreed to either agree each step or ask questions, nothing more.
I present you with step 1. Basically take a couple of photos.
You immediately slam the brakes on and attempt to change the rules. Now you want to take away the cameras and you want me to abandon this approach entirely and give you some so called historical approach where I can't use any modern tools at all. You don't specify how far you want me to go back, so if I say 1610 and I'll use telescopes, no doubt you'll object to that.
No, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. You asked for a method. I'm offering you a method. This method works, you can repeat it for yourself. It uses cameras. If you don't want to hear, fine, I'll stop right there, but don't ever complain that nobody's shown you how to do this, because I'll just keep reminding you that I offered and you walked away.
1610 it is then.
No, I've already said I'm not going down that rabbit hole. I have one method I'm willing to show you. It uses cameras, interested or not?
Get on with it. Why are you so scared to explain it all so simply?
You and me.......you and me. Now,a s if I'm standing beside you....let's do what you need to do so you can explain so simply...to me..... about how this all works to get real calculations.
Get on with it? Why the impatience all of a sudden? You've been delaying the whole process since the beginning with your unwillingness to answer simple questions, constant deflections, new demands etc etc.
Ok well (sigh) can you just confirm that you are ok with step 1. I won't repeat the whole thing, it's the part where you and a friend take two photos of the moon. Ok with that now? No questions?
-
Ok well (sigh) can you just confirm that you are ok with step 1. I won't repeat the whole thing, it's the part where you and a friend take two photos of the moon. Ok with that now? No questions?
I'm fine with your camera as long as you explain your historical reliance, too..
So, you can pick any past scientist who apparently did what you say they did , before any of the technology was available.
So basically you have a few instruments of that time to use.
If you can't do it then just get on with the camera and we'll see where we go.
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
It's not anything magical, it's about your eye itself bringing top and bottom into convergence as far as the light can be reached and this is your horizon line in a wide area. It can become your vanishing point in a restricted area of focus, like a tunnel or a tree lined, straight, railway track.
Anything shown to be below eye level in a picture is merely cheating tactics and it's plain to see.
What surprises me is, you are capable of doing these experiments that 100% prove what I'm saying....and yet you sit here pretending otherwise.
It takes the simplest stuff to show a flat Earth in terms of water and also the simplest of stuff to understand the horizon.
Why you people don't bother to look, is beyond me. Does it scare you?
I don't think this is cheating, it's just sort of plain and true:
(https://i.imgur.com/yfpxErg.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/aleyB3Y.jpg)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-059972aa34fb03a6fd099b1f5abfd402)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-fzY9R3-tQ/WbqwWfSgY6I/AAAAAAAAE0g/3YJKlagzd20T0dllDzsNP3OZvFTTuf8wACLcBGAs/s640/Horizon-is-not-at-eye-level-raw-even-with-camera-perfectly-level-3.JPG)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NqOQ_BCtqUI/maxresdefault.jpg)
Horizon is not always at eye level. That's just a stone cold fact.
-
Ok well (sigh) can you just confirm that you are ok with step 1. I won't repeat the whole thing, it's the part where you and a friend take two photos of the moon. Ok with that now? No questions?
I'm fine with your camera as long as you explain your historical reliance, too..
So, you can pick any past scientist who apparently did what you say they did , before any of the technology was available.
So basically you have a few instruments of that time to use.
If you can't do it then just get on with the camera and we'll see where we go.
No, no, no. I've told you I'm not doing that. I've told you twice already. I don't care how things were done historically. Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
What the fuck is this?
Jesus wept.
No wonder there aren't many who follow your uncle's teachings.
-
It shows me that the moon is close
As close as the horizon?
And that still doesn't explain how you can see things further than the horizon, or what magic glues the regions you can see together, but doesn't do the same at night with the stars.
The problem is....as you do that....you also do not have any real evidence of the claims you go with.
Again, you ignoring the evidence doesn't magically make it go away.
It still exists, it just means you are rejecting reality.
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
Rejecting reality will not help your case.
Once more:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
This shows the horizon clearly below eye level, and not the point of convergence.
And this one provided by Stash:
(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)
And now Stash has provided a bunch more.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.
It is an irrefutable fact that the horizon is clearly below eye level when viewed from high enough (and with the appropriate tools you can also measure it much closer to sea level).
Now can you explain this fact, or can you only outright reject reality?
Anything shown to be below eye level in a picture is merely cheating tactics and it's plain to see.
No, what is plain to see is that you are quite happy to outright reject reality, and will do so rather than admit you are wrong.
There is no cheating going on in these images. They are just simple photos clearly showing that the horizon is below eye level.
The only "cheating" is you repeatedly dismissing and setting an extremely dishonest standard of evidence where you simply reject anything that shows you are wrong.
What surprises me is, you are capable of doing these experiments that 100% prove what I'm saying....and yet you sit here pretending otherwise.
I'm not the one pretending.
I'm not the one rejecting relaity.
I have done the experiments and seen that the horizon is BELOW EYE LEVEL!
It does not 100% prove what you are saying.
It 100% proves that what you are saying is an outright lie.
Evidence has been provided for you to show this, yet you just reject it and continue repeating the same outright lies.
It takes the simplest stuff to show a flat Earth
Yes, the simplest stuff of wilful rejection of reality with no concern for the truth at all and no interest in any form of rational discussion.
Meanwhile, the simplest stuff from reality, such as how the horizon is observed to be below eye level when high enough, the mere existence of the horizon, and how it obstruct the bottom of distant objects easily shows Earth is round.
Why you people don't bother to look, is beyond me. Does it scare you?
And that is a question for yourself.
Why do you outright reject reality so much?
Does reality scare you?
Is that why you believe in a flat Earth fantasy, because the RE scares you?
Even now you still refuse to answer extremely simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
And again you ignore so many issues:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
-
Can I prove it?.............Obviously not....but it all makes sense to me and you are welcome to shake your head and tell me I don't have any evidence.
And shake our heads we do because lets be honest here there are many things that make sense to you which don't make any sense to anyone else. But that's fine. You think the Moon is some sort of reflection or hologram (to be honest I've lost track of which it is). But you don't give your reasons why you think that. Or is it a case of you don't actually have any reasons. You just think that?
On the subject of the Moon being a reflection or a hologram. Where is the light source for this reflection or hologram? And please don't say the Sun. You can do better than that. I find it a fascinating idea. Completely ridiculous at the same time but fascinating as well.
-
Sceptimatic seems to be of the belief, nobody can prove the earth to be a globe in dumbed down easy steps. Therefore, flat earth belief has equal validity.
Just as a liar is forced to make up new lies to cover an original lie, so too, does sceptimatic make up his own lies, oops, I mean rules, as to how eyes work, the illuminaries in the night sky work, etc., to prove the earth is flat. When stumped, for something plausible, he claims, "I don't know."
There's no harm believing earth is flat is you choose to live a simple life. Don't let anyone ever bully you into believing the earth is a sphere, be an individual. But, most important, be honest.
I wonder who's telling the lies?
I wonder who is believing those lies?
Who is naive?
Who are scared to veer from the crowd and think for themselves?
Who are the frustrated one's when others won't sing to the same tune?
Conundrums.
Mate, there are many conspiracies one can get caught up in, but the flat earth one, to me, is the ultimate dangerous one if you're serious. But, if you like just upsetting people, you've done a great job.
Flat earth, is the ultimate in reality denial and authority denial. If you are serious, then it screams that you have unaddressed issues which you can't face. You are escaping reality by denying it. If I met you in person, (and you were serious) I would convince you to seek the help from either a psychologist or psychiatrist.
The fact you are here debating, (if you're serious) is a scream for help, but you aren't taking the help.
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
It's not anything magical, it's about your eye itself bringing top and bottom into convergence as far as the light can be reached and this is your horizon line in a wide area. It can become your vanishing point in a restricted area of focus, like a tunnel or a tree lined, straight, railway track.
Anything shown to be below eye level in a picture is merely cheating tactics and it's plain to see.
What surprises me is, you are capable of doing these experiments that 100% prove what I'm saying....and yet you sit here pretending otherwise.
It takes the simplest stuff to show a flat Earth in terms of water and also the simplest of stuff to understand the horizon.
Why you people don't bother to look, is beyond me. Does it scare you?
I don't think this is cheating, it's just sort of plain and true:
(https://i.imgur.com/yfpxErg.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/aleyB3Y.jpg)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-059972aa34fb03a6fd099b1f5abfd402)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-fzY9R3-tQ/WbqwWfSgY6I/AAAAAAAAE0g/3YJKlagzd20T0dllDzsNP3OZvFTTuf8wACLcBGAs/s640/Horizon-is-not-at-eye-level-raw-even-with-camera-perfectly-level-3.JPG)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NqOQ_BCtqUI/maxresdefault.jpg)
Horizon is not always at eye level. That's just a stone cold fact.
Like I said. Silly attempts to cheat by whoever posts these pictures, which, to me, is sort of amusing.
I mean, don't you people want to actually question the globe when you know there's clear evidence against it?
-
Like I said. Silly attempts to cheat
I wouldn't call it silly, I would call it pathetic.
Pathetic attempts to cheat where you just outright reject evidence which shows you are wrong.
It is nothing more than wilful rejection of reality on your part.
Stop just dismissing it as cheating.
Explain why the horizon is clearly below the convergence point in these photos.
If you can't, admit the horizon is observed to be below eye level and explain how that happens with your FE.
I mean, don't you people want to actually question the globe when you know there's clear evidence against it?
What clear evidence against it?
Do you mean your repeated baseless assertions which have been refuted repeatedly?
You are yet to provide a single example of actual evidence against a globe.
Instead all you have provided are outright lies, like claiming the horizon wouldn't have a horizon, based upon nothing more than your baseless assertions; and claims which are easily proven false, like magically flat water and the horizon always being at eye level.
Perhaps when FEers can come up with actual evidence against a RE rather than repeating the same false assertions I will start to seriously question the RE.
In the meantime I will continue to seriously question the FE when there is so much evidence against it that FEers just dismiss as fake or cheating or CGI.
-
No, no, no. I've told you I'm not doing that. I've told you twice already. I don't care how things were done historically.
People like yourself often hark back to so called historical times of scientific so called, eureka moments which has always amused and baffled me, especially when you also claim to have all the best technology that supposedly makes the so called scientific findings, so accurate, as we're told.
Just answer this question as honestly as you can.
Can you replicate what was done in those times and do it with a knowledge that it's close to correct.....or do you not have a clue how it was all done, physically.... and just go along with it?
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
What the fuck is this?
Jesus wept.
No wonder there aren't many who follow your uncle's teachings.
Swearing and such is all well and good but give a clue as to what you're swearing about. It seems you just like to jump in like a hooligan.
-
Rejecting reality will not help your case.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.
You can dress it up as much as you want to. I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.
This is all you need and is absolute proof of eye level, which cannot be anything else to be fair but some people just don't get it.
This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe, also if people take the time to actually think for themselves and not be bullied into following the indoctrinated nonsense global model.
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
It's not anything magical, it's about your eye itself bringing top and bottom into convergence as far as the light can be reached and this is your horizon line in a wide area. It can become your vanishing point in a restricted area of focus, like a tunnel or a tree lined, straight, railway track.
Anything shown to be below eye level in a picture is merely cheating tactics and it's plain to see.
What surprises me is, you are capable of doing these experiments that 100% prove what I'm saying....and yet you sit here pretending otherwise.
It takes the simplest stuff to show a flat Earth in terms of water and also the simplest of stuff to understand the horizon.
Why you people don't bother to look, is beyond me. Does it scare you?
I don't think this is cheating, it's just sort of plain and true:
(https://i.imgur.com/yfpxErg.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/aleyB3Y.jpg)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-059972aa34fb03a6fd099b1f5abfd402)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-fzY9R3-tQ/WbqwWfSgY6I/AAAAAAAAE0g/3YJKlagzd20T0dllDzsNP3OZvFTTuf8wACLcBGAs/s640/Horizon-is-not-at-eye-level-raw-even-with-camera-perfectly-level-3.JPG)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NqOQ_BCtqUI/maxresdefault.jpg)
Horizon is not always at eye level. That's just a stone cold fact.
Like I said. Silly attempts to cheat by whoever posts these pictures, which, to me, is sort of amusing.
I mean, don't you people want to actually question the globe when you know there's clear evidence against it?
See, that's just weird. Why would you automatically assume someone is trying to "cheat"? I actually know the guy who did the tubes of fluid above Malibu experiment in the last photo. A friend of mine. He's no cheater. He exhaustively set up and executed his experiment in the most honest way imaginable.
Just because something doesn't conform to your way of thinking you automatically think its a scam? You could easily replicate the experiment yourself.
I mean you're basically calling my friend a liar with no basis for doing so. Why?
-
Can I prove it?.............Obviously not....but it all makes sense to me and you are welcome to shake your head and tell me I don't have any evidence.
And shake our heads we do because lets be honest here there are many things that make sense to you which don't make any sense to anyone else. But that's fine. You think the Moon is some sort of reflection or hologram (to be honest I've lost track of which it is). But you don't give your reasons why you think that. Or is it a case of you don't actually have any reasons. You just think that?
On the subject of the Moon being a reflection or a hologram. Where is the light source for this reflection or hologram? And please don't say the Sun. You can do better than that. I find it a fascinating idea. Completely ridiculous at the same time but fascinating as well.
The light source is the sun. The moon is the sun. That's the holographic image from its reflection.
-
Mate, there are many conspiracies one can get caught up in, but the flat earth one, to me, is the ultimate dangerous one if you're serious. But, if you like just upsetting people, you've done a great job.
If you get upset then you maybe shouldn't be taking me on in any way shape or form.
Flat earth, is the ultimate in reality denial and authority denial. If you are serious, then it screams that you have unaddressed issues which you can't face. You are escaping reality by denying it. If I met you in person, (and you were serious) I would convince you to seek the help from either a psychologist or psychiatrist.
You are free to try and convince me of anything you wish. but here's the key.
“Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The fact you are here debating, (if you're serious) is a scream for help, but you aren't taking the help.
The fact that you're going to pains of trying to tell me all this, tells me it's you that appears to require the help.
-
Can you replicate what was done in those times and do it with a knowledge that it's close to correct
Yes.
But us doing so is rather pointless when there are more modern methods, and when you will reject those findings anyway.
You can dress it up as much as you want to.
I'm not the one dressing it up.
I'm not the one rejecting reality.
I'm not the one dismissing evidence as "cheating".
That would be you.
You are the one continually trying to dress up your nonsense as reality, but that doesn't magically make it true.
I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.
So not just a tube, also something to make it level.
How about an even easier set up, go up to a high mountain with a simple water level, and then see if the horizon lines up with it.
This evidence has already been provided for you.
IT SHOWS YOU ARE WRONG!
The horizon is observed to be below eye level.
The best you can get is when you are close to sea level, the horizon is basically at eye level due to just how little below eye level it is.
This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe
You mean if done correctly it either cannot tell the difference due to the uncertainty in the method and low elevation, or it easily shows that EARTH IS NOT FLAT!
It shows the exact opposite of what you claim.
if people take the time to actually think for themselves
You sure do love suggesting people think for themselves, but that is the exact opposite of what you want, as clearly demonstrated by your unwillingness to actually address questions raised, such as why you claim the RE magically wouldn't have a horizon, even after admitting that you see ground when you look down and sky when you look up.
the indoctrinated nonsense global model.
You mean the RE model backed up by mountains of evidence which actually makes sense and which you are unable to show a single fault with?
Just what is wrong with accepting that model and rejecting the pure nonsense FE model which is easily refuted by evidence and backed up by nothing more than lies and wilful rejection of reality?
Now again, can you actually address these issues rather than just dismissing them with lies:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
If you can't address them, I see no reason to discard the RE reality and follow your nonsense which you can only back up with lies and wilful rejection of reality.
-
Like I said. Silly attempts to cheat
I wouldn't call it silly, I would call it pathetic.
Exactly, but they still do it.
-
Exactly, but they still do it.
You mean YOU still do it.
Again, you are the one outright rejecting reality, dismissing the evidence provided for no reason other than it shows you are wrong.
You are the one cheating here.
So why do you do it?
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
Why don't you address the questions raised which show you are wrong?
-
See, that's just weird. Why would you automatically assume someone is trying to "cheat"? I actually know the guy who did the tubes of fluid above Malibu experiment in the last photo. A friend of mine. He's no cheater. He exhaustively set up and executed his experiment in the most honest way imaginable. .............................. (massive appeal to so called authority or I'm calling you out.) And I'm disappointed in you...........................
Just because something doesn't conform to your way of thinking you automatically think its a scam? You could easily replicate the experiment yourself.
I mean you're basically calling my friend a liar with no basis for doing so. Why?
I have every basis for doing so because I know with 100% honesty that this is bull crap.
You know it is because you and everyone can actually prove it to yourselves.
-
Can you replicate what was done in those times and do it with a knowledge that it's close to correct
Yes.
But us doing so is rather pointless when there are more modern methods, and when you will reject those findings anyway.
Let's see.
-
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.
-
See, that's just weird. Why would you automatically assume someone is trying to "cheat"? I actually know the guy who did the tubes of fluid above Malibu experiment in the last photo. A friend of mine. He's no cheater. He exhaustively set up and executed his experiment in the most honest way imaginable. .............................. (massive appeal to so called authority or I'm calling you out.) And I'm disappointed in you...........................
Just because something doesn't conform to your way of thinking you automatically think its a scam? You could easily replicate the experiment yourself.
I mean you're basically calling my friend a liar with no basis for doing so. Why?
I have every basis for doing so because I know with 100% honesty that this is bull crap.
You know it is because you and everyone can actually prove it to yourselves.
Ummm, what about it is bullcrap? An appeal to authority? I guess so considering that I’m appealing to the authority of a friend of mine who did the experiment. An experiment you could easily do yourself. And I know my friend is a straight up guy and not a liar.
What are you actually objecting to so full throatedly that you just haul off and call someone a liar? I mean it’s no mystery that the horizon doesn’t rise to eye level at height. There are millions of examples. Does that disturb you so much that you don’t even have an argument and you have to appeal to screaming, “liars!!!”
I expected more I guess. What about those images makes you believe they are faked?
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
-
Rejecting reality will not help your case.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.
You can dress it up as much as you want to. I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.
This is all you need and is absolute proof of eye level, which cannot be anything else to be fair but some people just don't get it.
This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe, also if people take the time to actually think for themselves and not be bullied into following the indoctrinated nonsense global model.
Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.
How are you levelling the tube?
-
The light source is the sun.
In that case then what is the source of the Suns light?
-
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.
I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.
Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.
Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.
-
Can I prove it?.............Obviously not....but it all makes sense to me and you are welcome to shake your head and tell me I don't have any evidence.
And shake our heads we do because lets be honest here there are many things that make sense to you which don't make any sense to anyone else. But that's fine. You think the Moon is some sort of reflection or hologram (to be honest I've lost track of which it is). But you don't give your reasons why you think that. Or is it a case of you don't actually have any reasons. You just think that?
On the subject of the Moon being a reflection or a hologram. Where is the light source for this reflection or hologram? And please don't say the Sun. You can do better than that. I find it a fascinating idea. Completely ridiculous at the same time but fascinating as well.
The light source is the sun. The moon is the sun. That's the holographic image from its reflection.
So if one is a reflection of the other, where are the craters on the sun and where are the sunspots on the moon?
-
I have every basis for doing so because I know with 100% honesty that this is bull crap.
Then why are you completley unable to provide any justification?
Why do you instead just dismiss it because it shows you are wrong.
You know it is because you and everyone can actually prove it to yourselves.
You mean like those in the photos, that clearly prove you are wrong?
How about this, YOU go out there and do the experiment and prove to all of us that all this evidence is fake.
Because so far all we have to counter this evidence (and our own experiences and evidence) is your baseless claim
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it.
Pure BS!
You have been shown to be wrong repeatedly and all you do is dismiss it or ignore it or pretend it never happened.
This applies to actual claims you have made which are refuted by evidence which you dismiss as fake or cheating, and rational arguments which you simply ignore.
You have demonstrated that you have no intention at all of ever admitting that you are wrong and are happy to wilfully reject reality that shows you are wrong.
So don't come here and lie to us all by claiming you will accept when you are wrong.
If you want to do so then start addressing the multitude of issues raised against your claims.
Again:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.
Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
-
So if one is a reflection of the other, where are the craters on the sun and where are the sunspots on the moon?
Next he will be telling us that sunspot are the reflections of craters and vice versa. The fact that sunspots are continually changing shape and coming and going while lunar craters always stay the same will be conveniently overlooked.
Oh wow... I would normally have said you couldn't make it up... but obviously there are people out there who can!
-
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
It's not and never will be.
It'll always be at eye level whether you're in a plane, up a mountain, in a sky scraper or sat on your own beach.
What the fuck is this?
Swearing and such is all well and good but give a clue as to what you're swearing about. It seems you just like to jump in like a hooligan.
You have not exactly told anyone how the water level is wrong. You just say those pics are cheating. How?
And it is clear that is what I responded to. But you choose to not see it so would not need to address it.
-
So if one is a reflection of the other, where are the craters on the sun and where are the sunspots on the moon?
Next he will be telling us that sunspot are the reflections of craters and vice versa. The fact that sunspots are continually changing shape and coming and going while lunar craters always stay the same will be conveniently overlooked.
Oh wow... I would normally have said you couldn't make it up... but obviously there are people out there who can!
I love the 'hologram' angle. Not just a reflection, but a ~holographic~ reflection! And of course, it is a holographic reflection of the sun, which itself is just a projected light effect from the Magic Crystal.
Enquiring minds wonder whether the sun is just a simple reflection, or is it also holographic in nature as well?
-
Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.
How are you levelling the tube?
No you don't need a tool to level the tube. It's just a tube, the water levels itself, it's a single U shaped tube. What makes you think the water wouldn't level? What would make it all gush out one end?
Nobody is 'leveling the tube' by pointing it at the horizon in those pictures. In fact the point of the pictures is the level tube does NOT point at the horizon at higher altitudes.
-
Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.
How are you levelling the tube?
No you don't need a tool to level the tube. It's just a tube, the water levels itself, it's a single U shaped tube. What makes you think the water wouldn't level? What would make it all gush out one end?
Nobody is 'leveling the tube' by pointing it at the horizon in those pictures. In fact the point of the pictures is the level tube does NOT point at the horizon at higher altitudes.
Wires crossed here perhaps?
I was referring to scepti's kitchen roll tube where apparently you just look through it and it "proves" the world is flat. I'm just asking him how he knows his kitchen roll tube is level.
-
it is a holographic reflection of the sun, which itself is just a projected light effect from the Magic Crystal.
That being the case you would still have to ask what the power source of this 'magic crystal' is.
-
Mate, there are many conspiracies one can get caught up in, but the flat earth one, to me, is the ultimate dangerous one if you're serious. But, if you like just upsetting people, you've done a great job.
If you get upset then you maybe shouldn't be taking me on in any way shape or form.
Flat earth, is the ultimate in reality denial and authority denial. If you are serious, then it screams that you have unaddressed issues which you can't face. You are escaping reality by denying it. If I met you in person, (and you were serious) I would convince you to seek the help from either a psychologist or psychiatrist.
You are free to try and convince me of anything you wish. but here's the key.
“Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The fact you are here debating, (if you're serious) is a scream for help, but you aren't taking the help.
The fact that you're going to pains of trying to tell me all this, tells me it's you that appears to require the help.
Lol! ;D Don't flatter yourself. You could never ever upset me. I was referring to others on this thread.
You asked for honesty, so I gave you honesty. I know of hippie communities not that far from where I live, where the predominant thinking is conspiracies and many believe the earth is flat.
They are people with such a deep distrust towards science, government, and authority, that they are accountable to nothing and nobody but themselves. As a result, many are useless to society.
They are broken. Most are unemployable pisswrecks and drug addicts. Many are in dire need of psychological help.
Look at Mark Sargent. Like a 50 year old toddler, who's mother still makes him breakfast. You think he doesn't have deep psychological issues?
But, ofcourse, you're different, sceptimatic. Aren't you?
-
it is a holographic reflection of the sun, which itself is just a projected light effect from the Magic Crystal.
That being the case you would still have to ask what the power source of this 'magic crystal' is.
Great question!
Sceptimatic, can you please tell us the fuel source for the magic crystal which powers the holographic projections of the sun and the moon?
-
Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.
How are you levelling the tube?
No you don't need a tool to level the tube. It's just a tube, the water levels itself, it's a single U shaped tube. What makes you think the water wouldn't level? What would make it all gush out one end?
Nobody is 'leveling the tube' by pointing it at the horizon in those pictures. In fact the point of the pictures is the level tube does NOT point at the horizon at higher altitudes.
Wires crossed here perhaps?
I was referring to scepti's kitchen roll tube where apparently you just look through it and it "proves" the world is flat. I'm just asking him how he knows his kitchen roll tube is level.
Oops. I got my tubes crossed. :)
-
Mate, there are many conspiracies one can get caught up in, but the flat earth one, to me, is the ultimate dangerous one if you're serious. But, if you like just upsetting people, you've done a great job.
If you get upset then you maybe shouldn't be taking me on in any way shape or form.
Flat earth, is the ultimate in reality denial and authority denial. If you are serious, then it screams that you have unaddressed issues which you can't face. You are escaping reality by denying it. If I met you in person, (and you were serious) I would convince you to seek the help from either a psychologist or psychiatrist.
You are free to try and convince me of anything you wish. but here's the key.
“Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The fact you are here debating, (if you're serious) is a scream for help, but you aren't taking the help.
The fact that you're going to pains of trying to tell me all this, tells me it's you that appears to require the help.
Lol! ;D Don't flatter yourself. You could never ever upset me. I was referring to others on this thread.
You asked for honesty, so I gave you honesty. I know of hippie communities not that far from where I live, where the predominant thinking is conspiracies and many believe the earth is flat.
They are people with such a deep distrust towards science, government, and authority, that they are accountable to nothing and nobody but themselves. As a result, many are useless to society.
They are broken. Most are unemployable pisswrecks and drug addicts. Many are in dire need of psychological help.
And how do you help people who suffer from paranoid delusions like this? You can't reach them with evidence or reason so that they can help themselves, and they mistrust the system so thoroughly that they actively scorn the professionals that could really help them.
I'm definitely guilty at poking fun at the world Sceptimatic believes he lives in, but when I pull back and think about it more, I sometimes find it actually more than a little sad.
-
Sceptimatic, can you please tell us the fuel source for the magic crystal which powers the holographic projections of the sun and the moon?
To that I would also add another question to Sceptimatic. What type of holographic projection do you believe the Sun and Moon are? There are various types of hologram.
-
Sceptimatic, can you please tell us the fuel source for the magic crystal which powers the holographic projections of the sun and the moon?
To that I would also add another question to Sceptimatic. What type of holographic projection do you believe the Sun and Moon are? There are various types of hologram.
I have a few suggestions.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZRP7Cwe.jpg) (https://starwarsblog.starwars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/star-wars-a-new-hope-luke-obi-wan-leia-hologram-tall.jpg) (https://preview.redd.it/tgve9isq2mk51.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b77899d2ad62436b74bb4789302b3b3f6a0adb0e) (https://i.imgur.com/16W3SVK.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/8QrO6ax.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/oZt55iug.jpg)
-
Mate, there are many conspiracies one can get caught up in, but the flat earth one, to me, is the ultimate dangerous one if you're serious. But, if you like just upsetting people, you've done a great job.
If you get upset then you maybe shouldn't be taking me on in any way shape or form.
Flat earth, is the ultimate in reality denial and authority denial. If you are serious, then it screams that you have unaddressed issues which you can't face. You are escaping reality by denying it. If I met you in person, (and you were serious) I would convince you to seek the help from either a psychologist or psychiatrist.
You are free to try and convince me of anything you wish. but here's the key.
“Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The fact you are here debating, (if you're serious) is a scream for help, but you aren't taking the help.
The fact that you're going to pains of trying to tell me all this, tells me it's you that appears to require the help.
Lol! ;D Don't flatter yourself. You could never ever upset me. I was referring to others on this thread.
You asked for honesty, so I gave you honesty. I know of hippie communities not that far from where I live, where the predominant thinking is conspiracies and many believe the earth is flat.
They are people with such a deep distrust towards science, government, and authority, that they are accountable to nothing and nobody but themselves. As a result, many are useless to society.
They are broken. Most are unemployable pisswrecks and drug addicts. Many are in dire need of psychological help.
And how do you help people who suffer from paranoid delusions like this? You can't reach them with evidence or reason so that they can help themselves, and they mistrust the system so thoroughly that they actively scorn the professionals that could really help them.
I'm definitely guilty at poking fun at the world Sceptimatic believes he lives in, but when I pull back and think about it more, I sometimes find it actually more than a little sad.
This thread demonstrates that evidence and reason can't reach people like this. It's utterly useless. People always choose to run away from reality for a reason. Probably because reality is too painful to face.
We tend to forget that this trivial topic, hides a highly dangerous condition. They effectively exclude themselves from the rest of the educated human race, living in a constant state of paranoia that everything is a lie. Naturally that lie would include covid-19 for example.
The best you can do is be honest with them or maybe discussing other topics us the key to fostering good communication and repore with them. They are people who lack trust.
If you look, lack of trust is a recurring theme in all of sceptimatic's posts.
-
I say it is more about hubris, and the need to feel to better than others.
-
See, that's just weird. Why would you automatically assume someone is trying to "cheat"? I actually know the guy who did the tubes of fluid above Malibu experiment in the last photo. A friend of mine. He's no cheater. He exhaustively set up and executed his experiment in the most honest way imaginable. .............................. (massive appeal to so called authority or I'm calling you out.) And I'm disappointed in you...........................
Just because something doesn't conform to your way of thinking you automatically think its a scam? You could easily replicate the experiment yourself.
I mean you're basically calling my friend a liar with no basis for doing so. Why?
I have every basis for doing so because I know with 100% honesty that this is bull crap.
You know it is because you and everyone can actually prove it to yourselves.
Ummm, what about it is bullcrap? An appeal to authority? I guess so considering that I’m appealing to the authority of a friend of mine who did the experiment. An experiment you could easily do yourself. And I know my friend is a straight up guy and not a liar.
What are you actually objecting to so full throatedly that you just haul off and call someone a liar? I mean it’s no mystery that the horizon doesn’t rise to eye level at height. There are millions of examples. Does that disturb you so much that you don’t even have an argument and you have to appeal to screaming, “liars!!!”
I expected more I guess. What about those images makes you believe they are faked?
It's not about anything rising to eye level. It is eye level at all times. This is what I'm trying to explain.
It's all about convergence with your eye of the light received from floor to ceiling or water to sky.
This is why I know those tests are garbage.
But you carry on believing whatever it is you believe...you're certainly entitled to that. As for me, I will never accept anything you try to tell me about horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
-
Rejecting reality will not help your case.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.
You can dress it up as much as you want to. I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.
This is all you need and is absolute proof of eye level, which cannot be anything else to be fair but some people just don't get it.
This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe, also if people take the time to actually think for themselves and not be bullied into following the indoctrinated nonsense global model.
Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.
How are you levelling the tube?
You simply level the tube horizontally towards the sea and sky.
Make sure you have a crosshair exactly over the front of the tube and ensure it is horizontally and vertically levelled and plumb.
The plumb part is not essential but the horizontally level line must be accurate.
Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.
Don't take my word for it...go and do it.
All those people who are curious and are watching this topic....go and try it out.
-
The light source is the sun.
In that case then what is the source of the Suns light?
Central Earth carbon arc.
-
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.
I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.
Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.
Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.
If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.
-
Can I prove it?.............Obviously not....but it all makes sense to me and you are welcome to shake your head and tell me I don't have any evidence.
And shake our heads we do because lets be honest here there are many things that make sense to you which don't make any sense to anyone else. But that's fine. You think the Moon is some sort of reflection or hologram (to be honest I've lost track of which it is). But you don't give your reasons why you think that. Or is it a case of you don't actually have any reasons. You just think that?
On the subject of the Moon being a reflection or a hologram. Where is the light source for this reflection or hologram? And please don't say the Sun. You can do better than that. I find it a fascinating idea. Completely ridiculous at the same time but fascinating as well.
The light source is the sun. The moon is the sun. That's the holographic image from its reflection.
So if one is a reflection of the other, where are the craters on the sun and where are the sunspots on the moon?
Ever looked directly at a security light?
Have you ever walked towards and underthat security light and being able to see what was behind that bright light?
-
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
Flat and level will not match the oceans because the oceans are never calm. They're always under movement.
Everything is under movement but calm waters can be proven to be flat and level even if they will be agitating slightly.
Let me tell you what they don't do. They don't sit in a hump of any minor gradient over any distance. You adhere to this and yet you cannot honestly explain it from any rational point of view but are happy to from a given gravity point of view, yet cannot explain why or what gravity is.
-
Mate, there are many conspiracies one can get caught up in, but the flat earth one, to me, is the ultimate dangerous one if you're serious. But, if you like just upsetting people, you've done a great job.
If you get upset then you maybe shouldn't be taking me on in any way shape or form.
Flat earth, is the ultimate in reality denial and authority denial. If you are serious, then it screams that you have unaddressed issues which you can't face. You are escaping reality by denying it. If I met you in person, (and you were serious) I would convince you to seek the help from either a psychologist or psychiatrist.
You are free to try and convince me of anything you wish. but here's the key.
“Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The fact you are here debating, (if you're serious) is a scream for help, but you aren't taking the help.
The fact that you're going to pains of trying to tell me all this, tells me it's you that appears to require the help.
Lol! ;D Don't flatter yourself. You could never ever upset me. I was referring to others on this thread.
You asked for honesty, so I gave you honesty. I know of hippie communities not that far from where I live, where the predominant thinking is conspiracies and many believe the earth is flat.
They are people with such a deep distrust towards science, government, and authority, that they are accountable to nothing and nobody but themselves. As a result, many are useless to society.
They are broken. Most are unemployable pisswrecks and drug addicts. Many are in dire need of psychological help.
Look at Mark Sargent. Like a 50 year old toddler, who's mother still makes him breakfast. You think he doesn't have deep psychological issues?
But, ofcourse, you're different, sceptimatic. Aren't you?
You seem to be struggling.
-
it is a holographic reflection of the sun, which itself is just a projected light effect from the Magic Crystal.
That being the case you would still have to ask what the power source of this 'magic crystal' is.
Great question!
Sceptimatic, can you please tell us the fuel source for the magic crystal which powers the holographic projections of the sun and the moon?
Hydrogen, potentially, mixed with various minerals such as magnesium...etc...etc.
And it's not a magic crystal.
The crystals are the mere reflective magnifiers for the carbon arcing.
-
As for me, I will never accept anything you try to tell me about horizon anything, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
FIFY
I guess that pretty much says it all. Even when you are presented with clear evidence, unless you already know it to be true, it isn't. Wow, talk about indoctrinated.
-
This thread demonstrates that evidence and reason can't reach people like this. It's utterly useless. People always choose to run away from reality for a reason. Probably because reality is too painful to face.
We tend to forget that this trivial topic, hides a highly dangerous condition. They effectively exclude themselves from the rest of the educated human race, living in a constant state of paranoia that everything is a lie. Naturally that lie would include covid-19 for example.
The best you can do is be honest with them or maybe discussing other topics us the key to fostering good communication and repore with them. They are people who lack trust.
If you look, lack of trust is a recurring theme in all of sceptimatic's posts.
You're welcome to deck out at any point.
-
Rejecting reality will not help your case.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.
You can dress it up as much as you want to. I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.
This is all you need and is absolute proof of eye level, which cannot be anything else to be fair but some people just don't get it.
This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe, also if people take the time to actually think for themselves and not be bullied into following the indoctrinated nonsense global model.
Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.
How are you levelling the tube?
You simply level the tube horizontally towards the sea and sky.
Make sure you have a crosshair exactly over the front of the tube and ensure it is horizontally and vertically levelled and plumb.
The plumb part is not essential but the horizontally level line must be accurate.
Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.
Don't take my word for it...go and do it.
All those people who are curious and are watching this topic....go and try it out.
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
-
Hydrogen, potentially, mixed with various minerals such as magnesium...etc...etc.
So in other words you haven't got a clue. No worries. That is just not very 'scientific' for someone who is a self-proclaimed flat Earth 'scientist'.
Central Earth carbon arc.
Really... where did the carbon come from? How do you create carbon? You are just guessing. I will give you a clue. Carbon is produced through a nuclear process known as the triple alpha process.
I have checked out several websites and none of them say anything about carbon being in the core or the Earth. Hardly surprising considering the conditions in the core.
-
This thread demonstrates that evidence and reason can't reach people like this. It's utterly useless. People always choose to run away from reality for a reason. Probably because reality is too painful to face.
We tend to forget that this trivial topic, hides a highly dangerous condition. They effectively exclude themselves from the rest of the educated human race, living in a constant state of paranoia that everything is a lie. Naturally that lie would include covid-19 for example.
The best you can do is be honest with them or maybe discussing other topics us the key to fostering good communication and repore with them. They are people who lack trust.
If you look, lack of trust is a recurring theme in all of sceptimatic's posts.
You're welcome to deck out at any point.
Lol! Spoken like a true flat earther! Always avoiding reality. ;D I already decked out about 36 pages ago.
Explain to us again, how on flat earth, no matter what mountain, or hill, or tall building you choose, the farther away you get from it, it disappears from the bottom up instead of just shrinking. ;D
Take your time....... ;D
-
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.
I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.
Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.
Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.
If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.
Size and distance? What on earth do they have to do with it? An ellipse is a shape, not a size or a distance. If you have a set of observations of the position of a planet in the sky relative to the background stars, collected over a long period of time, that doesn't directly tell you anything about size and distance. Nobody has ever claimed that.
What you can do is see if those positions follow a pattern and try and figure out what that pattern is. Kepler did that and found the positions and times fitted an ellipse.
You claimed this didn't mean anything, that he could have fitted anything to this data. You claimed that you could fit anything to any data. That's garbage. That means I can give you any data I like and tell you to fit it to a straight line or a triangle and you claim it can be done.
I gave you a set of 9 positions (positions note, not distances or sizes - just like Tycho Brahe's data which Kepler used) and set you a task to make a triangle fit. You are the one claiming this can be done.
You obviously realised you'd blundered and so pretended that you didn't understand. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, the alternative is that you are really, really... OK I won't say it.
At this point, I think several of us sat back, opened some popcorn and waited to enjoy the show. You didn't disappoint.
-
It's not about anything rising to eye level. It is eye level at all times. This is what I'm trying to explain.
It's all about convergence with your eye of the light received from floor to ceiling or water to sky.
Except as repeatedly shown IT ISN'T!
What is clearly observed is that the horizon is not the convergence point.
This is why I know those tests are garbage.
No, it is why we know your claims are garbage, because your claims contradict reality, including repeatable, easily observable observations.
That is far more of a rational basis than to just reject things which show you are wrong for the simple reason that they show your claims to be wrong.
That is what you are saying, you are literally these observations because they show your claim to be wrong. Not because of any rational objection to them, but just because they show you are wrong.
I will never accept anything you try to tell me about horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
You mean what you falsely believe is correct even though all the available evidence which can actually determine if it is correct or not clearly shows that it is wrong?
And this is another admission that you have no concern for reality and no interest in the truth and that you will simply reject anything that shows you are wrong.
Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.
Stop just repeating the same lie.
The horizon is not the point of convergence.
And you still don't tell us how you magically level the tube with just the tube rather than anything else.
Again, why not use a simple water level.
That way the water levels itself and provides the cross hair and easily shows the horizon to be below eye level (like in those photos you dishonestly dismiss as cheating just because they show you are wrong).
Don't take my word for it...go and do it.
It is quite clear that no one here is intending to do that, as your word is clearly a lie.
Why should we take your word for it, when plenty of evidence has been provided which shows otherwise.
And again, I HAVE DONE IT! YOU ARE WRONG!
The horizon is not magically converged to eye level.
If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.
No it wasn't.
You were objecting to fitting the path of the planets onto an ellipse, as that is what the data shows.
Even if you do just want to do it from observations of the object from "one location", you still can't make anything fit.
Instead what you need is for the size of the object to magically change as well.
Otherwise, the observed angular diameter and location still doesn't allow you to magically fit it to any shape.
So if you would like another example, then instead of those 9 points, use the angle from the centre of those points to each point, and the object always being observed to be the same angular size. Then fit these observations to a triangular path.
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
Flat and level will not match the oceans because the oceans are never calm.
We aren't talking about that scale and you know it.
We are talking about this, your "bowl" model of Earth with "flat" water:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
The large scale were you have regions of land completely submerged, while large regions of ocean are dry, without any water.
Again:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.
Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
Try to actually address the issues rather than just ignoring them or strawmanning them this time.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
-
Size and distance? What on earth do they have to do with it? An ellipse is a shape, not a size or a distance. If you have a set of observations of the position of a planet in the sky relative to the background stars, collected over a long period of time, that doesn't directly tell you anything about size and distance. Nobody has ever claimed that.
He is trying to claim that without knowing the size and/or distance you cannot determine the shape.
For example, if you assume the observations were taken from near the centre of the ellipse, you don't have the points you specified but instead you have these red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/iBy7IZh.png)
Without knowing the size of the object or the distance to it you cannot place it at any particular location along these red lines.
So he thinks that while you can fit it to the black ellipse you provided, you could also fit it to the blue ellipse or the red triangle.
The problem with that is we don't need to know the absolute size or distance but can work with the relative size and/or distance.
With the ellipse, the distance remains roughly the same and thus the apparent size will remain roughly the same, but there is no particular preference of the blue vs black ellipse, until you get something like the transit of Venus.
With the triangle, the relative sizes would change dramatically.
The other related issue is the speed of the object.
If it travels at a roughly constant angular speed, then this equates to a roughly constant linear speed for the ellipses, but for the triangle, it corresponds to going slowest at the straight part of the triangle when perpendicular to the view, getting faster as it approaches the corner at which point it does an extremely abrupt turn.
-
This thread demonstrates that evidence and reason can't reach people like this. It's utterly useless. People always choose to run away from reality for a reason. Probably because reality is too painful to face.
We tend to forget that this trivial topic, hides a highly dangerous condition. They effectively exclude themselves from the rest of the educated human race, living in a constant state of paranoia that everything is a lie. Naturally that lie would include covid-19 for example.
The best you can do is be honest with them or maybe discussing other topics us the key to fostering good communication and repore with them. They are people who lack trust.
If you look, lack of trust is a recurring theme in all of sceptimatic's posts.
This all seems very true.
It seems like such a lonely existence. Unable to effectively engage in society, being at ends with everyone over your own strangely held beliefs. How do you make interpersonal relationships where trust is non-existent? How do you find friends and companions that are not turned off by the paranoia and delusions?
I hope I am wrong and Sceptimatic is able to compartmentalize his beliefs - and maybe he is able to live a full, rich, and happy life. But this seems so improbable, and I imagine the reality is far from this.
Maybe he is just making it all up and doesn't believe it? Such a colossal waste of time, but maybe better than the alternative.
-
it is a holographic reflection of the sun, which itself is just a projected light effect from the Magic Crystal.
That being the case you would still have to ask what the power source of this 'magic crystal' is.
Great question!
Sceptimatic, can you please tell us the fuel source for the magic crystal which powers the holographic projections of the sun and the moon?
Hydrogen, potentially, mixed with various minerals such as magnesium...etc...etc.
And it's not a magic crystal.
The crystals are the mere reflective magnifiers for the carbon arcing.
Is it an engineered system? Naturally occurring? Im trying to picture this in my mind. There is a tower of some sort with a crystal on it? Lots of crystals? Where does the hydrogen / mineral mixture sit? Why a carbon arc lamp, is there something special about carbon electrodes or something? Is it manned and maintained by someone / something? How does it drive night and day? Seasons? Time zones?
Just seems so fantastical. What drives your imagination towards this as an explanation? Just meandering thoughts, or did you hear about this from someone?
-
Not for the first time, everything Scepti comes up with as an 'explanation' for anything seems to generate more questions rather than answers!
There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.
-
There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.
Were you there?! How do you know?!
-
Were you there?
Absolutely... looking in the mirror I'd say I am not in bad shape for my age!
Referencing the Wiki I see it is as usual rather vague and none-descriptive about the age/formation of the Earth. Very helpful. Just about the only mention of anything connected to an age for a flat Earth is:
Mountains are created over long periods of time by tremendous forces within the Flat Earth.
That doesn't even give us an age as such does it and we all know (RE included) that mountains are not exactly formed overnight!
-
By keeping it vague they allow us to think without doctrination.
-
Ah right.. so nothing to do with not having a clue then? What is the purpose of having a 'Wiki' if it doesn't really tell you anything useful? Sorry I'm just being picky and comparing it to the mainstream wiki.
The other problem is that some of the info in the FE wiki seems to be a bit off limits. For example I'd love to find out what is says about stellar parallax but unfortunately it seems to be censored..
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-editpage.php?page=Stellar+Parallax
As does the page about solar parallax...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-editpage.php?page=Solar+Parallax
And the page about aberration...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-editpage.php?page=Aberration
A bit ironic for a society that seems obsessed with 'secrets' and supposedly promotes 'free thinking' eh!
I'm surprised there isn't a page about the famous MIUAYGA effect. Have you heard of that?
-
I am sure their reasons are sound. They hold the torch to fight back the dark that is RE science.
-
You say that but anyone who tries to use the FE Wiki to learn more about FE are left pretty much in the dark aren't they. It isn't what you might call very enlightening. I just tried to find out what the FE Wiki has to say about the layout of the continents. Ooopss.. yet another dead end! See what I mean about being kept in the dark! Continuing on with your metaphor about torches it must need some new batteries.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica
What is solar parallax anyway? Given my understanding of what parallax means I cannot think how you would measure any parallax connected with the Sun. Since I don't seem to have permission to access that Wiki page perhaps you could offer some enlightenment?
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/4k1kj6.jpg)
-
Fascinating.. now what about solar parallax?
-
Fascinating.. now what about solar parallax?
You can measure the distance to the Sun using parallax of course, I've had that discussion more than once trying to explain it to people who don't understand how triangles work. Or think angles aren't real in space, or something.
You don't directly measure the Sun's parallax directly like measuring stars, but it's parallax compared to Venus in various ways.
I can only assume that's the reference.
We are so deep down the rabbit hole now even I've forgotten the question I asked, which is just as well as no flat earther ever answers it. If you can get one to even comprehend the question. Which is kind of the point, so I consider it answered. :)
-
I have yet to record one instance where a FEer provides a sensible answer to any question put them. They go on about RE and 'indoctrination' (where have we heard that one before?!?) yet when they are asked a direct question about anything the discussion ends up having more deflections in it than the average pinball machine!
It's almost as if they do all they can to dodge having to provide any real answers about anything they claim to believe in.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/4k1kj6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bQA8N2h.jpg)
-
The other problem is that some of the info in the FE wiki seems to be a bit off limits. For example I'd love to find out what is says about stellar parallax but unfortunately it seems to be censored..
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-editpage.php?page=Stellar+Parallax
That is not censored or off limits, that is simply not existing.
It doesn't say you don't have permission to view, it says you don't have permission to edit.
-
It is possible that I might stand guilty of being just a bit facetious when I said permission to view. Either way there appear to be quite a few empty or non-existent links in the FE Wiki.
Not exactly a good start for a 'knowledge base' for a belief system which seems to claim it is better than anything RE have to offer. Equally rvlvr replying to a question by posting a couple of crudely edited memes as an 'answer' is not hugely helpful either.
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
-
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly and level it. It's really not difficult.
I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.
If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.
-
Hydrogen, potentially, mixed with various minerals such as magnesium...etc...etc.
So in other words you haven't got a clue. No worries. That is just not very 'scientific' for someone who is a self-proclaimed flat Earth 'scientist'.
Any delving into Earth potential is scientific theory, hypotheses,musing, guesswork or a closer potential, down to scientific fact.
Most of what we're told is based on anything but, fact.
So....as for me having no clue. In your mind you're right, from your perspective, because you do not follow anything other than the global given, so I understand you being trapped in that.
From my side of the coin, I believe there is potential for what I'm saying.......but.....I cannot directly prove anything to people like you, which is fine.
Central Earth carbon arc.
Really... where did the carbon come from? How do you create carbon? You are just guessing. I will give you a clue. Carbon is produced through a nuclear process known as the triple alpha process.
Who told you that?
I have checked out several websites and none of them say anything about carbon being in the core or the Earth. Hardly surprising considering the conditions in the core.
Why would it?
-
This thread demonstrates that evidence and reason can't reach people like this. It's utterly useless. People always choose to run away from reality for a reason. Probably because reality is too painful to face.
We tend to forget that this trivial topic, hides a highly dangerous condition. They effectively exclude themselves from the rest of the educated human race, living in a constant state of paranoia that everything is a lie. Naturally that lie would include covid-19 for example.
The best you can do is be honest with them or maybe discussing other topics us the key to fostering good communication and repore with them. They are people who lack trust.
If you look, lack of trust is a recurring theme in all of sceptimatic's posts.
You're welcome to deck out at any point.
Lol! Spoken like a true flat earther! Always avoiding reality. ;D I already decked out about 36 pages ago.
Explain to us again, how on flat earth, no matter what mountain, or hill, or tall building you choose, the farther away you get from it, it disappears from the bottom up instead of just shrinking. ;D
Take your time....... ;D
You already decked out.
Let me know when you want back in.
-
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.
I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.
Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.
Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.
If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.
Size and distance? What on earth do they have to do with it? An ellipse is a shape, not a size or a distance. If you have a set of observations of the position of a planet in the sky relative to the background stars, collected over a long period of time, that doesn't directly tell you anything about size and distance. Nobody has ever claimed that.
What you can do is see if those positions follow a pattern and try and figure out what that pattern is. Kepler did that and found the positions and times fitted an ellipse.
You claimed this didn't mean anything, that he could have fitted anything to this data. You claimed that you could fit anything to any data. That's garbage. That means I can give you any data I like and tell you to fit it to a straight line or a triangle and you claim it can be done.
I gave you a set of 9 positions (positions note, not distances or sizes - just like Tycho Brahe's data which Kepler used) and set you a task to make a triangle fit. You are the one claiming this can be done.
You obviously realised you'd blundered and so pretended that you didn't understand. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, the alternative is that you are really, really... OK I won't say it.
At this point, I think several of us sat back, opened some popcorn and waited to enjoy the show. You didn't disappoint.
You know fine well what I'm talking about but I'll sit back with the popcorn until you explain it.
-
What is clearly observed is that the horizon is not the convergence point.
Then you stick to that. Anyone can prove it is. It's not about me having to prove anything or you denying it.
The experiment is easy to do and it not only shows the convergence point, it also shows Earth absolutely 100%, cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon due to this convergence point through something as simple as a kitchen roll tube with level set up of tube and level and plumb set up of a crosshair. The plumb bit is not essential but the level is.
And there as you look into it, is your sky to sea, horizon. So simple and no need for anyone to be duped as they can do it all for themselves.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
-
Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?
When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.
I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.
Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.
Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.
If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.
Size and distance? What on earth do they have to do with it? An ellipse is a shape, not a size or a distance. If you have a set of observations of the position of a planet in the sky relative to the background stars, collected over a long period of time, that doesn't directly tell you anything about size and distance. Nobody has ever claimed that.
What you can do is see if those positions follow a pattern and try and figure out what that pattern is. Kepler did that and found the positions and times fitted an ellipse.
You claimed this didn't mean anything, that he could have fitted anything to this data. You claimed that you could fit anything to any data. That's garbage. That means I can give you any data I like and tell you to fit it to a straight line or a triangle and you claim it can be done.
I gave you a set of 9 positions (positions note, not distances or sizes - just like Tycho Brahe's data which Kepler used) and set you a task to make a triangle fit. You are the one claiming this can be done.
You obviously realised you'd blundered and so pretended that you didn't understand. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, the alternative is that you are really, really... OK I won't say it.
At this point, I think several of us sat back, opened some popcorn and waited to enjoy the show. You didn't disappoint.
You know fine well what I'm talking about but I'll sit back with the popcorn until you explain it.
Well I know what you said. I said Kepler fitted an ellipse to Tycho's data. You said you could fit anything. Did you not mean that then? I and everyone else appear to have thought that's what you meant. If you meant something else then you'll have to spell it out because I haven't a clue what else you could have meant.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?
Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.
The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.
-
Is it an engineered system? Naturally occurring?
Naturally occuring.
Im trying to picture this in my mind. There is a tower of some sort with a crystal on it?
Not a tower as such. It's merely a gradient over thousands of miles to the centre. Take a look at my avatar and discount the map on it, just look at the shape and imagine that in a mammoth Earth size.
Lots of crystals? Where does the hydrogen / mineral mixture sit?
It's taken in as a consistent energy make up. It creates a cyclone in the centre a bit like your water going down your plug hole, kind of thing.
Why a carbon arc lamp, is there something special about carbon electrodes or something?
Think of it like a big welding arc with super dense (possibly) graphite.
Is it manned and maintained by someone / something?
Natural cell make up. It has a lifecycle.
How does it drive night and day? Seasons? Time zones?
By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.
Just seems so fantastical. What drives your imagination towards this as an explanation? Just meandering thoughts, or did you hear about this from someone?
Little experiments and realising the reality behind some which we are not told the full truth about.
That's from my point of view. I'm well aware of people like yourself with your point of view so I don't expect anything other than head scratching.
-
Not for the first time, everything Scepti comes up with as an 'explanation' for anything seems to generate more questions rather than answers!
There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.
No there isn't.
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?
Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.
The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.
Ok, carry on.
-
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly and level it. It's really not difficult.
I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.
If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.
A few problems here. For one, you've already publicly stated that no matter what the experiment shows, especially if you are wrong, is that:
As for me, I will never accept anything you try to tell me about the horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway. Hardly scientific. But you must get that asking someone to do the experiment is pretty much futile. Right? You don't offer a lot of motivation to go and do it if you won't accept the outcome, no matter what, if it doesn't conform to your belief. You get that, right?
For two, the reason why we're asking for details goes back to the hubris you have about explaining things and how you are perpetually mystified why no one gets it because you believe you explain things amazingly well. You don't. Perfect case in point here.
So what is the experiment? Take a straight tube of some sort, maybe a foot long, an inch in diameter or more, mount and level it onto something horizontally and look through it out over a horizon? And the horizon line should line up straight across the mid-point of the far end of the tube regardless of height of the set-up? Is that it?
If so, and I do it at altitude and it shows that the horizon line is below the midpoint of the end of the tube, would you except that to be true even though you've already said that no matter what you wouldn't?
-
Who told you that?
Sorry I forgot your no 1 rule. Don't believe anything unless you've done it yourself. Well I would experiment myself with nuclear fusion at home but there are two reasons I don't. Firstly its illegal and secondly I don't want to risk blowing myself up. So yes I have to rely on other sources to explain to me how it works.
No one told me that. It's just something you learn whenever you do a physics degree. When you do the sums it all works very neatly.
-
There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.
No there isn't.
Oh yes there is.
-
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
You said you only needed the tube.
Now you are saying you need a spirit level as well.
But surely you know that if you want to use a spirit level you should be using a flat base, not an easily deformable tube.
Again, why not take the simpler option of a water level?
That way no external cross hair is needed.
Most of what we're told is based on anything but, fact.
You mean most of what YOU tell us is not based upon fact.
What mainstream science tells us is typically fairly accurate and factual.
So....as for me having no clue. In your mind you're right, from your perspective, because you do not follow anything other than the global given, so I understand you being trapped in that.
Stop just repeating the same lies.
We don't just accept what we are told. We also accept evidence, the kind of evidence you dismiss as fake or cheating or just outright ignore because it shows you are wrong.
We also have logic on our side, unlike you who just ignores any logical argument that shows you are wrong.
What is clearly observed is that the horizon is not the convergence point.
Then you stick to that. Anyone can prove it is.
You mean like all those photos that clearly show it isn't?
Anyone who honestly examines the evidence or gathers it themselves (at least if high enough) can clearly see that the horizon is NOT the convergence point.
It's not about me having to prove anything or you denying it.
I'm not the one in denial.
I'm not the one repeatedly denying reality just because it shows I am wrong.
That is you.
Anytime evidence is presented which shows you are wrong you just dismiss it or ignore it and continue to repeat the same lies.
You don't have to prove anything. No one can force you to prove anything.
What it is about now is how your blatant lies are directly contradicted by plentiful evidence and logical reasoning and how you have no response except dismissal or ignoring it.
You are unable to show a single thing wrong with this evidence.
It is also about your extreme dishonesty, where you claim that you would admit if you were shown to be wrong, but then show just how much of a lie that is when you claim you will refuse to accept anything about the horizon if you don't already believe it.
The experiment is easy to do and it not only shows the convergence point
Yes, the experiment is quite easy, and there are many ways to do it.
And it conclusively shows the horizon is NOT the convergence point.
Yet rather than accept that fact, you just keep on repeating the same lies.
it also shows Earth absolutely 100%, cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon due to this convergence point
How?
The horizon is not the convergence point so it shows nothing of the like. The experiment is 100% consistent with the RE and quite firmly refutes the FE.
If you wish to claim otherwise with even a shred of integrity you need to actually deal with the evidence which shows that the horizon is not the convergence point. Otherwise, every time you repeat this same lie you are just showing everyone how dishonest you are, how you do not give a damn about the truth at all and are quite happy to repeatedly lie to people to pretend your delusion model is correct.
Grow up. Start dealing with all the issues raised.
Now again, care to address the issues:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.
Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
Try to actually address the issues rather than just ignoring them or strawmanning them or just repeating the same lies.
-
We will both sit next to a bath full of water.
So something tiny, where the curvature of Earth is negligible.
Tell me, what are you using to determine how flat it is (and don't just tell me a board)?
To what level of accuracy is this measurement?
Is it actually capable of detecting the curvature of Earth at this tiny scale?
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
I think you are trying to grasp at whatever strawmen you can as you have failed to justify any of your prior arguments or deal with all that which shows you are wrong.
Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball. It is a massive ball outside the Roche limit of any larger object.
If you want that ball to represent Earth, you will need it in free fall, outside the Roche limit of any significant mass.
How about this, instead of laying the flat board on the water, how about I hold it sideways, then pour water on it? Hey look the water just runs off. I guess that means Earth can't be flat.
-
Equally rvlvr replying to a question by posting a couple of crudely edited memes as an 'answer' is not hugely helpful either.
It is called parody. But goes to show Poe's law holds water.
-
There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.
No there isn't.
What makes you say that? What is the evidence for that?
You are a true polymath. Is there anything you do not know?
-
Equally rvlvr replying to a question by posting a couple of crudely edited memes as an 'answer' is not hugely helpful either.
For the record, rvlvr didn't post a "couple" of memes. I posted one of them. And as rvlvr pointed out, they were parodies to make a point. Not meant to form an answer. As there are no answers here, no matter how hard you try. Scepti has already said he won't accept anything that does not meet what he believes to be true. No matter what evidence you have. So with that as a starting point, parody is all that is left.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?
Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.
The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.
Ok, carry on.
Step 3:
Take the two photos. Use some photo editing software, such as PhotoShop. Overlay the images. Slide and rotate the two moon images until they sit on top of each other with all the features (craters etc.) lining up.
Remember that both images also include at least one nearby bright star (let's call this our reference star).
The reference star will appear to have shifted position, so the merged image will contain two images of the reference star. In fact all the stars in the image will all appear to have shifted by the same amount in the same direction.
Since we know the stars haven't moved, we conclude the moon must have (or at least appeared to).
How much did the moon appear to shift between the two images? Well if we measure the distance (in pixels) between the two different positions of the reference star, then that must be how much the moon has shifted.
Think of it this way. Put a chair next to a table in an otherwise featureless room. Take a photo, centred on the chair. Move the chair away from the table. Take another photo, again centred on the chair. The two photos suggest the table has been moved, but we know it's the other way around. By measuring the amount the table appeared to move, we then know how much the chair actually moved.
We now know by how many pixels the moon apparently shifted. Since we also have a method to convert pixel distance to angular distance, we can now calculate the angle the moon has shifted by.
That's step 3. OK with this step?
NB: to avoid me having to ask you to clarify your answer to this, if/when you are OK with this step, how about you just say "Yes, I'm OK with this step" or something very similar. Obviously if you have questions, go ahead and ask.
-
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly and level it. It's really not difficult.
I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.
If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.
I'm just asking you to follow your own rules. Spell everything out so any one of us could go outside and follow your instructions to the letter. If you don't do this then there are bound to be misunderstandings.
We can't just follow your original instructions using just the tools you've specified. Basically you've said go outside with just a cardboard tube and some cotton and confirm the horizon is level.
You've said make sure the tube is level, but all I've got in my hand at this point is a cardboard tube and some cotton.
If you want us to use a tripod and a spirit level and some tape, just say so. Otherwise I'll just use some tubing, filled with a red dyed liquid instead. Can I use that for a level? If you don't tell me I can't, then I'm going to the top of a mountain, overlooking the sea, with my tubing. I'm going to hold the cardboard tube next to the tubing and take a picture with the crosshairs pointing at the sky. Job done. Except that you'll (rightly) pick holes in my method.
You yourself insist on this level of detail from us, so why is it not OK to have the same from you?
-
Is it an engineered system? Naturally occurring?
Naturally occuring.
Im trying to picture this in my mind. There is a tower of some sort with a crystal on it?
Not a tower as such. It's merely a gradient over thousands of miles to the centre. Take a look at my avatar and discount the map on it, just look at the shape and imagine that in a mammoth Earth size.
Lots of crystals? Where does the hydrogen / mineral mixture sit?
It's taken in as a consistent energy make up. It creates a cyclone in the centre a bit like your water going down your plug hole, kind of thing.
Why a carbon arc lamp, is there something special about carbon electrodes or something?
Think of it like a big welding arc with super dense (possibly) graphite.
Is it manned and maintained by someone / something?
Natural cell make up. It has a lifecycle.
How does it drive night and day? Seasons? Time zones?
By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.
Just seems so fantastical. What drives your imagination towards this as an explanation? Just meandering thoughts, or did you hear about this from someone?
Little experiments and realising the reality behind some which we are not told the full truth about.
That's from my point of view. I'm well aware of people like yourself with your point of view so I don't expect anything other than head scratching.
Little experiments? What sort of 'little experiments' have you done to conclude that the sun is actually the holographic image generated by a giant hydrogen/mineral cyclone fueled graphite electrode based electrical arc? It is so bizarrely specific.
Or this is all just a guess?
-
Little experiments? What sort of 'little experiments' have you done to conclude that the sun is actually the holographic image generated by a giant hydrogen/mineral cyclone fueled graphite electrode based electrical arc? It is so bizarrely specific.
Those are groundbreaking experiments, if there really have been those with proper results.
-
Good luck figuring it out. Sceptitank performed a laser experiment that showed the earth is flat. But he hid all the data.
-
Good luck figuring it out. Sceptitank performed a laser experiment that showed the earth is flat. But he hid all the data.
Seems a common theme. The Bishop experiment, Pete's super secret experiments. All this proof is out there but nobody is allowed to see it. Not sure who they all think they are fooling. Themselves, most likely.
I'm hoping to do the moon bounce test this summer if all works out just for fun.
-
By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.
It all seems so simple and obvious when you put it like that doesn't it. Why didn't any of us realise this before? Just two words come to mind after reading all that. One is utter and I'll leave the other to your imagination.
-
It is odd, yet FE says they have it all figured out. And Sceptimatic’s musings are on the funny farm end of that spectrum.
-
I just wonder whether Scepti has ever considered a career as a childrens story writer because he has the imagination to write some brilliant ones. Once upon a time in a land far, far away there was this powerful, magic crystal. Etc.. etc.
-
Even childrens’ stories need internal logic.
-
The best way to read everything Scepti writes is to completely put to one side everything you ever thought you knew about science. None of that is relevant. Now start with a totally clean slate and take everything he says a step at a time. Then try and see if any of it makes any sense. So far I have tried and failed miserably. I just don't see how any of it can possibly work. You need a massive energy source to provide the power in the first place. I can't see what that power source could be. Other than if you just accept that it does.
On the other hand our current models for the solar interior does make sense but from Sceptis point of view we would first of all have to be able to make our own model Sun in our living rooms so we can prove we are right. Any volunteers to make a model Sun?
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.
When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.
Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?
Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! >:D
-
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly and level it. It's really not difficult.
I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.
If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.
A few problems here. For one, you've already publicly stated that no matter what the experiment shows, especially if you are wrong, is that:
As for me, I will never accept anything you try to tell me about the horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway. Hardly scientific. But you must get that asking someone to do the experiment is pretty much futile. Right? You don't offer a lot of motivation to go and do it if you won't accept the outcome, no matter what, if it doesn't conform to your belief. You get that, right?
For two, the reason why we're asking for details goes back to the hubris you have about explaining things and how you are perpetually mystified why no one gets it because you believe you explain things amazingly well. You don't. Perfect case in point here.
So what is the experiment? Take a straight tube of some sort, maybe a foot long, an inch in diameter or more, mount and level it onto something horizontally and look through it out over a horizon? And the horizon line should line up straight across the mid-point of the far end of the tube regardless of height of the set-up? Is that it?
If so, and I do it at altitude and it shows that the horizon line is below the midpoint of the end of the tube, would you except that to be true even though you've already said that no matter what you wouldn't?
Go and do it for yourself. Not for me. Not for your friends. Not for your family. For you.
I have absolutely nothing to prove to you in this instance that you cannot prove to yourself.
That's the crux..
You can sit and ague with me all day long and deny anything you feel the need to. It's your choice......but.....if you are interested in questioning the indoctrinated nonsense we were all brought up with, you'll check it all out for yourself.
If you are happy with the indoctrinated nonsense we were bullied into, then disregard anything that goes against it and just carry on as you are. I'm fine with it.
-
Who told you that?
Sorry I forgot your no 1 rule. Don't believe anything unless you've done it yourself. Well I would experiment myself with nuclear fusion at home but there are two reasons I don't. Firstly its illegal and secondly I don't want to risk blowing myself up. So yes I have to rely on other sources to explain to me how it works.
No one told me that. It's just something you learn whenever you do a physics degree. When you do the sums it all works very neatly.
I could do the same. I could pull a live rabbit out of a hat. I've seen magicians do it but when I try it with the same empty hat, no rabbit appears.
Maybe I should go and sit back in the audience and watch the magician do it again and then still ponder it. Right?
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?
Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.
The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.
Ok, carry on.
Step 3:
Take the two photos. Use some photo editing software, such as PhotoShop. Overlay the images. Slide and rotate the two moon images until they sit on top of each other with all the features (craters etc.) lining up.
Remember that both images also include at least one nearby bright star (let's call this our reference star).
The reference star will appear to have shifted position, so the merged image will contain two images of the reference star. In fact all the stars in the image will all appear to have shifted by the same amount in the same direction.
Since we know the stars haven't moved, we conclude the moon must have (or at least appeared to).
How much did the moon appear to shift between the two images? Well if we measure the distance (in pixels) between the two different positions of the reference star, then that must be how much the moon has shifted.
Think of it this way. Put a chair next to a table in an otherwise featureless room. Take a photo, centred on the chair. Move the chair away from the table. Take another photo, again centred on the chair. The two photos suggest the table has been moved, but we know it's the other way around. By measuring the amount the table appeared to move, we then know how much the chair actually moved.
We now know by how many pixels the moon apparently shifted. Since we also have a method to convert pixel distance to angular distance, we can now calculate the angle the moon has shifted by.
That's step 3. OK with this step?
NB: to avoid me having to ask you to clarify your answer to this, if/when you are OK with this step, how about you just say "Yes, I'm OK with this step" or something very similar. Obviously if you have questions, go ahead and ask.
Not really ok, no.
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?
How does this marry up with pixels?
-
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly and level it. It's really not difficult.
I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.
If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.
I'm just asking you to follow your own rules. Spell everything out so any one of us could go outside and follow your instructions to the letter. If you don't do this then there are bound to be misunderstandings.
We can't just follow your original instructions using just the tools you've specified. Basically you've said go outside with just a cardboard tube and some cotton and confirm the horizon is level.
You've said make sure the tube is level, but all I've got in my hand at this point is a cardboard tube and some cotton.
If you want us to use a tripod and a spirit level and some tape, just say so. Otherwise I'll just use some tubing, filled with a red dyed liquid instead. Can I use that for a level? If you don't tell me I can't, then I'm going to the top of a mountain, overlooking the sea, with my tubing. I'm going to hold the cardboard tube next to the tubing and take a picture with the crosshairs pointing at the sky. Job done. Except that you'll (rightly) pick holes in my method.
You yourself insist on this level of detail from us, so why is it not OK to have the same from you?
I've given you an easy way to do the test. Do it or don't; it's your choice.
-
By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.
It all seems so simple and obvious when you put it like that doesn't it. Why didn't any of us realise this before? Just two words come to mind after reading all that. One is utter and I'll leave the other to your imagination.
Brilliant.
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.
When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.
Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?
Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! >:D
Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.
-
Brilliant.
You are right. It would be utterly brilliant. If you could prove you are right. Which you can't. As it is I was thinking of another word beginning with B. Well there's a choice of two actually if you add an S as well.
-
Brilliant.
You are right. It would be utterly brilliant. If you could prove you are right. Which you can't. As it is I was thinking of another word beginning with B. Well there's a choice of two actually if you add an S as well.
Brilliants?
-
There is no plural of the word brilliant as you well know. So no... try again.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_(diamond_cut) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_(diamond_cut))
I guess there might be a plural, but not 100% sure of that.
EDIT:
noun
plural noun: brilliants
a diamond of brilliant cut.
"an elegant necklace with four rows of brilliants"
-
Regardless, brilliant is most certainly not the word I was thinking of. The only way I would associate the word brilliant with Scepti is in the context of his imagination. And it seems like if he can imagine it that is proof enough for him. If that's the case then perhaps he should revise his understanding of what proof means.
-
Regardless, brilliant is most certainly not the word I was thinking of. The only way I would associate the word brilliant with Scepti is in the context of his imagination. And it seems like if he can imagine it that is proof enough for him. If that's the case then perhaps he should revise his understanding of what proof means.
I can understand that, but credit where credit is due.
Not much sense in anything if one does not own up to their mistakes.
-
Not much sense in anything if one does not own up to their mistakes.
Tell that to Scepti.
-
It goes for him, too. I do not think that needs specific emphasis.
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
Perhaps you should try doing it not only for yourself but for everyone, but most importantly for yourself.
I have absolutely nothing to prove to you in this instance that you cannot prove to yourself.
That is only the case if you are willing to accept what all the available evidence shows, that the horizon is BELOW the convergence point.
If you wish to claim that the horizon is magically glue to the convergence point then you most certainly have something to prove which we cannot prove to ourselves.
That's the crux..
You are outright rejecting reality, rejecting experiments we have done ourselves and the experiments of others. You dismiss these results as cheating and repeat the same false claims backed up by literally nothing.
Stop telling us to go and do an experiment when this experiment shows you are wrong.
Now again, care to deal with the fact that the horizon is observed to be below eye level?
Or any of the other multitude of issues you continue to ignore to promote your FE nonsense?
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?
Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.
The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.
Ok, carry on.
Step 3:
Take the two photos. Use some photo editing software, such as PhotoShop. Overlay the images. Slide and rotate the two moon images until they sit on top of each other with all the features (craters etc.) lining up.
Remember that both images also include at least one nearby bright star (let's call this our reference star).
The reference star will appear to have shifted position, so the merged image will contain two images of the reference star. In fact all the stars in the image will all appear to have shifted by the same amount in the same direction.
Since we know the stars haven't moved, we conclude the moon must have (or at least appeared to).
How much did the moon appear to shift between the two images? Well if we measure the distance (in pixels) between the two different positions of the reference star, then that must be how much the moon has shifted.
Think of it this way. Put a chair next to a table in an otherwise featureless room. Take a photo, centred on the chair. Move the chair away from the table. Take another photo, again centred on the chair. The two photos suggest the table has been moved, but we know it's the other way around. By measuring the amount the table appeared to move, we then know how much the chair actually moved.
We now know by how many pixels the moon apparently shifted. Since we also have a method to convert pixel distance to angular distance, we can now calculate the angle the moon has shifted by.
That's step 3. OK with this step?
NB: to avoid me having to ask you to clarify your answer to this, if/when you are OK with this step, how about you just say "Yes, I'm OK with this step" or something very similar. Obviously if you have questions, go ahead and ask.
Not really ok, no.
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?
How does this marry up with pixels?
It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.
Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.
We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.
If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.
If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.
A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.
Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.
-
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?
Based on what we know about how the size of an object varies (gets smaller) with increasing distance from the observer, Scepti how would you evidence that a star is not 'as we are told' lightyears away but actually quite close by? A point source of light could be very small and near. Equally it could be massive and very distant. So distant that we cannot see any physical shape. After all as long as its path is not obstructed, light can travel an infinite distance. How can you tell which is right? Just by using your eyes of course.
What Robin says about RA and Dec is completely correct. I could describe the altitude and azimuth of a nova that has just been discovered as seen from my location but that would be time and location specific. The altitude and azimuth will continuously change as it moves across the sky. However by referencing the RA and Dec of the nova, any other astronomer who can see that part of the sky would know immediately where to aim their telescope. The RA and Dec of the nova will not change over time. I can image a region of sky using my CCD camera and then overlay the RA and Dec lines on the image (Using a combo of plate solving and PixInsight). I can also label the known stars within the FOV so it is easy to locate the nova as the unlabelled star. I can post an example image if anyone is interested.
What we need to confirm the distance of a star is two independent ways of measuring its distance. Two common ways are variations in its position relative to other stars (parallax) and variations in brightness. Cepheid variables for example. Once we have identified the distance of a particular cepheid we can use that as a control or calibration star and from that we can work out the distance to any other cepheid.
It is only relatively recently (mid-19th century) that we have been able to measure the very small stellar parallax angles involved and then by using the Earths orbit as a baseline we can work out the distance of the star using simple math.
In Robins experiment he had two observers located at the same latitude. Consider a situation where you had two observers at different latitudes but on the same longitude line. One is at 30N while the other is at 30S. Both would see the Moon high up in the sky. The one at 30N would see the Moon slightly to the south of overhead while the one at 30S would see the Moon slightly to the north of overhead. Both are in direct communication and both are observing the Moon. They see the same star close to the Moon but both measure a different separation between the edge of the Moon and the star.
By using reticle eyepieces both are able to measure the difference in the angular separation and hence they are also able to measure the distance of the Moon.
-
The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.
Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.
How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?
How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?
How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?
Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?
Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.
Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?
Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly and level it. It's really not difficult.
I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.
If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.
A few problems here. For one, you've already publicly stated that no matter what the experiment shows, especially if you are wrong, is that:
As for me, I will never accept anything you try to tell me about the horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway. Hardly scientific. But you must get that asking someone to do the experiment is pretty much futile. Right? You don't offer a lot of motivation to go and do it if you won't accept the outcome, no matter what, if it doesn't conform to your belief. You get that, right?
For two, the reason why we're asking for details goes back to the hubris you have about explaining things and how you are perpetually mystified why no one gets it because you believe you explain things amazingly well. You don't. Perfect case in point here.
So what is the experiment? Take a straight tube of some sort, maybe a foot long, an inch in diameter or more, mount and level it onto something horizontally and look through it out over a horizon? And the horizon line should line up straight across the mid-point of the far end of the tube regardless of height of the set-up? Is that it?
If so, and I do it at altitude and it shows that the horizon line is below the midpoint of the end of the tube, would you except that to be true even though you've already said that no matter what you wouldn't?
Go and do it for yourself. Not for me. Not for your friends. Not for your family. For you.
I have absolutely nothing to prove to you in this instance that you cannot prove to yourself.
That's the crux..
You can sit and ague with me all day long and deny anything you feel the need to. It's your choice......but.....if you are interested in questioning the indoctrinated nonsense we were all brought up with, you'll check it all out for yourself.
If you are happy with the indoctrinated nonsense we were bullied into, then disregard anything that goes against it and just carry on as you are. I'm fine with it.
You didn't really address anything which is not surprising. Do you really mean this when you say, "So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway."?
Instead of looking down a tube at height, here's to looking down a box at height - High above Santa Barbara, CA. Same outcome, horizon does not rise to eye level. Sorry, that's just the cold hard truth. Even though we know you've already stated you would not accept the truth if it doesn't conform to your beliefs.
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
This is actually more exacting than your experiment because of the real time leveling shown on the tubes of liquid fore and aft of the box and perspective lines. Pretty much combines all experimental elements into one result.
Too bad you have no interest in the truth.
-
By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.
It all seems so simple and obvious when you put it like that doesn't it. Why didn't any of us realise this before? Just two words come to mind after reading all that. One is utter and I'll leave the other to your imagination.
Brilliant.
Birdbrained?
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.
When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.
Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?
Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! >:D
Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.
Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.
Take your time. No need to rush..... O0
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
-
Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.
Come on, get on with it will you!
Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.
OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Step 2.
First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.
Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.
The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.
That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.
Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?
Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?
Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.
This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.
(https://i.imgur.com/2nGzIDT.png)
The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.
Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.
What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).
Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.
Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.
At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.
There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.
Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.
Ok, so what is the width of the moon?
Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?
Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.
The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.
Ok, carry on.
Step 3:
Take the two photos. Use some photo editing software, such as PhotoShop. Overlay the images. Slide and rotate the two moon images until they sit on top of each other with all the features (craters etc.) lining up.
Remember that both images also include at least one nearby bright star (let's call this our reference star).
The reference star will appear to have shifted position, so the merged image will contain two images of the reference star. In fact all the stars in the image will all appear to have shifted by the same amount in the same direction.
Since we know the stars haven't moved, we conclude the moon must have (or at least appeared to).
How much did the moon appear to shift between the two images? Well if we measure the distance (in pixels) between the two different positions of the reference star, then that must be how much the moon has shifted.
Think of it this way. Put a chair next to a table in an otherwise featureless room. Take a photo, centred on the chair. Move the chair away from the table. Take another photo, again centred on the chair. The two photos suggest the table has been moved, but we know it's the other way around. By measuring the amount the table appeared to move, we then know how much the chair actually moved.
We now know by how many pixels the moon apparently shifted. Since we also have a method to convert pixel distance to angular distance, we can now calculate the angle the moon has shifted by.
That's step 3. OK with this step?
NB: to avoid me having to ask you to clarify your answer to this, if/when you are OK with this step, how about you just say "Yes, I'm OK with this step" or something very similar. Obviously if you have questions, go ahead and ask.
Not really ok, no.
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?
How does this marry up with pixels?
It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.
Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.
We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.
If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.
If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.
A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.
Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.
Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?
-
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?
Based on what we know about how the size of an object varies (gets smaller) with increasing distance from the observer, Scepti how would you evidence that a star is not 'as we are told' lightyears away but actually quite close by? A point source of light could be very small and near. Equally it could be massive and very distant. So distant that we cannot see any physical shape. After all as long as its path is not obstructed, light can travel an infinite distance. How can you tell which is right? Just by using your eyes of course.
I can't. I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light. I can only guess they are close and reflecting off the dome from the central part of Earth.
I can't prove this but then again I'm not stating anything as fact. You people are...so prove it.
I'd really love to know what Earth is in its entirety but all I have is best guessing based on what I observe and small experiments.
You people have very little in terms of Earth and your so called universe. It's all pseudo science,
What Robin says about RA and Dec is completely correct. I could describe the altitude and azimuth of a nova that has just been discovered as seen from my location but that would be time and location specific. The altitude and azimuth will continuously change as it moves across the sky. However by referencing the RA and Dec of the nova, any other astronomer who can see that part of the sky would know immediately where to aim their telescope. The RA and Dec of the nova will not change over time. I can image a region of sky using my CCD camera and then overlay the RA and Dec lines on the image (Using a combo of plate solving and PixInsight). I can also label the known stars within the FOV so it is easy to locate the nova as the unlabelled star. I can post an example image if anyone is interested.
What we need to confirm the distance of a star is two independent ways of measuring its distance. Two common ways are variations in its position relative to other stars (parallax) and variations in brightness. Cepheid variables for example. Once we have identified the distance of a particular cepheid we can use that as a control or calibration star and from that we can work out the distance to any other cepheid.
It is only relatively recently (mid-19th century) that we have been able to measure the very small stellar parallax angles involved and then by using the Earths orbit as a baseline we can work out the distance of the star using simple math.
In Robins experiment he had two observers located at the same latitude. Consider a situation where you had two observers at different latitudes but on the same longitude line. One is at 30N while the other is at 30S. Both would see the Moon high up in the sky. The one at 30N would see the Moon slightly to the south of overhead while the one at 30S would see the Moon slightly to the north of overhead. Both are in direct communication and both are observing the Moon. They see the same star close to the Moon but both measure a different separation between the edge of the Moon and the star.
By using reticle eyepieces both are able to measure the difference in the angular separation and hence they are also able to measure the distance of the Moon.
The distances are made up. Unless someone proves it's not then it's nonsense.
And no, you have not proved a thing and you know it.
-
You didn't really address anything which is not surprising. Do you really mean this when you say, "So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway."?
I've told you my position. If you can show me facts I'll accept them. If you tell me facts based on your belief of them being facts, without any proof, then you are not showing me facts, you are showing me what you believe are the facts.
See what I mean?
Instead of looking down a tube at height, here's to looking down a box at height - High above Santa Barbara, CA. Same outcome, horizon does not rise to eye level. Sorry, that's just the cold hard truth. Even though we know you've already stated you would not accept the truth if it doesn't conform to your beliefs.
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
This is actually more exacting than your experiment because of the real time leveling shown on the tubes of liquid fore and aft of the box and perspective lines. Pretty much combines all experimental elements into one result.
No it does not. This is a clear con job and you know it. It baffles me as to why you want to go along with this.
It's so easy to raise or lower that camera and you know this.
The horizon is there in front of you and it is at eye level.
Put a level on the actual camera and a crosshair and you will see a different result.
This picture reeks of a con job....reeks of it.
Too bad you have no interest in the truth.
I have massive interest in the truth. I just have no interest in being told something as a truth, which cannot be shown/proven, or is hidden by a cloak/security.
I could question you with this stuff you're showing.
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.
When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.
Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?
Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! >:D
Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.
Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.
Take your time. No need to rush..... O0
I've already given you plenty to go on. It's all there for you and costs next to nothing to check it out.
You are showing me nothing.
-
I can't. I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light. I can only guess they are close and reflecting off the dome from the central part of Earth.
So what you are basically saying then is that you refuse to accept the tried and re-tested methods that modern astronomy uses to measure the distances of the stars but you can't prove they are wrong. You refuse to read any books that might help you to understand more about what you refuse to accept because you are convinced they are all full of lies. So ultimately you live your life in a state of total denial and accept only what you believe in as true yet you cannot prove any of it to anyone other than yourself.
Whatever makes you happy.
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
Can you share the picture?
-
It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.
Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.
We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.
If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.
If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.
A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.
Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.
Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?
The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.
However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.
So are we OK with step 3 now?
-
One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star.
This applies equally to anything in the sky. I recently received a gift where I could 'name a star'. Now I know it is only a novelty but I chose to name a star after my mother and soon afterwards I received a certificate with the brightness RA and Dec. I used this information to point my telescope to where the star was and took a 5 minute image of the area. I was then able to identify the 10.3 magnitude star (in among all the others) which was now 'named' after my mother.
With a correctly aligned telescope you can find anything in the sky you choose simply from the RA and Dec. Some objects like planets, asteroids, comets and even NEOs move relative to the stars but as long as you know the RA and Dec for the time you are observing, you can find them.
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
Can you share the picture?
Presumably something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
-
It certainly does not prove me wrong.
Yes it does, as all the photos provided clearly show.
Those photos which you just dismiss as cheating.
I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height.
You have shown you are willing to repeatedly lie. Why should I accept this baseless assertion of yours, when you have nothing to back it up, not even a simple photo of it?
But how about some details, like I had repeatedly asked you for other things.
What was your margin of error/uncertainty?
How high were you?
What did you use to determine level?
Did you even bother checking if this uncertainty meant that the RE with the horizon below eye level was consistent with your observation?
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
You mean what you repeatedly lie about?
Again, all the available evidence shows you are wrong. It shows the horizon is below eye level. No amount of lies or dismissal will change that fact.
You will need some solid evidence to show otherwise.
This is a clear con job and you know it.
No, its not. There is not a single hint of any deception in that photo, just in your pathetic dismissal.
It's so easy to raise or lower that camera and you know this.
Which in no way affects the result.
Remember you claim it is about the convergence point.
If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?
(https://i.imgur.com/V4E1Fg5.png)
The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
No need for any level on the camera or cross hair.
That would just introduce more error, with the error in alignment of the cross hair, and just where you place the level on the camera to ensure the image taken is actually taken level.
So no, you reek of being a con job, not the picture.
I have massive interest in the truth.
Then why do you continue to repeat the same lies?
Why don't you admit you are wrong?
Why do you say that you will refuse to ever accept anything about the horizon that you don't already "know".
Why don't you address the multitude of issues.
Remember, some are based upon pure logical reasoning without any need for evidence to come into it.
It isn't a case of the evidence supporting you or not, but instead of spouting pure nonsesne which makes no sense at all and is trivial to show is pure BS.
For example, your claim that a round Earth would magically be invisible with you only ever seeing sky, until that was shown to be pure garbage with you finally admitting that you would see Earth if you look straight down at it, but you continually refusing to explain just what it would look like as you raise your head to go from looking straight down seeing nothing but Earth to looking straight up seeing nothing but sky.
All because you likely know that the only honest, rational thing to say is that there will be a transition, a line below which there is ground/sea and above which there is sky, i.e. the horizon, the very thing you claim can't exist for a RE.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.
When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.
Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?
Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! >:D
Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.
Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.
Take your time. No need to rush..... O0
I've already given you plenty to go on. It's all there for you and costs next to nothing to check it out.
You are showing me nothing.
I have shown you something which you choose to ignore. It is you who have shown me nothing but a bathtub of water with your little rubber duckies floating around.
Nothing to change my mind, here. You failed.
-
Poor sceptitank.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
500 would do it. The box in the photo was 700+.
-
The distances are made up. Unless someone proves it's not then it's nonsense.
The distances are not made up. They are measured and so that in itself is proof. Maybe not to you but then the rules of what represents proof are different for you compared to everybody else. Proof to you is defined by whether you believe it or not. It happens every single time someone presents any real evidence that suggests what you believe is wrong. You just dismiss it outright. Not exactly the attitude of a 'scientist' is it.. flat Earth or not. Real 'proof' is independent of belief. Kepler didn't like to think of the planetary orbits as being anything else but perfectly circular because he preferred to believe they were. But Tychos observations (the most accurate available at the time) showed him that they weren't. So he accepted that.
In order for anyone to prove anything to you there must first be at least one element which both parties (you v everyone else) agrees on. Since we cannot establish that common ground because you are dictating your own rules about what is proof then it follows that no one can prove anything to you. That is the real 'nonsense'. It is also a clear sign that you realise (really) that you are wrong. Why else would you feel the need to set up conditions for what we are allowed or not allowed to set out as proof or evidence? You don't 'tailor fit' evidence or proof to suit your beliefs. Proof is proof whether you like it or not.
In a nutshell I am not going to continue in a debate where one person thinks they can dictate or lay down the rules about what represents proof or evidence or not. Especially when those rules are clearly designed to suit their beliefs as in your case.
The fact is I don't really care what you believe or don't believe. I will carry on telling you what I know is real and true whether you accept that or not. This is just a bit of fun as far as I'm concerned so say what you like in response to this.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
500 ft should give you an angle of roughly 0.4 degrees, similar in size to the sun or moon. So that should be good enough, at least if you don't use a wide angle lens or the like.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
Do the experiment, if you like, for yourself. Don't do it for sceptimatic. He'll find a way to shit all over your experiment, and you know it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
Do the experiment, if you like, for yourself. Don't do it for sceptimatic. He'll find a way to shit all over your experiment, and you know it.
Of course it will be for myself. I don't expect any true believers or people who don't have the ability to understand or fell too far down the rabbit hole to ever see reason again, if they ever did.
It will be for others too, those that are curious or confused.
But mostly because it's fun.
For science!
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
He will likely claim the tube is pointing up.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
He will likely claim the tube is pointing up.
Yeah, I can see that. But at the end of the day, the tube was mounted on a spirit level and leveled. So he can say that it wasn't and I will assure him that it was level. And it doesn't really matter whether he believes it or not. He never will no matter what is presented anyway. The point is anyone can do it and everyone here can clearly see he is flat out wrong.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
He will likely claim the tube is pointing up.
Nah. He will just say the anti-hyperbolic-spheroidal-quantized-megaprotonic-waveforms in the spirit bubble were not properly embiggened first.
I do like the water-level tubes (Communicating vessels) better, they self level and are easier to use, but harder to construct. But this is a good test too, and easy to perform.
-
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.
You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. ;D
-
I can't. I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light. I can only guess they are close and reflecting off the dome from the central part of Earth.
So what you are basically saying then is that you refuse to accept the tried and re-tested methods that modern astronomy uses to measure the distances of the stars but you can't prove they are wrong.
No. I'm saying I refuse to believe something that is supposedly tried and tested but is not shown as any proof. You absolutely know this so why are you using it as an argument?
You refuse to read any books that might help you to understand more about what you refuse to accept because you are convinced they are all full of lies.
I've read many books and the reason I question stuff is because of those books, along with severe indoctrination from, almost cradle to present day.
It's about trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Not an easy task.
So ultimately you live your life in a state of total denial and accept only what you believe in as true yet you cannot prove any of it to anyone other than yourself.
No. I live my life in a way that most people do and in between I question a lot of stuff in life just as much as I accept a lot of stuff, in life.
As simple as that.
You are trying to build a picture of me with scattered pieces from your mind and hammering those pieces into what you think is a good pattern.
Carry on but don't expend too much energy trying to psychologically profile me.
Whatever makes you happy.
Lot's of stuff make me happy and plenty does not. That's most likely the same for all, just in different contexts.
-
It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.
Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.
We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.
If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.
If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.
A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.
Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.
Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?
The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.
However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.
So are we OK with step 3 now?
How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
Can you share the picture?
Presumably something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.
-
If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?
(https://i.imgur.com/V4E1Fg5.png)
The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.
Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?
Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.
In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.
-
Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)
Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice. :D
Give me what I need to change my global mind.
We will both sit next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.
Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.
It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.
When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.
Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?
Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! >:D
Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.
Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.
Take your time. No need to rush..... O0
I've already given you plenty to go on. It's all there for you and costs next to nothing to check it out.
You are showing me nothing.
I have shown you something which you choose to ignore. It is you who have shown me nothing but a bathtub of water with your little rubber duckies floating around.
Nothing to change my mind, here. You failed.
Nahhhh, I haven't failed.
You are out of argument because this one thing. This one simple thing kills off your globe with absolutely no need to go farther.
However, the extras are just par for the course of battle between you people and those who have alternative thoughts against the indoctrinated global model.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
Don't forget a few things.
A spirit level and a scope with a crosshair and bring your 100% honesty and let's see the outcome.
Oh...one more thing: You can use any elevation you want to.
-
The distances are made up. Unless someone proves it's not then it's nonsense.
The distances are not made up. They are measured and so that in itself is proof. Maybe not to you but then the rules of what represents proof are different for you compared to everybody else. Proof to you is defined by whether you believe it or not. It happens every single time someone presents any real evidence that suggests what you believe is wrong. You just dismiss it outright. Not exactly the attitude of a 'scientist' is it.. flat Earth or not. Real 'proof' is independent of belief. Kepler didn't like to think of the planetary orbits as being anything else but perfectly circular because he preferred to believe they were. But Tychos observations (the most accurate available at the time) showed him that they weren't. So he accepted that.
In order for anyone to prove anything to you there must first be at least one element which both parties (you v everyone else) agrees on. Since we cannot establish that common ground because you are dictating your own rules about what is proof then it follows that no one can prove anything to you. That is the real 'nonsense'. It is also a clear sign that you realise (really) that you are wrong. Why else would you feel the need to set up conditions for what we are allowed or not allowed to set out as proof or evidence? You don't 'tailor fit' evidence or proof to suit your beliefs. Proof is proof whether you like it or not.
In a nutshell I am not going to continue in a debate where one person thinks they can dictate or lay down the rules about what represents proof or evidence or not. Especially when those rules are clearly designed to suit their beliefs as in your case.
The fact is I don't really care what you believe or don't believe. I will carry on telling you what I know is real and true whether you accept that or not. This is just a bit of fun as far as I'm concerned so say what you like in response to this.
If you tell me a tennis ball in the distance is actually 100 feet tall but only looks so small due to distance, I will want some proof.
So forgive me if I don't buy into light year stars and big rocky moons floating about in space vacuums at the sizes I'm told.
Unless of course you can leave me in no doubt as to the reality of what is said.
I've yet to be convinced.........and...........I know....I know...... I'm just too dumb to understand how it all works.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
-
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.
You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. ;D
I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.
-
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.
You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. ;D
I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.
Frustration, sure. But not exactly panic. That'd mean RE is losing.
-
And yeah, waiting for your picture of the horizon.
-
It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.
Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.
We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.
If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.
If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.
A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.
Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.
Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?
The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.
However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.
So are we OK with step 3 now?
How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?
Suppose you have a roundabout/carousel/merry-go-round - whatever you want to call it. One of those things you find in a children's playground.
Paint a pattern of stars on it.
Have an observer sit on it. Get another observer standing by the trees, some distance away. Now start turning the roundabout very slowly. Once per day. Do the trees start moving? Of course not, they are literally rooted to the spot where they grow. Do the painted stars start moving around, changing position on the roundabout? Of course not.
Things may appear to rotate for both observers, but if each records a timelapse with a 24h interval between frames, then actually nothing moves at all. By all means speed up the roundabout. Doesn't make any difference. Take a timelapse once per revolution and you can see nothing changes. Each painted star remains in the same position on the roundabout, exactly where it was painted. Each tree remains where it was planted.
The stars behave in the same way. Point a camera at the sky. Take a timelapse, with a frame rate of one (sidereal) day. No star moves. They are all fixed.
In addition, no matter where you move to, how far away you move. The stars won't change position. That's all there is to it. They are fixed. Sure they rotate around the two celestial poles, just like the roundabout or the trees rotate for the respective observers, but nothing changes position.
It doesn't matter one bit how far away the stars are, what they are made of, whether they are rotating or whether the earth is rotating. All that matters is they are fixed in place and can be used as a reference for comparison with anything else which isn't - such as the moon or the planets.
OK with this now? Shall we move on to step 4?
If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.
1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.
2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.
I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
Can you share the picture?
Presumably something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.
Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.
You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.
-
No. I'm saying I refuse to believe something that is supposedly tried and tested but is not shown as any proof.
No you are not.
You are dismissing that "proof" as cheating.
What your actions indicate (and even some of your statements) is that you refuse to accept anything that doesn't agree with you.
For examples, you explicitly stated that you will not accept anything about the horizon that you do not "know".
The problem is that you don't know, instead you just spout the same refuted lies again and again.
At least one of which isn't refuted by evidence, but by a logical proof.
So know, what it clearly means is that you will not accept anything that doesn't agree with you. If it shows you are wrong, you will reject or ignore it rather than admit you are wrong.
If that wasn't the case then you would have either admitted you were wrong about the RE horizon or provided an actual justification for your repeatedly lies and a refutation of the counter arguments.
How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?
Do you mean their angular position relative to an observer on Earth? If so, that varies by roughly 15 degrees by hour.
But that was already dealt with, so why bring it up?
Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Because that is where those parallel lines meet (when extended).
It is still well above the horizon, clearly showing the horizon is NOT THE CONVERGANCE POINT!
In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.
It is quite clearly you, for still not accepting the well established (and proven) fact that the horizon is easily observed to be below eye level; that it does not magically rise to eye level and is not magically at the convergence point.
So it is quite clearly you who does not give a damn about the truth at all.
This one simple thing kills off your globe with absolutely no need to go farther.
If that was the case why haven't you been able to rationally respond to the objections and questions regarding it?
That sure seems like it doesn't kill off the globe.
Meanwhile, the horizon clearly observed to be below eye level quite firmly kills off your FE nonsense.
Again, it isn't the indoctrinated globe model.
It is the globe model which actually matches reality and which is backed up by mountains of evidence, and which you are yet to demonstrate any problem with.
If you tell me a tennis ball in the distance is actually 100 feet tall but only looks so small due to distance, I will want some proof.
We aren't talking about a tennis ball.
We are talking about the moon. The closest object comparable to it within your reach is Earth itself.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned.
And in doing so, they show your claim to be pure garbage. Yet you keep ignoring that.
But I wouldn't call that amusing. I would call it pathetic.
This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
Probably because they don't fake it, and don't expect people to be completely insane and dismiss it as fake.
But this is why the water filled tube is better, it shows the level at the same time as the photo is taken.
You have clear tubes, clearly showing the water level, connected by a pipe at the bottom.
Yet you still just dismiss it as fake.
If someone did provide a video you would either find some other excuse to dismiss it as fake, perhaps dismissing it as CGI or special effects, or just completely ignore it; like you do with everything that shows you are wrong.
Now again, care to address the multitude of issues you are yet to address regarding your many blatant lies?
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.
Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
-
re your reply #1168 I read nothing in that which changes my position from reply #1154. You are simply setting your own framework about what you accept as proof so you can claim your are right. Anything which falls outside of that framework as far as you are concerned is not proof. That is not how proof works. Proof is proof. Evidence is evidence. Even if it doesn't fall in line with your beliefs.
Fair enough you read books. But why waste your time reading any books if they don't say what you want to believe? Your whole attitude doesn't work for me so until that position changes I have nothing further to say to you.
And this time I do mean it.
-
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.
You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. ;D
I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.
Lol! You're doing fine after you brought a basketball close enough to your eye to see it creates a horizon? ;D I don't think you are. That frustrated panic you smell is yourself perspiring heavily. Beads of sweat across your brow.
Good to see you're back, though, crapping all over these fine scientific experiments just as I predicted.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.
-
If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?
(https://i.imgur.com/V4E1Fg5.png)
The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.
Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?
Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.
In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.
Just to really ram the point home:
(https://i.imgur.com/NLh5tVD.png)
Every component of this frame is pointing towards a single convergence point, including the horizontal string which cuts straight across the two liquid levels. This convergence point is clearly above the extended (yellow) horizon line.
Move the camera up or down a tiny amount and the two liquid levels won't line up. The only way to change the gap between the green line and the yellow extended horizon line is to move the camera up or down, which means you are no longer level.
-
Sceptimatic needs to show us their experiment with similar variables. As I keep hearing the findings are different.
-
How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?
Take the star Mintaka which is the right-most (western) star in Orions belt. What is the time difference between rising and setting for this star? Answer is 12 hours to the nearest whole number and that is true regardless of your location. Where is this star? Very near to the celestial equator. What is the angular distance on the sky between the east point and the west point? 180 degrees. So the sky rotates 180 degrees over 12 hours. That is 15 degrees per hour.
So the sky rotates westwards through an angle of 180 degrees over 12 hours. that makes 360 degrees over 24 hours. Scepti can you prove that it is not the Earth rotating eastwards through 360 degrees over 24 hours making it seem like the sky is rotating westwards? RE have measured the Earth circumference at the equator to be 24,859.734 miles. That distance divided by 24 hours gives an equatorial rotation speed of 1035.82mph.
The Moon and Sun move by several degrees per day relative to the stars indicating they are nearby compared to the stars. The Moon more so than the Sun indicating it is nearest. The Moon completes one circuit of the celestial sphere each month (29.5 days) while it takes the Sun one year. The planets move relative to the stars as well but to a lesser extent as we move through the solar system. Only Mercury and Venus never reach opposition indicating they are nearer the Sun then Earth. The stars remain fixed relative to each other indicating they are very distant.
If you travel in a car or on a train you will notice that the objects nearest to you seem to pass by you quickly while objects further away go by much more slowly. Displacement is proportional to distance. I could travel 100 miles on a train and the scenery outside the window when I set off would be completely different compared to what I see when I reach end of journey. But if I could see the Moon when I set off I would still see it when I arrived. I would never lose visual contact with the Moon.
I shouldn't have to say any of this because it should surely be common knowledge and common sense. Anyone disagree with any of the above? If you do then fine but offer your own version. With evidence of course.
I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light.
If stars are 'reflections' as you seem to believe then perhaps you could offer an explanation for as to why the spectral lines we see in the spectra of stars vary so much. If all the stars were simply reflections of a single source (this crystal you keep going on about for example) then all stellar spectra would be the same wouldn't they. Reflected light from the same source would produce the same spectral profile.
As it is the spectral lines vary quite considerably. Particularly those of different colours. Whereas stars of the same colour tend to show similar spectral lines. Thus providing evidence that they are each independent sources of light.
So forgive me if I don't buy into light year stars and big rocky moons floating about in space vacuums at the sizes I'm told.
I don't need to forgive you for anything. You can't buy into anything from my point of view because I am not selling anything. I'm just telling you things as they are. Whenever I point out anything I always support it with evidence. It really doesn't matter to me what you choose to buy into. Or not as the case may be.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
Don't forget a few things.
A spirit level and a scope with a crosshair and bring your 100% honesty and let's see the outcome.
Oh...one more thing: You can use any elevation you want to.
You need to be more clear and descriptive than "spirit level and a scope with a crosshair" if you want anyone to try your experiment.
Why don't you perform it and take pictures and share them? Show your designs and setup.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
It just shows the set-up. The whole point of mounting the tube on a spirit level is to make sure it's level. Otherwise, why bother? If I showed an image of the bubble being level you would still say that it was level and tilted for the result. As for a video, I guess I could show a level spirit level then pan and move back around the camera and show the live view on the back of the camera which would show the same thing as here. But I'm sure you would come up with some reason around how our eyes work that makes it appear that way or some other nonsense.
The real question is why you automatically assume it's a fabrication? That's sort of a mystery.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
Again, why do you assume it's fake? Especially without any evidence that it is fake. Can you show us your set-up and results?
-
To the original question, whatever the truth is, that's what I'll accept in the end. My own inquest to understnading has involved a lot of research on anomalous science and supressed inventions and whatnot. The evidence for theories of the unknown and unmentioned facts.
I myself have witnessed a lack of curvature, and i think they try to hide a lot of things from us. So just because someone repeats the common understnading and it's documentation, doesn't convince me they ultimately know what the truth is.
-
Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario, so the fact that they say "in this scenario we use this formula" or certain rules apply - i don't think i am willing to take their word for it when other important things are overlooked in the mainstream litterature.
-
I myself have witnessed a lack of curvature
You keep saying this, but you are yet to substantiate it in any meaningful way.
Just what have you observed that indicates a lack of curvature?
Did you do the math to see just what you should see?
Did you factor refraction into it?
Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario, so the fact that they say "in this scenario we use this formula" or certain rules apply - i don't think i am willing to take their word for it when other important things are overlooked in the mainstream litterature.
Care to provide an example?
The constants typically used are derived by experiment.
As for the formula, they will typically use the simplest formula which gives accurate enough results.
-
Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario, so the fact that they say "in this scenario we use this formula" or certain rules apply - i don't think i am willing to take their word for it when other important things are overlooked in the mainstream litterature.
Now that we live in an age of fake news and alternative facts could you provide an actual example that we could discuss?
-
Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario,
That's what learning is about isn't it? Researching something which isn't immediately obvious? Why does the Sun emit light for example? The reasons are not immediately obvious and were unknown for a long time. We had to discover nuclear physics before we could work out how the Sun could emit so much energy for so long. I'm doing assignments for my solar astrophysics course at the moment and some of the questions involve researching specific topics to quite a deep level before the answers can be identified. To learn anything we must obtain new information from other people whose knowledge or experience is better than ours. We 'take their word' for it because we trust them.
When kids taken their GCSE exams all the information needed to reach an answer is given to them. At A level they have to work out some of the information needed for themselves and part of the learning process involves recognising links between topics which are not obvious at first but become more obvious as you understanding of a topic improves. By the time you get to degree level most of the learning is done by the student. The 'teachers' are simply there to guide.
A lot of things aren't immediately obvious in scientific 'proof' if it was it would be boring and unchallenging. Learning all these things which aren't immediately obvious is what makes it fun.
-
To the original question, whatever the truth is, that's what I'll accept in the end. My own inquest to understnading has involved a lot of research on anomalous science and supressed inventions and whatnot. The evidence for theories of the unknown and unmentioned facts.
I myself have witnessed a lack of curvature, and i think they try to hide a lot of things from us. So just because someone repeats the common understnading and it's documentation, doesn't convince me they ultimately know what the truth is.
I, myself have witnessed a lack of curvature from sea level, which is expected on the accepted size of the earth globe, but I have not experienced increased flatness with increased altitude. There is mountains of evidence earth is a globe and zero evidence to support it is a flat plane.
We are talking about the shape of the planet, upon which billions of humans have walked upon before you came along. If you would prefer to sit on the fence about the size and shape of this planet, I can only wonder what is wrong with you.
-
That is completely true. I was on a cruise recently and during a 'sea day' when the weather was fine and clear with excellent visibility I scanned the horizon in all directions and it looked perfectly flat.
Then I reasoned that the horizon was also the same distance away in all directions and since the rate of curvature on a sphere is constant across its whole surface area I figured that given the very small amount of the total surface area of Earth that you can see at any one time from sea level then that is entirely what you would expect.
As your height increases so too does the amount of surface that you can see so there will come a point where you can start to see evidence of curvature. I agree that given the number of humans have lived on up to now I think we've had more than enough time to work out what the shape of the planet is that we walk on. So either you accept the evidence that is available to all or you don't. Those who don't have to come up with their own suggestions AND provide the evidence to support it.
-
How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?
Suppose you have a roundabout/carousel/merry-go-round - whatever you want to call it. One of those things you find in a children's playground.
Paint a pattern of stars on it.
Have an observer sit on it. Get another observer standing by the trees, some distance away. Now start turning the roundabout very slowly. Once per day. Do the trees start moving? Of course not, they are literally rooted to the spot where they grow. Do the painted stars start moving around, changing position on the roundabout? Of course not.
The trees start moving to the observer on the roundabout and the painted stars on the roundabout will move for the observer in the trees.
They are rooted to the spot...yes....but only for the person rooted to the spot, with them.
Things may appear to rotate for both observers, but if each records a timelapse with a 24h interval between frames, then actually nothing moves at all. By all means speed up the roundabout. Doesn't make any difference. Take a timelapse once per revolution and you can see nothing changes. Each painted star remains in the same position on the roundabout, exactly where it was painted. Each tree remains where it was planted.
It's definitely a case of them appearing to move, as above.
So, basically, you are on your ball Earth that has everything rooted to the spot, as you are....and the so called stars are moving, or your ball is moving.....but.....let's not forget that your Earth is a ball and not a roundabout, unless you want to be arguing this from a flat Earth circle mindset.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to feed me.
The stars behave in the same way. Point a camera at the sky. Take a timelapse, with a frame rate of one (sidereal) day. No star moves. They are all fixed.
In addition, no matter where you move to, how far away you move. The stars won't change position. That's all there is to it. They are fixed. Sure they rotate around the two celestial poles, just like the roundabout or the trees rotate for the respective observers, but nothing changes position.
But the points of light do change position from where you are. They do not stay rooted to a position from the observers view over time, not matter how fast or slow that time is.
It doesn't matter one bit how far away the stars are, what they are made of, whether they are rotating or whether the earth is rotating. All that matters is they are fixed in place and can be used as a reference for comparison with anything else which isn't - such as the moon or the planets.
OK with this now? Shall we move on to step 4?
No I'm obviously not ok with this.
If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.
1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.
We can do this if you want.
2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.
We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.
I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.
Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
Can you share the picture?
Presumably something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.
Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.
You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
-
re your reply #1168 I read nothing in that which changes my position from reply #1154. You are simply setting your own framework about what you accept as proof so you can claim your are right. Anything which falls outside of that framework as far as you are concerned is not proof. That is not how proof works. Proof is proof. Evidence is evidence. Even if it doesn't fall in line with your beliefs.
Fair enough you read books. But why waste your time reading any books if they don't say what you want to believe? Your whole attitude doesn't work for me so until that position changes I have nothing further to say to you.
And this time I do mean it.
Make sure you stick to it.
-
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.
You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. ;D
I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.
Lol! You're doing fine after you brought a basketball close enough to your eye to see it creates a horizon? ;D I don't think you are. That frustrated panic you smell is yourself perspiring heavily. Beads of sweat across your brow.
Good to see you're back, though, crapping all over these fine scientific experiments just as I predicted.
Making stuff up may make you feel good but it adds nothing. Up your game.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.
Show me the truth and stop putting this con job up.
-
If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?
(https://i.imgur.com/V4E1Fg5.png)
The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.
Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?
Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.
In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.
Just to really ram the point home:
(https://i.imgur.com/NLh5tVD.png)
Every component of this frame is pointing towards a single convergence point, including the horizontal string which cuts straight across the two liquid levels. This convergence point is clearly above the extended (yellow) horizon line.
Move the camera up or down a tiny amount and the two liquid levels won't line up. The only way to change the gap between the green line and the yellow extended horizon line is to move the camera up or down, which means you are no longer level.
What is it with you people?
Why start your convergence point from the liquid level in that tube?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4hZi3qL.jpg)
I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.
Think 500ft above the water level will be enough? Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.
Don't forget a few things.
A spirit level and a scope with a crosshair and bring your 100% honesty and let's see the outcome.
Oh...one more thing: You can use any elevation you want to.
You need to be more clear and descriptive than "spirit level and a scope with a crosshair" if you want anyone to try your experiment.
Why don't you perform it and take pictures and share them? Show your designs and setup.
I've made it more than plain.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
It just shows the set-up. The whole point of mounting the tube on a spirit level is to make sure it's level. Otherwise, why bother? If I showed an image of the bubble being level you would still say that it was level and tilted for the result. As for a video, I guess I could show a level spirit level then pan and move back around the camera and show the live view on the back of the camera which would show the same thing as here. But I'm sure you would come up with some reason around how our eyes work that makes it appear that way or some other nonsense.
The real question is why you automatically assume it's a fabrication? That's sort of a mystery.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
Again, why do you assume it's fake? Especially without any evidence that it is fake. Can you show us your set-up and results?
You can easily do your own. I've explained how easy it is and anyone can do it. I'd love to hear from some honest people for a change.
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.
Show me the truth and stop putting this con job up.
Listen, I know you believe no one, and that's fine. But I can assure you this is no "con job". Be that as it may, you have been presented with this evidence which you don't like and think is fake. So now, you need to present us with evidence that refutes this. Will you not present a similar experiment or evidence to show how it is incorrect? As in showing it to be a "con job"?
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.
Show me the truth and stop putting this con job up.
Listen, I know you believe no one, and that's fine. But I can assure you this is no "con job". Be that as it may, you have been presented with this evidence which you don't like and think is fake. So now, you need to present us with evidence that refutes this. Will you not present a similar experiment or evidence to show how it is incorrect? As in showing it to be a "con job"?
I don't need to show you something that you can easily do yourself and prove to yourself.
I'm more than comfortable with what I know. You seem comfortable with trying to show me all kinds of pictures that prove nothing...and you know it. Why?
Why not do the real experiment for yourself?
-
Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.
You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.
It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.
This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.
Show me the truth and stop putting this con job up.
Listen, I know you believe no one, and that's fine. But I can assure you this is no "con job". Be that as it may, you have been presented with this evidence which you don't like and think is fake. So now, you need to present us with evidence that refutes this. Will you not present a similar experiment or evidence to show how it is incorrect? As in showing it to be a "con job"?
I don't need to show you something that you can easily do yourself and prove to yourself.
I'm more than comfortable with what I know. You seem comfortable with trying to show me all kinds of pictures that prove nothing...and you know it. Why?
Why not do the real experiment for yourself?
I think you've missed the point. I was there for the "box" experiment. I saw it for myself. At altitude, the horizon does not rise up to eye level. Literally no one is trying to con you.
I'm saying, I've seen it and a bunch of us have presented documentation of what has been seen. So the ball is in your court.
Or do you just want to leave it that I have presented evidence that shows you are wrong and you have presented nothing showing you are right? I'm cool with that.
-
Sceptimatic, why not take your favourite colored lipstick and draw a big letter "L" on your forehead, or alternatively president Trump's portrait? You've earned it.
You asked for proof and you have been shown proof. The horizon is not another name for the eye line. You've proved you know nothing about perspective.
Cough up an experiment you have done, which proves this planet we walk on, is a giant flat football field with giant lakes, and be done with it. Or are you afraid you'll break the flat earther code by actually doing an experiment, instead of getting all your globalist puppet slaves to do experiments at your beck and call?
Nobody do another single experiment for this narcissistic ego maniac. Let him do an experiment.
-
let's not forget that your Earth is a ball and not a roundabout, unless you want to be arguing this from a flat Earth circle mindset.
It is arguing the relative motion due to the rotation in 2D. It has nothing to do with if Earth is a sphere or a circle, and nothing at all like a FE with a disk spinning above.
But the points of light do change position from where you are.
Which is not the same as them actually moving.
Other than for very accurate measurements or over very long periods of time, the stars, excluding the sun, appear to remain fixed on a giant celestial sphere. The Earth rotates at the centre of the sphere making the stars appear to move for observers on Earth.
Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.
You sure about that? Because so far you have been opposing truth however you can.
Literally dismissing evidence as "cheating" and claiming you will refuse to accept you are wrong, while continually ignoring a logical argument which clearly shows you are wrong and which you are yet to actually challenge.
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
The issue is not one of us not understanding, it is an issue of what you are spouting being pure BS.
People cannot just magically make it not appear level.
Due to how perspective and vanishing points actually work, if the horizon actually was at eye level then you would not be capable of just changing your position to make it appear to not be.
Again, refer to this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/V4E1Fg5.png)
Moving your position up and down would move the water level, but it doesn't simply move it up or down the image. That is the point of the 2 tubes. Instead of both moving by an equal amount, they would move more like those red lines.
If you moved up to make it appear lower, then it would be like the lower red line; and as you are now viewing it from above, it appears to point up.
If instead you move down to make it appear higher, then it would be like the upper red line; and as you are now viewing it from below, it appears to point down.
But what remains, is that it still points to the actual convergence point which is clearly distinct from the horizon.
So the only attempt at a con job is by you, and you would have to be extremely stupid to not see that.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Again, you are describing yourself here.
You are the one repeatedly lying to everyone.
You are the one who can easily test it yourself and clearly see you are wrong.
You are the one trying to con people and lead them away from the truth.
The question is why?
Show me the truth and stop putting this con job up.
Why not just be honest for once and ask us for what you really want?
Why not just directly ask us for blatantly fabricated evidence to prop up your delusional fantasies and completely discard the truth?
You have been presented with the truth repeatedly and made it clear that you have no interest in it at all.
Why don't you provide us with this evidence considering you think it is so easy to obtain, and you clearly have no interest in accepting actual evidence from other people, as it shows you are wrong.
What is it with you people?
Why start your convergence point from the liquid level in that tube?
Yes, what is it with us people, objectively determining where the convergence point is based upon how parallel lines converge, rather than using circular reasoning of assuming it must be the horizon to conclude the horizon is at the convergence point.
Where else would we start it from?
We are clearly demonstrating that the convergence point is not the horizon by showing multiple parallel lines all converging on a point which clearly isn't the horizon.
You can do this for loads of images.
Do you expect us to just accept your blatant lie that the horizon is magically the convergence point for no reason at all other than pure magic and try drawing it from there?
If so, that would be entirely useless for determining if the horizon is the convergence point.
How about you stop with the deflection and explain why the horizon is not at the convergence point and doesn't line up with it at all?
You can easily do your own. I've explained how easy it is and anyone can do it. I'd love to hear from some honest people for a change.
Again, some of us have done it ourselves. It shows you are wrong.
You have heard from plenty of honest people, you just lie about them and reject the truth because it shows you are wrong.
We would love to hear you be honest for once.
Do you actually understand what honesty is?
-
If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.
1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.
We can do this if you want.
2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.
We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.
I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.
Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.
I'm asking you to choose. I know you don't like choosing, but this one is pretty simple. Park the issues, finish going through the method and then return to the issues OR park the method and deal with the issues as they arise. I'm not going to make the choice for you, up to you to tell me which way you would rather go.
We've done the standing in the doorway, after you, no, after you bit. I'm standing here with my arms crossed waiting for you to decide.
-
Go and do it for yourself.
Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.
It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.
Can you share the picture?
Presumably something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.
Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.
You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up. If the observer moves down, then the liquid levels line won't line up. Put one finger in front of another, line them up, then, keeping them in place, move your head up or down. They won't stay lined up. What this shows is, when they were in a line, there was a straight line joining all three points, your eye and your two fingers. Move your head up and the three points can no longer form a straight line.
What this picture shows is that the three points - camera plus two liquid levels - are all in the same straight line. Since the two liquid levels are connected, the two liquid levels are also literally level, they can't be anything else. If there's any doubt about this, fill a tube in a similar way and just put a spirit level alongside. So since the two liquid levels are level and the camera is in the same straight line, the line extending out from the camera across the tops of the liquid is also level and as you extend that out, you clearly see it is above the horizon.
I mean you keep telling us all to perform a similar experiment ourselves and several of us have and we all find the same thing - the horizon is below level. It's the complete opposite of what you are claiming, without any evidence at all.
How do you expect to persuade any of of your truth when you offer nothing other than baseless unsupported claims and in the meantime we've done our own experiments and proved to ourselves what actually happens.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
-
Sceptimatic's throes are getting more desperate, and weak. Like when you throw a Poke ball! First there is fighting, then the shakes becomes less and less, then comes the realization one has been defeated.
-
I think you've missed the point. I was there for the "box" experiment. I saw it for myself. At altitude, the horizon does not rise up to eye level. Literally no one is trying to con you.
I'm saying, I've seen it and a bunch of us have presented documentation of what has been seen. So the ball is in your court.
Or do you just want to leave it that I have presented evidence that shows you are wrong and you have presented nothing showing you are right? I'm cool with that.
I'm not missing any points. I'm well aware of the " I witnessed it scenario and what not.
Don't you want to find the truth or are you happy to just go along with what you were fed?
-
Sceptimatic, why not take your favourite colored lipstick and draw a big letter "L" on your forehead, or alternatively president Trump's portrait? You've earned it.
You asked for proof and you have been shown proof. The horizon is not another name for the eye line. You've proved you know nothing about perspective.
Nobody has shown me any proof. You know this and so does everyone who's tried it on.
Screaming out loud is not a proof and nor is jumping in to simply scream out loud for the rest of your internet buddies, without actually offering anything yourself.
Cough up an experiment you have done, which proves this planet we walk on, is a giant flat football field with giant lakes, and be done with it.
If I thought that, I would...but I don't, so you have a problem.
Or are you afraid you'll break the flat earther code by actually doing an experiment, instead of getting all your globalist puppet slaves to do experiments at your beck and call?
I've shown many an experiment and how people can do them. Try them yourself.
Nobody do another single experiment for this narcissistic ego maniac. Let him do an experiment.
I sense anger and frustration.
You appear to be a bit of an internet bully. My advice to you would be to deck out and save yourself the turmoil.
-
But the points of light do change position from where you are.
Which is not the same as them actually moving.
Other than for very accurate measurements or over very long periods of time, the stars, excluding the sun, appear to remain fixed on a giant celestial sphere. The Earth rotates at the centre of the sphere making the stars appear to move for observers on Earth.
It doesn't matter what appears to move. Something moves, whether that be the person on the roundabout ot the person among the trees looking at the person moving on a roundabout.
Something is moving.
If you look up at points of light, either you are moving with your so called global Earth or the points of light are moving....but.....something is moving.
-
If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.
1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.
We can do this if you want.
2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.
We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.
I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.
Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.
I'm asking you to choose. I know you don't like choosing, but this one is pretty simple. Park the issues, finish going through the method and then return to the issues OR park the method and deal with the issues as they arise. I'm not going to make the choice for you, up to you to tell me which way you would rather go.
We've done the standing in the doorway, after you, no, after you bit. I'm standing here with my arms crossed waiting for you to decide.
Let's deal with it all as we go. Are you afraid to do that?
-
No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up.
Let me make this even more clear.
If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
I have no clue why you're arguing this because you can clearly go and do a legitimate experiment yourself. You have no need to try and convince me of this fakery. I know the reality, 100%.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
-
Sceptimatic's throes are getting more desperate, and weak. Like when you throw a Poke ball! First there is fighting, then the shakes becomes less and less, then comes the realization one has been defeated.
Your input is weak attempts at ad hominem tactics which are so mild they're almost pleasant.
Put some real effort in, instead of trying to be someone who can't be anyone on an internet forum.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
The water in those two tubes are both at the same level, so if you line them up, you are looking perfectly level. That's how it works.
So it looks like you don't know how tubes work. Or water. Or something.
-
Sceptimatic's throes are getting more desperate, and weak. Like when you throw a Poke ball! First there is fighting, then the shakes becomes less and less, then comes the realization one has been defeated.
Your input is weak attempts at ad hominem tactics which are so mild they're almost pleasant.
Put some real effort in, instead of trying to be someone who can't be anyone on an internet forum.
Where are the pics that support what you claim?
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
The water in those two tubes are both at the same level, so if you line them up, you are looking perfectly level. That's how it works.
If you line them up to where?
So it looks like you don't know how tubes work. Or water. Or something.
I know perfectly well how they work. They show a level...a flatness. They sit horizontally opposite from wherever you place them and show a true level.
Guess what I'm saying?
This alone would be hard to do on your globe.....but......but....we will deal with the horizon at EYE LEVEL.
Do you know what EYE LEVEL is?
Understand eye level and you will understand that your horizon......YOUR horizon is always at your eye level.
A genuinely levelled scope with a crosshair......any scope.....even a kitchen roll holder, nice and level and looked through to the horizon, will show it to be level to your eye..................................ALWAYS...................................ALWAYS.
Any height.
-
Prove it.
-
If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.
1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.
We can do this if you want.
2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.
We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.
I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.
Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.
I'm asking you to choose. I know you don't like choosing, but this one is pretty simple. Park the issues, finish going through the method and then return to the issues OR park the method and deal with the issues as they arise. I'm not going to make the choice for you, up to you to tell me which way you would rather go.
We've done the standing in the doorway, after you, no, after you bit. I'm standing here with my arms crossed waiting for you to decide.
Let's deal with it all as we go. Are you afraid to do that?
No, not at all. Quite happy to do that.
-
No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up.
Let me make this even more clear.
If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
I have no clue why you're arguing this because you can clearly go and do a legitimate experiment yourself. You have no need to try and convince me of this fakery. I know the reality, 100%.
The observer is level. Sure the photo is taken from slightly to the side in order for us all to be able to see the levels in both tubes at the same time, but a side to side movement from a level position still leaves you level. The observer/camera cannot move up or down and still be level with the tubes, that's the point.
I've stated several times already that I have done an experiment myself and I know what I saw. If you want to convince me I was somehow mistaken, by all means present some actual evidence rather than just telling me to do my own experiment. I repeat, I have already done my experiment and I know what the result was. I don't need to go and do it again.
-
No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up.
Let me make this even more clear.
If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
I have no clue why you're arguing this because you can clearly go and do a legitimate experiment yourself. You have no need to try and convince me of this fakery. I know the reality, 100%.
The observer is level. Sure the photo is taken from slightly to the side in order for us all to be able to see the levels in both tubes at the same time, but a side to side movement from a level position still leaves you level. The observer/camera cannot move up or down and still be level with the tubes, that's the point.
I've stated several times already that I have done an experiment myself and I know what I saw. If you want to convince me I was somehow mistaken, by all means present some actual evidence rather than just telling me to do my own experiment. I repeat, I have already done my experiment and I know what the result was. I don't need to go and do it again.
I don't need to convince you. If you can't/won't do the simple experiment I gave then you are simply not interested in the truth. You can't be, otherwise you'd do it for you...not for me...or anyone else.
-
No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up.
Let me make this even more clear.
If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
I have no clue why you're arguing this because you can clearly go and do a legitimate experiment yourself. You have no need to try and convince me of this fakery. I know the reality, 100%.
The observer is level. Sure the photo is taken from slightly to the side in order for us all to be able to see the levels in both tubes at the same time, but a side to side movement from a level position still leaves you level. The observer/camera cannot move up or down and still be level with the tubes, that's the point.
I've stated several times already that I have done an experiment myself and I know what I saw. If you want to convince me I was somehow mistaken, by all means present some actual evidence rather than just telling me to do my own experiment. I repeat, I have already done my experiment and I know what the result was. I don't need to go and do it again.
I don't need to convince you. If you can't/won't do the simple experiment I gave then you are simply not interested in the truth. You can't be, otherwise you'd do it for you...not for me...or anyone else.
The simple truth is in my opinion the experiment I've already done is equivalent to the experiment you want me to do, so I simply can't see the point, it would be a complete waste of my time. Furthermore it's perfectly clear that others have done similar experiments and their results agree with mine. In particular you've been shown photographic evidence of an experiment identical to the one you say I should go out and do and you just dismiss it as fake, so it's fair to assume if I do your experiment and take photos to prove it, that you'll call fake on mine as well. It's what you do.
I don't need to convince myself, I've already done my own experiment to my own satisfaction. I know I won't be able to convince you either. I mean you could have a go at convincing me if you like, but your words alone won't budge me as you never offer any evidence to back them up.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
-
I'm not missing any points. I'm well aware of the " I witnessed it scenario and what not.
Don't you want to find the truth or are you happy to just go along with what you were fed?
You seem to be missing the point that so far all the available evidence, and even simple logical thought shows you are completely wrong.
It should be clear by people repeatedly questioning your BS and providing evidence against it that we do care about the truth and aren't happy to just go along with the BS you are trying to feed us.
Nobody has shown me any proof.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence, proof beyond any sane doubt.
And all you have done is repeatedly dismiss it because it shows you are wrong.
I've shown many an experiment and how people can do them. Try them yourself.
You have provided nothing which shows Earth to be flat.
You have outright lied about what you would expect for a RE, had that lie refuted repeatedly, with no objection to the refutation, only for you to continue to repeat that same lie, and provided an experiment which is able to determine if Earth is round or flat, which clearly shows it is round.
You have provided absolutely nothing which actually shows Earth to be flat, or allows people to discover it for themselves.
You appear to be a bit of an internet bully.
No, that would be you.
Repeatedly insulting people who question you, acting like they are ignorant, indoctrinated fools that just accept whatever BS has been told to them who repeatedly lie, with absolutely nothing to back up your allegations.
Let me make this even more clear.
If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
No, lets actually make this more clear:
You are outright lying to everyone here to avoid admitting that reality does not back up your FE delusions, as easily shown by a very simple experiment which you have no rational objection to.
What you are saying is pure BS!
As clearly explained, if it actually lined up with the horizon, then taking the picture from a slight angle would result in the 2 water levels not being the same in the photo and a line connecting them to reach the horizon.
If you look at this water level from above the more distant tube will appear to be higher. This means that a line connecting them would appear to point upwards. This still lines up with the convergence point, which still is not the horizon.
If you look at this water level from below, the more distant tube will appear to be lower. This means that a line connecting them would appear to point upwards. This still lines up with the convergence point, which still is not the horizon.
we will deal with the horizon at EYE LEVEL.
Do you know what EYE LEVEL is?
Do you know what it is?
Because it clearly isn't where the horizon is.
Stop just repeatedly asserting the lies.
Provide evidence to back up your lies and deal with the evidence which exposes them as lies.
And no, not just by dismissing that evidence as a con job, or cheating.
Actually rationally explaining how that alleged conjob was produced, and that means actually addressing the issues with your claims.
Or, provide your own evidence, otherwise, all the available evidence continues to show that the horizon is below eye level.
If you can't/won't do the simple experiment I gave then you are simply not interested in the truth.
Again, plenty of us have done the experiment and it shows you are wrong.
You are the one with no interest in the truth.
You are the one repeatedly lying to us all.
Now why don't you stop with the lies and just admit you are wrong?
-
Hey there! I got here really late to the party :(
I am still working my way through the 41 pages of responses, but seeing the "bookends" makes me feel like this response should be first.
@sceptimatic
I dig it! If I understand you properly, your contention is that with the horizon dead center and level/horizontal through your lens(es) ("horizon drop" and elevation are irrelevant / red herring) - as you zoom in, assuming a sphere earth, the horizon should ultimately disappear as you zoom "beyond" the "physical point" of the horizon (into "empty space"/sky).
The fact that this doesn't happen (the horizon remains a fixed horizontal, never curving, line dividing the lenses as it did initially, until you zoom so far that it all hazes out due to interaction with air/matter) suggests that the plane continues as far as the eye can see, even aided.
@JackBlack
Does the above make sense to you? The "horizon drop" is irrelevant.
@sparks0314
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
A worthy question to ponder earnestly! Most people never seriously consider it.
I am on neither "side". I am a globe skeptic. I don't know what the shape of the entire world is, but I have sufficient evidence that it is not, and likely cannot, be spherical.
For me the best piece of evidence glaringly absent from the "empirical science" of the globe model is the empirical measurement of the (fictional) curvature of water's surface at rest. Water does not curve at rest, and cannot due to its fundamental behavior, in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires, no one has EVER measured that to be the case, and whenever measured - water's surface is always level/horizontal and flat at rest (which is a natural law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries).
If anyone could measure this perpetually calculated (but never measured in the history of humanity) convex curvature of water's surface at rest as required by the globe model - that would do a LOT to getting it a chance to FINALLY become a part of empirical science.
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign.
Then rejoice! You have that "big sign"! The horizon is an optical illusion, the edge of nothing but our vision, and does not curve at any altitude.
As for the curvature you think you witnessed, there are several possibilities :
1. Placebo. It's a hell of a drug! This is, by far, the most common reason that people believe they see the "curve of the earth" in a plane. No curvature exists to the horizon at any altitude, and even those that believe it does calculate that it is impossible to see from any airplane.
2. Optical/lens distortion caused by the plane window / air / etc. This IS what happened on the concorde. Intentionally or otherwise the plane windows were curved to cause the illusion (which, partially by overt advertising to that effect, the customers were paying through the nose for)
3. Physical deformation of the eye/processing. Least likely, but possible!
Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
Get crazy rich and pack warmly! Otherwise (except for the die-hards) give up that fantasy! In any case, the idea that antarctica is, or is a part of, a giant ice wall that encircles the world is merely speculation.
-
I dig it! If I understand you properly, your contention is that with the horizon dead center and level/horizontal through your lens(es) ("horizon drop" and elevation are irrelevant / red herring) - as you zoom in, assuming a sphere earth, the horizon should ultimately disappear as you zoom "beyond" the "physical point" of the horizon (into "empty space"/sky).
The fact that this doesn't happen (the horizon remains a fixed horizontal, never curving, line dividing the lenses as it did initially, until you zoom so far that it all hazes out due to interaction with air/matter) suggest that the plane continues as far as the eye can see, even aided.
This is simply incorrect. Imagine standing on a large table. You can see the edge, it's a line, you can zoom in with a telescope as much as you want and it will remain a line. It won't 'haze out' no matter how powerful of a telescope you have.
Same with a sphere. You can see the edge, it's relatively close to you, so there is no 'hazing out' because that telescope is just magnifying the physical edge you are looking at. No matter how far you zoom in, no matter how big of a telescope, the horizon on a sphere never gets further away. It doesn't vanish.
On an infinite plane you would indeed 'haze out' but that's not what we observe. We see ships sink beyond the horizon, not fade out.
-
@sceptimatic
I dig it! If I understand you properly, your contention is that with the horizon dead center and level/horizontal through your lens(es) ("horizon drop" and elevation are irrelevant / red herring) - as you zoom in, assuming a sphere earth, the horizon should ultimately disappear as you zoom "beyond" the "physical point" of the horizon (into "empty space"/sky).
The fact that this doesn't happen (the horizon remains a fixed horizontal, never curving, line dividing the lenses as it did initially, until you zoom so far that it all hazes out due to interaction with air/matter) suggest that the plane continues as far as the eye can see, even aided.
@JackBlack
Does the above make sense to you? The "horizon drop" is irrelevant.
No, that does not match what he is saying.
He is saying that if Earth is round, if you merely looked out towards the horizon, you would not see it at all and instead would see nothing but sky, which is completely false.
He is saying that the fact you see the horizon at all, instead of nothing but sky indicates Earth is flat, which again is completely false.
He refuses to provide any justification at all for this at all, other than basically repeating his claim and saying Earth curves down.
He refuses to acknowledge that for a RE, the horizon, when viewed from near sea level, will be basically the same as eye level, with it only a tiny bit below.
He refuses to acknowledge that all measurements have some uncertainty and that an observation of a horizon appearing at roughly eye level, does not actually show that it is exactly at eye level and instead allows it to be slightly above or below.
And that also means the horizon drop is extremely relevant.
If your measurement can only tell if the horizon is within a degree of level, and the RE should have it a mere 2.4 arc seconds below level, then you cannot tell the difference. You observation matches the RE.
So your claim that it is irrelevant does not make any sense at all, especially with the evidence which shows the horizon is below eye level.
That also means the last part isn't a fact either. The fact is that the horizon is observed to be below eye level.
And no, typically the horizon does not haze out due to light passing through the air. Typically by the time that is an issue you are high enough to see it clearly below level (and the fact that it is observed to be below eye-level is irrefutable, backed up by mountains of evidence and with no objection other than dismissing it as fake).
Instead, what typically makes it blurry is a limitation of the optics used.
For me the best piece of evidence glaringly absent from the "empirical science" of the globe model is the empirical measurement of the (fictional) curvature of water's surface at rest.
Do you mean the very real observations and measurements?
A simple qualitative one is an observation of a distant object which is above the water level, with you also above the water level.
Somehow the bottom of the object is obstructed, as if the water has curved to block the view.
Or do you mean at the small scale, where it is observed to curve at the edge of a container?
Water does not curve at rest, and cannot due to its fundamental behavior
What fundamental behaviour would that be? Do you mean how it adopts a level surface to minimise energy?
Noting that "level" is fundamentally distinct from "flat"?
Such that due to gravity, and Earth's rotation it adopts a roughly oblate spheroid shape, just as observed in reality?
in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires, no one has EVER measured that to be the case
You mean no one has ever measured it to not be the case.
I am yet to see a single actual measurement of the surface of water at rest which indicates it does not curve to follow Earth.
water's surface is always level/horizontal and flat at rest (which is a natural law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries).
Pure nonsense.
While you are correct that it remains level, that is not horizontal, nor is it flat.
All it takes is a simple observation of water in a thin tube, where it curves at the edge to see that.
Another observation you can do is look a droplet of water on a waxy surface.
Notice how it isn't flat?
It has been centuries since capillary action was first recorded.
Likewise, it has been known that Earth is curved, and that water follows this curve for centuries.
And both of these have stood unchallenged for centuries. (and no, people just dismissing it isn't actually challenging it, challenging it would be providing evidence which shows it is false)
There is no law of hydrostatics which demands that water remains flat or horizontal.
Then rejoice! You have that "big sign"! The horizon is an optical illusion, the edge of nothing but our vision, and does not curve at any altitude.
What causes this magical limit to our vision?
Why can we see past it, rather than objects disappearing from vision as soon as they cross that threshold, rather than disappearing from the bottom up?
How does this magically lower objects, such that it appears that the bottom is obscured by the water? Why don't we just get a region of darkness instead?
Why does the distance to it vary depending on altitude?
Why doesn't the distance to it vary depend on optics used to measure it?
And that still isn't observing Earth to be flat. Observing Earth to be flat would be seeing all the way to the edge.
For example, when I look at a flat table, from above, I can see all the way to the edge of the table, seeing basically everything on it.
But with Earth, instead of seeing that, we can only see a small portion, with that matching what you would expect for a RE.
As for the curvature you think you witnessed, there are several possibilities :
The simplest, and most likely of which is that Earth is in fact round.
Meanwhile, the alleged flatness you think you have observed is due to the curvature being in a direction which is intrinsically difficult to actually observe, and due to just how small the curvature is.
-
The simple truth is in my opinion the experiment I've already done is equivalent to the experiment you want me to do, so I simply can't see the point, it would be a complete waste of my time.
Don't bother doing it then. The experiment is only for yourself. It has no bearing on me so feel free to shy away from it.
Furthermore it's perfectly clear that others have done similar experiments and their results agree with mine.
Yep, similar or the same experiments that mean absolutely nothing are are absolutely bogus....and I believe you know this.
In particular you've been shown photographic evidence of an experiment identical to the one you say I should go out and do and you just dismiss it as fake, so it's fair to assume if I do your experiment and take photos to prove it, that you'll call fake on mine as well. It's what you do.
If you do it correctly I won't need to call fake. You know this.
I don't need to convince myself, I've already done my own experiment to my own satisfaction. I know I won't be able to convince you either. I mean you could have a go at convincing me if you like, but your words alone won't budge me as you never offer any evidence to back them up.
You can easily convince me if you show a definite. A fact. A legitimate, provable showing of what I've asked.
If you don't want to do that then, like I said, don't waste your own time.
I'm not waiting on you for any proof. I know the proof for myself. You would be well served by proving it to yourself by your own hands instead of hanging on to other people's bogus garbage and passing it off as your own.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
Read what I've said and absorb it for a while.
I'm sure you can understand what's been said instead of adding in your own version of what it means.
-
we will deal with the horizon at EYE LEVEL.
Do you know what EYE LEVEL is?
Do you know what it is?
Because it clearly isn't where the horizon is.
Stop just repeatedly asserting the lies.
When you understand there is no horizon unless you make it your horizon, with your own vision, only then will you understand why it has to be eye level.
For a supposed scientists who apparently knows everything about everything, somehow, you seem to fail at understanding the basics of everything.
-
Hey there! I got here really late to the party :(
I am still working my way through the 41 pages of responses, but seeing the "bookends" makes me feel like this response should be first.
@sceptimatic
I dig it! If I understand you properly, your contention is that with the horizon dead center and level/horizontal through your lens(es) ("horizon drop" and elevation are irrelevant / red herring) - as you zoom in, assuming a sphere earth, the horizon should ultimately disappear as you zoom "beyond" the "physical point" of the horizon (into "empty space"/sky).
The fact that this doesn't happen (the horizon remains a fixed horizontal, never curving, line dividing the lenses as it did initially, until you zoom so far that it all hazes out due to interaction with air/matter) suggest that the plane continues as far as the eye can see, even aided.
Yep. It's basic and simple to grasp, right?
Yet too many people are unwilling to engage logic to it because the global Earth has been battered and bullied into our heads from almost the cradle.
Mass indoctrination is a powerful tool against those who question it.
@JackBlack
Does the above make sense to you? The "horizon drop" is irrelevant.
@sparks0314
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
A worthy question to ponder earnestly! Most people never seriously consider it.
I am on neither "side". I am a globe skeptic. I don't know what the shape of the entire world is, but I have sufficient evidence that it is not, and likely cannot, be spherical.
For me the best piece of evidence glaringly absent from the "empirical science" of the globe model is the empirical measurement of the (fictional) curvature of water's surface at rest. Water does not curve at rest, and cannot due to its fundamental behavior, in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires, no one has EVER measured that to be the case, and whenever measured - water's surface is always level/horizontal and flat at rest (which is a natural law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries).
If anyone could measure this perpetually calculated (but never measured in the history of humanity) convex curvature of water's surface at rest as required by the globe model - that would do a LOT to getting it a chance to FINALLY become a part of empirical science.
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign.
Then rejoice! You have that "big sign"! The horizon is an optical illusion, the edge of nothing but our vision, and does not curve at any altitude.
As for the curvature you think you witnessed, there are several possibilities :
1. Placebo. It's a hell of a drug! This is, by far, the most common reason that people believe they see the "curve of the earth" in a plane. No curvature exists to the horizon at any altitude, and even those that believe it does calculate that it is impossible to see from any airplane.
2. Optical/lens distortion caused by the plane window / air / etc. This IS what happened on the concorde. Intentionally or otherwise the plane windows were curved to cause the illusion (which, partially by overt advertising to that effect, the customers were paying through the nose for)
3. Physical deformation of the eye/processing. Least likely, but possible!
Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
Get crazy rich and pack warmly! Otherwise (except for the die-hards) give up that fantasy! In any case, the idea that antarctica is, or is a part of, a giant ice wall that encircles the world is merely speculation.
Bravo for a really good post.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
So simple to understand and yet people still believe we walk about on a oblate spheroid.
You cannot have it both ways and you should all be well aware of this.
-
If you do it correctly I won't need to call fake. You know this.
You mean if it shows you are wrong you will call it fake, and it is only if it agrees with you you wont.
Again, this shows you have no interest in the truth and no interest in accepting that you are wrong.
When done correctly, it shows you are wrong, yet you still call it fake.
You can easily convince me if you show a definite. A fact. A legitimate, provable showing of what I've asked.
Stop lying.
You have no interest in ever accepting that you are wrong, and literally nothing will convince you that you are wrong.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence that you are wrong which you simply dismiss.
You have been provided with a logical argument which proves you are wrong, not just is evidence which supports you being wrong, but literally proves you are wrong, and you just ignore it.
When you understand there is no horizon...
So when I understand pure delusional BS?
No thanks. I will stick to reality.
You have provided no justification at all for why the horizon needs to magically be at eye level and have been provided proof that it is not at eye level.
If you actually understood what the horizon is, you would understand it does not need to be at eye level, as clearly shown by the logical argument you are yet to refute.
Once more, the horizon is the edge of the round Earth.
Just like a ball has an edge, which produces a "horizon", so does the round Earth.
For a supposed scientists who apparently knows everything about everything, somehow, you seem to fail at understanding the basics of everything.
Not accepting your BS doesn't mean I don't understand. It means I see through your BS.
If it truly was my lack of understanding you would be able to rationally respond to what I have said rather than continually ignoring it.
Here are the issues you are still yet to address:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
Here is an example of one of the logical arguments you are yet to engage with in any meaningful way, which clearly shows beyond any doubt that YOU ARE WRONG:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Again, if I truly didn't understand, rather than it just being you repeatedly spouting BS, you would easily address these issues and show just what is wrong with the logical argument. But I suspect you will deflect yet again.
Grow up.
Yep. It's basic and simple to grasp, right?
Yet too many people are unwilling to engage logic
Yep, people like you completely unwilling to use or engage with logic, as it shows you are wrong, beyond any sane doubt.
Instead you just try to bully others into submission, insulting them and suggesting they can't understand simple concepts and dismissing all evidence that shows you are wrong as fake.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You mean which you have repeatedly lied about, by repeating the same lie that it wouldn't be seen, the same lie which has been refuted countless times.
Stop just repeating the same lie and actually attempt to justify it and deal with the refutation of it.
-
The simple truth is in my opinion the experiment I've already done is equivalent to the experiment you want me to do, so I simply can't see the point, it would be a complete waste of my time.
Don't bother doing it then. The experiment is only for yourself. It has no bearing on me so feel free to shy away from it.
Even if I wanted to right now, I couldn't, due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. But since I'm 100% convinced that your experiment would give me the same result as my own earlier experiment, I wouldn't bother anyway.
Furthermore it's perfectly clear that others have done similar experiments and their results agree with mine.
Yep, similar or the same experiments that mean absolutely nothing are are absolutely bogus....and I believe you know this.
In particular you've been shown photographic evidence of an experiment identical to the one you say I should go out and do and you just dismiss it as fake, so it's fair to assume if I do your experiment and take photos to prove it, that you'll call fake on mine as well. It's what you do.
If you do it correctly I won't need to call fake. You know this.
I can assure you I don't know or believe this one bit. You are essentially asserting I know the earth is flat and for some bizarre reason am trying to claim the opposite. No idea why you would think that. I do believe that there are some fake FE people on YouTube who know full well that the earth is round, but have made money and become somewhat well known with their videos, but I hardly think lurking on here and debating with you is going to lead to fame or fortune, so what reason would I have to do this?
I do however give you the benefit of doubt and think you are genuinely a FEer and not a troll. Wrong, but not a troll.
I don't need to convince myself, I've already done my own experiment to my own satisfaction. I know I won't be able to convince you either. I mean you could have a go at convincing me if you like, but your words alone won't budge me as you never offer any evidence to back them up.
You can easily convince me if you show a definite. A fact. A legitimate, provable showing of what I've asked.
If you don't want to do that then, like I said, don't waste your own time.
I'm not waiting on you for any proof. I know the proof for myself. You would be well served by proving it to yourself by your own hands instead of hanging on to other people's bogus garbage and passing it off as your own.
Nah, you've dismissed other evidence is fake, I'm totally convinced you'd do the same if I presented some to you. I don't mind wasting a bit of time with diagrams and maths and stuff, I quite enjoy it, but not going to all the trouble of repeating a time consuming experiment others have already done and you've already dismissed out of hand.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
So simple to understand and yet people still believe we walk about on a oblate spheroid.
You cannot have it both ways and you should all be well aware of this.
Sceptimatic, nobody here is asking for it both ways. The curve downwards we experience standing on the planet, is a lot less obvious compared to standing on a beach ball. You forget the size difference between a human and this planet. You also forget, most of us are trained in perspective.
It's true the height of the horizon line always corresponding to the observer's eye, is determined by the latter's position. But it's false this is proof the earth is flat.
Would you care to pass comment on the circularity of the horizon line, as seen by a sailor or traveller on the open sea? By being on a ship's top deck and scribing a complete turn, one can notice the circularity of the horizon.
You also need to factor in that the visual field of the human eye, is about 30 percent. This means when we look at the horizon, we distinctly only see a part of it - that which is directly opposite us - which appears straight.
However, the horizon would still appear straight, even if we could embrace the whole of it in one glance. The reason being that the circularity of the horizon is always on the level of the human eye.
Experiment time:
A child playing with a hula hoop, lifts it up, and brings it level with his eyes, with his head in the centre. He will no longer see the uniform curve of the hoop, but a straight line - just like the horizon.
Go ahead and try it, sceptimatic. Be a daredevil!
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
Read what I've said and absorb it for a while.
I'm sure you can understand what's been said instead of adding in your own version of what it means.
Well I quoted your own words. If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said something else.
Come back when you understand how two objects line up.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
This is amazing.
At what point would you expect to not see the water and start seeing sky?
I mean the horizon line is literally where you cease to see water and see sky.
Have you ever seen an orange or a watermelon or a ball?
Do you expect to see the backside of the ball?
-
I really wasn't going to add anything further to this discussion but after reading Sceptimatics most recent posts I felt compelled to reply in order to express my appreciation. During a time when the world is otherwise so full of doom and gloom at the moment we all need something to make us smile for a change and help us escape the reality of how the world is at present. Sceptimatics latest posts do just that. So my thanks for helping me smile for a change.
It's a bit like watching a film or reading a novel where you can escape reality for a short period of time and just let your imagination go with it and enjoy whatever you see or read.
I guess the difference between Sceptimatic and everyone else is that we can differentiate or distinguish between what is real and what is simply a product of ones imagination.
-
Another beautiful feature of our planet, is the horizon is always the same distance from the observer, in all directions, dependant on the observer's height. This is how and why the horizon calculator is so accurate. The horizon is equidistant from every observer on the planet at all times.
If the earth were flat, people would report seeing the horizon closer, the closer you get to the edge, or the dome, and further away in the opposite direction. That has never happened to anybody - ever.
-
The simple truth is in my opinion the experiment I've already done is equivalent to the experiment you want me to do, so I simply can't see the point, it would be a complete waste of my time.
Don't bother doing it then. The experiment is only for yourself. It has no bearing on me so feel free to shy away from it.
Even if I wanted to right now, I couldn't, due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. But since I'm 100% convinced that your experiment would give me the same result as my own earlier experiment, I wouldn't bother anyway.
Furthermore it's perfectly clear that others have done similar experiments and their results agree with mine.
Yep, similar or the same experiments that mean absolutely nothing are are absolutely bogus....and I believe you know this.
In particular you've been shown photographic evidence of an experiment identical to the one you say I should go out and do and you just dismiss it as fake, so it's fair to assume if I do your experiment and take photos to prove it, that you'll call fake on mine as well. It's what you do.
If you do it correctly I won't need to call fake. You know this.
I can assure you I don't know or believe this one bit. You are essentially asserting I know the earth is flat and for some bizarre reason am trying to claim the opposite. No idea why you would think that. I do believe that there are some fake FE people on YouTube who know full well that the earth is round, but have made money and become somewhat well known with their videos, but I hardly think lurking on here and debating with you is going to lead to fame or fortune, so what reason would I have to do this?
I do however give you the benefit of doubt and think you are genuinely a FEer and not a troll. Wrong, but not a troll.
I don't need to convince myself, I've already done my own experiment to my own satisfaction. I know I won't be able to convince you either. I mean you could have a go at convincing me if you like, but your words alone won't budge me as you never offer any evidence to back them up.
You can easily convince me if you show a definite. A fact. A legitimate, provable showing of what I've asked.
If you don't want to do that then, like I said, don't waste your own time.
I'm not waiting on you for any proof. I know the proof for myself. You would be well served by proving it to yourself by your own hands instead of hanging on to other people's bogus garbage and passing it off as your own.
Nah, you've dismissed other evidence is fake, I'm totally convinced you'd do the same if I presented some to you. I don't mind wasting a bit of time with diagrams and maths and stuff, I quite enjoy it, but not going to all the trouble of repeating a time consuming experiment others have already done and you've already dismissed out of hand.
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
You mention evidence but evidence is neither here nor there in terms of being factual.
You could have evidence that someone keeps peeking from behind curtains in a home but never see the person. You can assume it is a person based on what you view as your evidence.....but is it a fact?
Now you may think this is a trivial thing I've put....but the same principle applies to everything that is put forward about your globe and....if you be honest, you will accept this to be the case.
You're obviously well within your rights to follow the model handed to you on a plate.....and, yes, it has been handed to you on a plate, as it has been to just about all of us. You choose to accept it based on the so called evidence that is pushed as factual but something you do not know to actually be that.
-
Sceptimatic, nobody here is asking for it both ways. The curve downwards we experience standing on the planet, is a lot less obvious compared to standing on a beach ball. You forget the size difference between a human and this planet. You also forget, most of us are trained in perspective.
It's true the height of the horizon line always corresponding to the observer's eye, is determined by the latter's position. But it's false this is proof the earth is flat.
Would you care to pass comment on the circularity of the horizon line, as seen by a sailor or traveller on the open sea? By being on a ship's top deck and scribing a complete turn, one can notice the circularity of the horizon.
You also need to factor in that the visual field of the human eye, is about 30 percent. This means when we look at the horizon, we distinctly only see a part of it - that which is directly opposite us - which appears straight.
This is the exact point I'm making. The distance we all see, individuually, is our very own horizon line due to that convergence of our very own sight.
It has to be level. It cannot be anything else.
However, the horizon would still appear straight, even if we could embrace the whole of it in one glance. The reason being that the circularity of the horizon is always on the level of the human eye.
It's got nothing to with circular, it's got everything to do with convergence over distance of vision to each person.
The mere FRACT that there is a convergence kills off the global model, stone dead. Stone dead.
Experiment time:
A child playing with a hula hoop, lifts it up, and brings it level with his eyes, with his head in the centre. He will no longer see the uniform curve of the hoop, but a straight line - just like the horizon.
Go ahead and try it, sceptimatic. Be a daredevil!
This makes no sense in terms of trying to use a hula hoops against what we actually do see.
Try again, go on, be a daredevil.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
Read what I've said and absorb it for a while.
I'm sure you can understand what's been said instead of adding in your own version of what it means.
Well I quoted your own words. If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said something else.
Come back when you understand how two objects line up.
You quoted what I said and used it in a different context. Pay attention or come back when you're capable.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
This is amazing.
At what point would you expect to not see the water and start seeing sky?
I mean the horizon line is literally where you cease to see water and see sky.
Have you ever seen an orange or a watermelon or a ball?
Do you expect to see the backside of the ball?
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
-
Another beautiful feature of our planet, is the horizon is always the same distance from the observer, in all directions, dependant on the observer's height. This is how and why the horizon calculator is so accurate. The horizon is equidistant from every observer on the planet at all times.
If the earth were flat, people would report seeing the horizon closer, the closer you get to the edge, or the dome, and further away in the opposite direction. That has never happened to anybody - ever.
Nope. The horizon is your very own convergence. It has nothing to do with Earth size and everything to do with how far you can see before that convergence (horizon line).
You can see much farther before full convergence (horizon line) the more elevated to get due to a little less atmosphere to impede your view and also the angle of your view without looking for your horizon line can ensure you see objects you wouldn't normally have been able to see if you were stood on a level ground looking through more densely packed atmosphere.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
This is amazing.
At what point would you expect to not see the water and start seeing sky?
I mean the horizon line is literally where you cease to see water and see sky.
Have you ever seen an orange or a watermelon or a ball?
Do you expect to see the backside of the ball?
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
Yes
Wheres rab?
I need his copy paste.
RIP.
maybe you could answer what a "round earth horizon" should look like to educate the rest of us?
-
Sceptimatic, nobody here is asking for it both ways. The curve downwards we experience standing on the planet, is a lot less obvious compared to standing on a beach ball. You forget the size difference between a human and this planet. You also forget, most of us are trained in perspective.
It's true the height of the horizon line always corresponding to the observer's eye, is determined by the latter's position. But it's false this is proof the earth is flat.
Would you care to pass comment on the circularity of the horizon line, as seen by a sailor or traveller on the open sea? By being on a ship's top deck and scribing a complete turn, one can notice the circularity of the horizon.
You also need to factor in that the visual field of the human eye, is about 30 percent. This means when we look at the horizon, we distinctly only see a part of it - that which is directly opposite us - which appears straight.
This is the exact point I'm making. The distance we all see, individuually, is our very own horizon line due to that convergence of our very own sight.
It has to be level. It cannot be anything else.
However, the horizon would still appear straight, even if we could embrace the whole of it in one glance. The reason being that the circularity of the horizon is always on the level of the human eye.
It's got nothing to with circular, it's got everything to do with convergence over distance of vision to each person.
The mere FRACT that there is a convergence kills off the global model, stone dead. Stone dead.
Experiment time:
A child playing with a hula hoop, lifts it up, and brings it level with his eyes, with his head in the centre. He will no longer see the uniform curve of the hoop, but a straight line - just like the horizon.
Go ahead and try it, sceptimatic. Be a daredevil!
This makes no sense in terms of trying to use a hula hoops against what we actually do see.
Try again, go on, be a daredevil.
On the contrary. It makes perfect sense in terms of what we actually do see.
It is more evident out at sea where the seascape is stripped bare of mountains, valleys, hills, etc., and buildings like you get on the land.
Whenever we look at the horizon, it is like we are standing in the centre of our own personal giant hula hoop at eye level. Because it is at eye level, we see it as a straight line. We don't see the circulature.
The circulature goes hand in hand with the fact Earth is a sphere.
Have you tested the earth horizon calculator, sceptimatic? Being a lover of the horizon like you are, I expect you have.......
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
This is amazing.
At what point would you expect to not see the water and start seeing sky?
I mean the horizon line is literally where you cease to see water and see sky.
Have you ever seen an orange or a watermelon or a ball?
Do you expect to see the backside of the ball?
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
Yes
Wheres rab?
I need his copy paste.
RIP.
maybe you could answer what a "round earth horizon" should look like to educate the rest of us?
Do you mean your global Earth?
-
Sceptimatic, nobody here is asking for it both ways. The curve downwards we experience standing on the planet, is a lot less obvious compared to standing on a beach ball. You forget the size difference between a human and this planet. You also forget, most of us are trained in perspective.
It's true the height of the horizon line always corresponding to the observer's eye, is determined by the latter's position. But it's false this is proof the earth is flat.
Would you care to pass comment on the circularity of the horizon line, as seen by a sailor or traveller on the open sea? By being on a ship's top deck and scribing a complete turn, one can notice the circularity of the horizon.
You also need to factor in that the visual field of the human eye, is about 30 percent. This means when we look at the horizon, we distinctly only see a part of it - that which is directly opposite us - which appears straight.
This is the exact point I'm making. The distance we all see, individuually, is our very own horizon line due to that convergence of our very own sight.
It has to be level. It cannot be anything else.
However, the horizon would still appear straight, even if we could embrace the whole of it in one glance. The reason being that the circularity of the horizon is always on the level of the human eye.
It's got nothing to with circular, it's got everything to do with convergence over distance of vision to each person.
The mere FRACT that there is a convergence kills off the global model, stone dead. Stone dead.
Experiment time:
A child playing with a hula hoop, lifts it up, and brings it level with his eyes, with his head in the centre. He will no longer see the uniform curve of the hoop, but a straight line - just like the horizon.
Go ahead and try it, sceptimatic. Be a daredevil!
This makes no sense in terms of trying to use a hula hoops against what we actually do see.
Try again, go on, be a daredevil.
On the contrary. It makes perfect sense in terms of what we actually do see.
It is more evident out at sea where the seascape is stripped bare of mountains, valleys, hills, etc., and buildings like you get on the land.
Whenever we look at the horizon, it is like we are standing in the centre of our own personal giant hula hoop at eye level. Because it is at eye level, we see it as a straight line. We don't see the circulature.
The circulature goes hand in hand with the fact Earth is a sphere.
Have you tested the earth horizon calculator, sceptimatic? Being a lover of the horizon like you are, I expect you have.......
It's nothing like standing inside a hula hoop and seeing hula hoop edging/rim.
And using a hula hoop as your sphere just makes it even more silly.
-
Another beautiful feature of our planet, is the horizon is always the same distance from the observer, in all directions, dependant on the observer's height. This is how and why the horizon calculator is so accurate. The horizon is equidistant from every observer on the planet at all times.
If the earth were flat, people would report seeing the horizon closer, the closer you get to the edge, or the dome, and further away in the opposite direction. That has never happened to anybody - ever.
Nope. The horizon is your very own convergence. It has nothing to do with Earth size and everything to do with how far you can see before that convergence (horizon line).
You can see much farther before full convergence (horizon line) the more elevated to get due to a little less atmosphere to impede your view and also the angle of your view without looking for your horizon line can ensure you see objects you wouldn't normally have been able to see if you were stood on a level ground looking through more densely packed atmosphere.
Be a big boy and go to your local toy shop and buy yourself a hula hoop and test it.
Your distance to the horizon, where lines around you converge, has everything to do altitude. Distance of eye level above the ground. You put too much weight on the atmosphere being most dense at sea level and creating increased convergence. That's the pseudo scientist in you talking. It has no basis in reality.
-
Another beautiful feature of our planet, is the horizon is always the same distance from the observer, in all directions, dependant on the observer's height. This is how and why the horizon calculator is so accurate. The horizon is equidistant from every observer on the planet at all times.
If the earth were flat, people would report seeing the horizon closer, the closer you get to the edge, or the dome, and further away in the opposite direction. That has never happened to anybody - ever.
Nope. The horizon is your very own convergence. It has nothing to do with Earth size and everything to do with how far you can see before that convergence (horizon line).
You can see much farther before full convergence (horizon line) the more elevated to get due to a little less atmosphere to impede your view and also the angle of your view without looking for your horizon line can ensure you see objects you wouldn't normally have been able to see if you were stood on a level ground looking through more densely packed atmosphere.
Be a big boy and go to your local toy shop and buy yourself a hula hoop and test it.
Test what?
-
Another beautiful feature of our planet, is the horizon is always the same distance from the observer, in all directions, dependant on the observer's height. This is how and why the horizon calculator is so accurate. The horizon is equidistant from every observer on the planet at all times.
If the earth were flat, people would report seeing the horizon closer, the closer you get to the edge, or the dome, and further away in the opposite direction. That has never happened to anybody - ever.
Nope. The horizon is your very own convergence. It has nothing to do with Earth size and everything to do with how far you can see before that convergence (horizon line).
You can see much farther before full convergence (horizon line) the more elevated to get due to a little less atmosphere to impede your view and also the angle of your view without looking for your horizon line can ensure you see objects you wouldn't normally have been able to see if you were stood on a level ground looking through more densely packed atmosphere.
Be a big boy and go to your local toy shop and buy yourself a hula hoop and test it.
Test what?
Test that the curve of a circle can be observed as a straight, horizontal line, as it is with the horizon.
Circles are also important in the study of longitude and latitude of this planet. Great circles and small circles help summarise latitude and longitude. A great circle is any circle of earth's circumference whose centre coincides with the center of the earth. Every meridian is one-half of a great circle that passes through the poles. Only one parallel is a great circle - the equatorial parallel. Small circles on the other hand, splits the globe into unequal sections.
I may seem to be off-topic, but am I? If we are going to talk about geography, we'd might as well sprinkle it with actual useful information.
It's not my fault "flat earth" is another way of declaring denial of the scientific method. The scientific method involves the application of common sense in an organized and objective manner.
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
Yes, you have the right to lie as much as you want, and we have the right to call you out on those lies.
You mention evidence but evidence is neither here nor there in terms of being factual.
Meanwhile, I provided an irrefutable logical argument you just repeatedly ignore.
Do you keep ignoring it because you can't just dismiss it as fake as instead of being evidence it is an actual proof that you are wrong?
You're obviously well within your rights to follow the model handed to you on a plate.....and, yes, it has been handed to you on a plate, as it has been to just about all of us. You choose to accept it based on the so called evidence that is pushed as factual but something you do not know to actually be that.
Stop lying.
We accept it based upon the mountains of evidence to support it, some of which we have obtained ourselves, some of which clearly refutes the idea that Earth is flat.
Stop acting like we are just accepting whatever BS we are told. If we were doing that, we would accept your BS.
This is the exact point I'm making. The distance we all see, individuually, is our very own horizon line due to that convergence of our very own sight.
Yes, that is one of the many lies you keep repeating, but it is just that, a lie.
We can see objects beyond the horizon, so it clearly isn't some magical limit to vision.
We can also use various tools which enhance our ability to see, and they cannot get any further past the horizon than we can, so it clearly isn't some magical limit to vision.
It has to be level. It cannot be anything else.
Except as repeatedly shown, it can be and is.
You are yet to provide any justification for why it magically must be level. Meanwhile, an irrefutable argument has been provided to you which shows it does not need to be level.
The mere FRACT that there is a convergence kills off the global model, stone dead. Stone dead.
No, it doesn't.
That is simply perspective. It in no way refutes the RE.
However the fact that level parallel lines converge above the horizon shows that Earth is not flat, and that the horizon is not the convergence point.
So rather than killing off the globe, convergence kills your BS.
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
While not him, I think I can answer for him, that is pretty much what it is.
It is the edge of Earth, below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky.
Just like if you pick up any ball, there is an edge, "below" which you see the ball, and "above" which you see the area around the ball.
The horizon is your very own convergence. It has nothing to do with Earth size and everything to do with how far you can see before that convergence (horizon line).
Stop just repeating the same lies.
It clearly has nothing to do with the convergence point, as it is clearly observed to be below the convergence point.
It clearly has nothing to do with the convergence point as optics which magnify things or with better resolution do not allow you to see further.
It clearly has nothing to do with the convergence point as objects don't merely shrink as they approach a horizon infinitely far away, instead they go over the horizon and disappear from the bottom up.
You can see much farther before full convergence (horizon line) the more elevated to get due to a little less atmosphere to impede your view
This directly contradicts the idea of it being the convergence point.
The atmosphere making it hard to see through doesn't magically bring the convergence point closer.
Looking around on a foggy day is all that is needed to realise that.
While you can't see as far, parallel lines don't magically converge much closer, and instead of a clear horizon line, there is just a blur where the ground/sea blurs into sky.
also the angle of your view without looking for your horizon line can ensure you see objects you wouldn't normally have been able to see if you were stood on a level ground looking through more densely packed atmosphere.
And if that was the case optics would make it further away, but they don't.
The distance to the horizon doesn't depend upon what you use to view the horizon. Instead it depends upon your height, because the horizon is due to the curvature of Earth, and the land/sea beyond the horizon (and level with it) is blocked by the horizon.
Now again, care to grow up and address the multitude of issues facing your lies, including the logical arguments which irrefutably show you are wrong?
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
Here is an example of one of the logical arguments you are yet to engage with in any meaningful way, which clearly shows beyond any doubt that YOU ARE WRONG:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Again, if I truly didn't understand, rather than it just being you repeatedly spouting BS, you would easily address these issues and show just what is wrong with the logical argument. But I suspect you will deflect yet again.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
Read what I've said and absorb it for a while.
I'm sure you can understand what's been said instead of adding in your own version of what it means.
Well I quoted your own words. If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said something else.
Come back when you understand how two objects line up.
You quoted what I said and used it in a different context. Pay attention or come back when you're capable.
And why context was that? Why don't you just simply state what your mean and the context instead of saying things and then claiming you didn't really mean it.
Tell us what you really meant when you said this. "That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job."
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
Read what I've said and absorb it for a while.
I'm sure you can understand what's been said instead of adding in your own version of what it means.
Well I quoted your own words. If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said something else.
Come back when you understand how two objects line up.
You quoted what I said and used it in a different context. Pay attention or come back when you're capable.
And why context was that? Why don't you just simply state what your mean and the context instead of saying things and then claiming you didn't really mean it.
Tell us what you really meant when you said this. "That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job."
You know fine well what I'm on about. Keep pretending not to if you feel the need.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
This is amazing.
At what point would you expect to not see the water and start seeing sky?
I mean the horizon line is literally where you cease to see water and see sky.
Have you ever seen an orange or a watermelon or a ball?
Do you expect to see the backside of the ball?
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
Yes
Wheres rab?
I need his copy paste.
RIP.
maybe you could answer what a "round earth horizon" should look like to educate the rest of us?
Do you mean your global Earth?
Yes
Quit stalling.
Actually answer some questions for once.
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
-
Many of you globalists have argued against the laser line across a lake, saying it will not hit a level point on the otehr side and argue the Earth curves down.
You then destroy your own argument with the horizon, which I've explained, could not be an horizon in this scenario due to your argument for a curve downwards.
You would lose your water and see sky but you clearly do not lose water and always see water and sky (taking land out of the equation)
This is amazing.
At what point would you expect to not see the water and start seeing sky?
I mean the horizon line is literally where you cease to see water and see sky.
Have you ever seen an orange or a watermelon or a ball?
Do you expect to see the backside of the ball?
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
Yes
Wheres rab?
I need his copy paste.
RIP.
maybe you could answer what a "round earth horizon" should look like to educate the rest of us?
Do you mean your global Earth?
Yes
Quit stalling.
Actually answer some questions for once.
I answer all of them but I must make sure you mean global Earth when you mention, round.
I can't actually answer what a global Earth horizon would be like for two reasons.
1. The Earth is not a globe.
2. There would be no horizon on a sphere.
-
Why not?
You could try and model it to see if model matches reality.
-
Why not?
You could try and model it to see if model matches reality.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
-
Why not?
You could try and model it to see if model matches reality.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
This is amazing!
Im not sure what youre talking about here.
What ground or side are you expecting to see?
If you were at the bottom of a hill and look at the peak, do you expect to see the back side of the hill?
-
Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?
Do you really not understand how tubes work?
The tubes are connected, the water level in both tubes equalizes.
You can't just look at it from 'any angle' because the system is self-leveling.
Do you really think they were just pouring more water into one tube to fake the experiment? That's hilarious, and sad.
Let's not go into that. You should know this is not what I'm arguing and if not....pay attention.
No, you pay attention. You said you could "assume any position when looking at those lines" but you can only look at them from ONE position to see them level.
No I didn't. Don't argue this until you produce the quote where I supposedly said it. Or...pay attention.
Yes you did. It's right up there.
"That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level." - sceptimatic
You don't seem to understand that there is only ONE height you can look at the water in the two tubes so they line up.
ONE.
You can't just move the camera around to make the horizon appear at different heights if you are lining the camera up with the water levels.
The observer can NOT assume any position like you claim. You keep saying you didn't say that, but you did, it's right there.
Read what I've said and absorb it for a while.
I'm sure you can understand what's been said instead of adding in your own version of what it means.
Well I quoted your own words. If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said something else.
Come back when you understand how two objects line up.
You quoted what I said and used it in a different context. Pay attention or come back when you're capable.
And why context was that? Why don't you just simply state what your mean and the context instead of saying things and then claiming you didn't really mean it.
Tell us what you really meant when you said this. "That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job."
You know fine well what I'm on about. Keep pretending not to if you feel the need.
No, I only know what you SAY. And you said the words I quoted, and keep saying they mean something else but until you actually say something all you're doing here is whining about being misunderstood without actually explaining what that is.
Again... you said "the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels" which is not true. If you meant something else, say it.
It doesn't matter what's going on in your head, what matters is what you say. So say what you mean or quit complaining people aren't mind readers.
-
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it.
You were snookered a long time ago. Proof of what exactly?
-
You know fine well what I'm on about. Keep pretending not to if you feel the need.
Yes, you are blatantly lying about how many things work so you can pretend the photo can be easily faked, instead of it easily refuting your wild claims.
Your claim was that you could easily move around and take the picture from another angle to make the horizon not appear level, but that simply isn't true due to how convergence works and how water levels work.
You are wrong, you were shown to be wrong, and now you are making excuses.
Once more, the simple fact that the water level in the 2 tubes will only be lined up like in that photo if the camera was also at level, means the photo was taken at level, not from above or below.
If you move the camera up or down, then just like how all parallel lines work due to convergence, the water levels won't be at the same position in the photo.
If you look at it from below, the further water level will appear lower than the near water level.
If you look at it from above, the further water level will appear higher than the near water level.
Again, this is shown by those red parallel lines. The higher they start in the photo, the more downwards they appear to be going.
And the other crucial part you continue to ignore, they all still converge on the same point.
That is the entire point of the convergence point.
It doesn't matter what angle the photo is taken at, all level parallel lines still converge, and thus a line connecting the 2 water levels would still point to the horizon if it actually was the convergence point.
Once more, your dismissal of the photographic evidence has been shown to be nothing more than a desperate lie.
When you present proof you will have me snookered.
You mean like I did, which you continually ignored?
You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
Then you clearly don't understand science.
Science deals with evidence and disproof.
Science does not deal with proof of a claim, as proof is something that can only come from deductive reasoning, while science relies upon inductive reasoning to support a hypothesis.
The closest you will get to proof of a RE is a disproof of a FE, which can be based upon evidence, such as the evidence of the irrefutable fact that the horizon is below eye level.
Or photos of Earth, showing it as ~a circle, from any angle, like those you dismiss as fake.
It seems any time you are provided with proof, you will either cry fake if you can, making up some lie as to how it was faked, or just ignore it.
You will never admit you are wrong as you have no interest in the truth.
I can't actually answer what a global Earth horizon would be like for two reasons.
1. The Earth is not a globe.
2. There would be no horizon on a sphere.
1 is not a reason. Regardless of if Earth is a particular shape or not you can still describe how it would look like.
Your point 2 relies upon that. If you truly believed point 1 and truly believed that meant you can't describe the horizon on a RE you would have stopped tehre.
So good job directly contradicting yourself yet again.
Point 2 is an outright lie, as repeatedly proven.
Again, all it takes is looking at a ball to realise a RE would have a horizon.
Once more, here is the logical argument you continue to ignore as it exposes your outright lie:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Just repeatedly asserting the same lie will not help you.
You need to provide a rational justification for that lie, and deal with the logical proof against it.
The fact it is a lie should be obvious when you were defeated by such simple questions that you have had to repeatedly ignore them since they were brought up.
Remember how I asked if you look down and still only see sky, and you were forced to admit that no, in that case you see ground.
Then remember how I asked about how your view changes when you go from looking straight down, seeing nothing but ground, slowly raising your head to look straight up and see nothing but sky? But then rather than answer this question which clearly shows there is a horizon, you continually deflected or just outright ignored it?
Perhaps you will answer now:
You are standing on a round Earth (or global Earth as you like to call it), looking down, seeing nothing but ground/sea.
Now you slowly start to raise your head, and continue to do so until you are looking straight up.
Just what you think you will see as you are raising your head? Make sure you start with seeing ground, and end with seeing sky, and include everything you see in the middle.
And remember, this can also be simulated with any ball.
Where you start looking at the ball, seeing nothing but the ball, and as you raise your head you see a clear line dividing your FOV, with the ball below and the surroundings above. i.e. you get a horizon.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
I have, and guess what? I can see ground.
Also, this is not an argument against their being a horizon, it is just trying to say it wouldn't be seen when looking out level.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
And like I have repeatedly shown, it all comes down to FOV.
If your FOV is large enough, you will see it.
The smaller the radius of the ball, the larger the FOV will need to be to see it.
For the very real RE you continually lie about, if you were standing with your eyes 2 m above its level surface, you would need to have a FOV of roughly 5.4 arc minutes.
The calculation is quite simple. The horizon will be located at an angle a such that cos(a)=r/(r+h), and the FOV to exclude the horizon, assuming it is symmetric, is 2*a.
Meanwhile, a kitchen roll tube, being generous and giving it a radius of 1 cm and a length of 20 cm, has a FOV given by 2*atan(1/20) = 5 degrees.
And any scope you use will be useless unless you can actually level it.
If you can only level it to the nearest degree, then you will still have that uncertainty and not be able to exclude the very real RE you continually lie about.
-
With this horizon thing, consider the following.
I am standing in a room with a basket ball sat on a table a couple of metres away. Any small spherical object will do, I'm just using a basket ball as an example. Regardless of what angle I look at the basket ball from I can only ever see 50% of its surface area at any one time. But whatever direction I look at it from it always looks circular. That is evidence that the basket ball is a sphere. This is roughly the equivalent of looking at the Earth from say 2 or 3 times the distance (height) of the space station.
I now look at the basket ball through my DSLR camera using the live view mode. I can see the whole of the basket ball with the lens set at 50mm. I now start to increase the zoom setting until eventually I can see only part of the surface of the basket ball which is visible. The surface fills the field of view. I move towards the edge of the basket ball and can see the edge looks curved. I am now effectively looking at the Earth from a height of 70,000 to 100,000 foot.
I carry on zooming into the edge and the length of the arc representing the part of the edge of the basket ball that I can see gets shorter and shorter and the extent of the curvature of the edge gets less and less. This is equivalent to differential calculus where we reduce the size of dy/dx and so a curve becomes more and more like a straight line as dy/dx approaches zero. The surface of the basket ball also looks increasingly 'bumpy' as I start to resolve more of the texture of the surface.
Eventually I zoom in to a very small fraction of the edge of the basket ball to such an extent that the edge now looks to be straight. I can scan around the edge as much or as far as I like but it always looks to be straight in my view finder. Yet the camera is moving in a circle. The edge of the basket ball is now analogous to the horizon of the Earth. It forms the limit of the surface area that i can see directly.
I add some more cameras set up in exactly the same way but in such a position that they can see different areas of the surface of the basket ball. The view through any one camera does not directly provide any visual evidence that there is any curvature on the surface of the basket ball. If I look at how all the cameras have been positioned and the angles at which they are set I can see straight away that they form a spherical shape around the basket ball.
We can think of each of the cameras as satellites surrounding the Earth. Due to its distance from the basket ball each camera can 'see' that the basket ball is a sphere but looking through any one camera, that perception is lost.
RE see the bigger picture and realise that the Earth is spherical. FE only see the view through any one camera and so to them they only 'see' a flat surface or straight edge. Hence they have all the evidence they need to claim the basket ball and hence the Earth is flat.
-
A somewhat simplified version some guy did a while back:
(https://i.imgur.com/g4uCPtx.jpg)
-
Why not?
You could try and model it to see if model matches reality.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
Yes, that's consistent with the reality of the horizon.
You will never see the ground beyond your horizon, using a scope of any kind, with the exception of the phenomena known as refraction. The planet, when viewed from far enough away in space, reveals the horizon to be a complete circle. Astronauts can't see beyond that horizon either. Light travels in straight lines unless bent.
If the toilet roll is your most sophisticated means of observing the horizon, you're in trouble.
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.
-
Why not?
You could try and model it to see if model matches reality.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
This is amazing!
Im not sure what youre talking about here.
What ground or side are you expecting to see?
If you were at the bottom of a hill and look at the peak, do you expect to see the back side of the hill?
We're not taking about the bottom of a hill and this is exactly why I know you're playing games...which is fine because it allows me to give a variation of explanations....not for you...but for those who genuinely want to find the truth.
Stick to the downward slope/curve that I mentioned with your scope set to level and see if you can see the ground. You know you can't and you know the reason why, which is blatantly obvious.
All you are dealing with is the hill/downward slope and whether you can see that ground of that hill at any point from your simple scope, nothing more at this point.
-
No, I only know what you SAY. And you said the words I quoted, and keep saying they mean something else but until you actually say something all you're doing here is whining about being misunderstood without actually explaining what that is.
Again... you said "the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels" which is not true. If you meant something else, say it.
It doesn't matter what's going on in your head, what matters is what you say. So say what you mean or quit complaining people aren't mind readers.
I'll leave you to whine on.
-
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it.
You were snookered a long time ago. Proof of what exactly?
Proof for what you people are saying. That proof. You know....the proof that will change my mind. Do you have any PROOF?
-
You know fine well what I'm on about. Keep pretending not to if you feel the need.
Yes, you are blatantly lying about how many things work so you can pretend the photo can be easily faked, instead of it easily refuting your wild claims.
I'm not pretending it's faked, I know it is by the real experiment that anyone can genuinely do to show level horizon to their own eyes.
Your (and other) pictures refuse to show what I've asked and for good reason....because it will show what I've been talking about and we can't be having that, can we?
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.
What's missing from the set-ups shown? Look through a leveled tube is pretty much the extent of your set-up. So far we've got examples of a leveled box and a leveled tube. What's the missing component(s)?
-
Scepti, you have already programmed yourself to believe that the Earth is the way you believe it to be. Nothing will change that no matter what evidence or proof to the contrary is presented to you.
So just as you accuse us as having been 'indoctrinated' about the Earth being a globe, so you have equally 'indoctrinated' yourself in effect to believe otherwise. That's why all the evidence presented to you by us which shows that you are wrong, you simply reject as being faked or whatever.
At no point through these 40 odd pages has anyones mind mind been changed. It is what it is. You won't accept our evidence and we won't accept yours. It is what it is.
-
Scepti, you have already programmed yourself to believe that the Earth is the way you believe it to be. Nothing will change that no matter what evidence or proof to the contrary is presented to you.
So just as you accuse us as having been 'indoctrinated' about the Earth being a globe, so you have equally 'indoctrinated' yourself in effect to believe otherwise. That's why all the evidence presented to you by us which shows that you are wrong, you simply reject as being faked or whatever.
At no point through these 40 odd pages has anyones mind mind been changed. It is what it is. You won't accept our evidence and we won't accept yours. It is what it is.
I would change that a little, "You won't accept our evidence and you haven't presented any."
-
With this horizon thing, consider the following.
I am standing in a room with a basket ball sat on a table a couple of metres away. Any small spherical object will do, I'm just using a basket ball as an example. Regardless of what angle I look at the basket ball from I can only ever see 50% of its surface area at any one time. But whatever direction I look at it from it always looks circular. That is evidence that the basket ball is a sphere. This is roughly the equivalent of looking at the Earth from say 2 or 3 times the distance (height) of the space station.
I now look at the basket ball through my DSLR camera using the live view mode. I can see the whole of the basket ball with the lens set at 50mm. I now start to increase the zoom setting until eventually I can see only part of the surface of the basket ball which is visible. The surface fills the field of view. I move towards the edge of the basket ball and can see the edge looks curved. I am now effectively looking at the Earth from a height of 70,000 to 100,000 foot.
I carry on zooming into the edge and the length of the arc representing the part of the edge of the basket ball that I can see gets shorter and shorter and the extent of the curvature of the edge gets less and less. This is equivalent to differential calculus where we reduce the size of dy/dx and so a curve becomes more and more like a straight line as dy/dx approaches zero. The surface of the basket ball also looks increasingly 'bumpy' as I start to resolve more of the texture of the surface.
Eventually I zoom in to a very small fraction of the edge of the basket ball to such an extent that the edge now looks to be straight. I can scan around the edge as much or as far as I like but it always looks to be straight in my view finder. Yet the camera is moving in a circle. The edge of the basket ball is now analogous to the horizon of the Earth. It forms the limit of the surface area that i can see directly.
I add some more cameras set up in exactly the same way but in such a position that they can see different areas of the surface of the basket ball. The view through any one camera does not directly provide any visual evidence that there is any curvature on the surface of the basket ball. If I look at how all the cameras have been positioned and the angles at which they are set I can see straight away that they form a spherical shape around the basket ball.
We can think of each of the cameras as satellites surrounding the Earth. Due to its distance from the basket ball each camera can 'see' that the basket ball is a sphere but looking through any one camera, that perception is lost.
RE see the bigger picture and realise that the Earth is spherical. FE only see the view through any one camera and so to them they only 'see' a flat surface or straight edge. Hence they have all the evidence they need to claim the basket ball and hence the Earth is flat.
When you get the chance to look at your Earth from a distance that shows it to be like the basketball on your table then you will have a great case for your own truth...for you.
If you can somehow show it as that reality to people like myself, your case would be a concrete global winner.
Can you do any of this or are you reliant on being sold and told info with pictures and video that we all know can easily be manipulated?
Having said all this you need to forget about sitting there taking pictures or focusing on a basketball on a table and focus on what I've been saying, which means you need to be stood on that basket ball.....or you need to be stood on something with a downward curve like you think your Earth has.
Once you realise that, by standing on your downward curve and using a simple tube without any wide angle/fish eye lens, at a height a few feet from the ground and levelled, you will see no ground from that position.
Forget about anything else as it's irrelevant in terms of this one thing.
You issue has to be being able to see the ground of the curve you are part of.
Now you can argue that your Earth is a huge sphere if you want but that supposed huge sphere still has to curve downwards away from your level sight. It has to if it is what you believe it is.
If this is the case then your simple scope at a few feet from the ground and perfectly level, you will not see the ground directly under that end of scope.
Now bearing that in mind, if you cannot see the ground directly under it and your sphere slopes downwards away from that, then you will never see any terrain from that position...ever.
However, we clearly do see the convergence of terrain to sky, meaning one thing is for certain. The Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon, because if it was, you would see nothing but sky.
This never happens unless you deliberately offset the level to angle it slightly, up....but you people don't have that luxury because you spent far too much time trying to explain why you do have a horizon line.
It's all down to semantics and pseudo-science on the part of the indoctrination crew and swallowed by yourself and many others....including myself at one stage in my life.
-
What's missing from the set-ups shown? Look through a leveled tube is pretty much the extent of your set-up. So far we've got examples of a leveled box and a leveled tube. What's the missing component(s)?
I've told you what's missing, so let's not go into that.
You even tried another with an obscure level in the background. Why?
Absolutely devious and you know it.
My simple tube is all you need.
The simplest stuff is all anyone needs but people like yourself appear to feel intimidated with simple stuff because it's likely too logical and simple which takes away any credence you build up with the complicated stuff that basically shows up nothing, yet bamboozles the average Joe who soon get intimidated themselves and simply agree. It's a case of peer pressure by mass count and always has been in this so called scientific mumbo jumbo set up.
-
Scepti, you have already programmed yourself to believe that the Earth is the way you believe it to be.
No. I've programmed myself to be rid of what I believe is pseudo-science and replaced it with my own ongoing thought process of what I believe may be a much closer potential reality with some of my thinking due to how certain simple experiments, etc, have been done on the simplest scale.
When I state my stuff as fact, then you have a case. Until then, you have nothing other than argument, which is why we are well into long topics.
Nothing will change that no matter what evidence or proof to the contrary is presented to you.
The difference between me and you is, I have changed my thoughts on many occasions as time has went on.
I've saw better potentials.
You seem unconditionally stuck to your globally indoctrinated mindset, so I could argue it's you that fits this bill, as far as I'm concerned.
You've provided zero proof but have provided plenty of appeals to what you accept as expert authority, which is not proof.
So just as you accuse us as having been 'indoctrinated' about the Earth being a globe, so you have equally 'indoctrinated' yourself in effect to believe otherwise. That's why all the evidence presented to you by us which shows that you are wrong, you simply reject as being faked or whatever.
I'll always be indoctrinating myself (teaching myself) the potentials of what Earth and the scientific truth's may be. I may never get to know the reality but then again I may get to know what isn't a reality and I think I'm finding a lot out about what isn't the reality we are/have been indoctrinated into....almost bullied into.
At no point through these 40 odd pages has anyones mind mind been changed. It is what it is. You won't accept our evidence and we won't accept yours. It is what it is.
No...it isn't what it is.
You may not accept one word of what I say and I certainly won't accept what you say when you follow the stuff I massively reject.....but, don't be so sure that there's only you lot pondering what I'm saying.
People out there who may feel intimidated to actually get into the argument of global or alternate Earth's...etc, may be sat back thinking " hmmmm, this makes sense", in terms of what I'm saying, even if they don't want to come on and say it....and then there will be those who think I'm stark raving mad and what not.
I thought you were decking out?
-
You can carry on saying whatever you like Scepti. All your preaching's about this and that. It really is wasted on me I can assure you. You have programmed yourself to only accept what you believe and that is that. You will only ever see your own point of view and reject as pseudo-science or whatever other fancy labels you choose to attach to it anything else that you don't believe in.
Time and time again we have presented you with far more evidence actually than we should have done. Each time you flatly (sorry for the punn) reject it because it doesn't pass through your flat earth filter. Fair enough. On the other hand we have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that what you dictate to be correct really is true. For you it's a case of you say it and everyone else should just accept it. Just like how you claim the rest of us are about RE.
And as for decking out. I will decide if and when I wish to participate in a discussion or not. I give myself holidays away for a few days every now and then just like you do.
-
What's missing from the set-ups shown? Look through a leveled tube is pretty much the extent of your set-up. So far we've got examples of a leveled box and a leveled tube. What's the missing component(s)?
I've told you what's missing, so let's not go into that.
You even tried another with an obscure level in the background. Why?
Absolutely devious and you know it.
Why? Because it's the only picture I have of the whole set-up. The box one shows level water tubes in the same picture as the result. Same concept as the tube only it's square instead of round. So I don't really see what the issue is. You're right, anyone can do the experiment and anyone can see that at altitude, the horizon doesn't rise to eye-level.
I have less than zero incentive to be "devious". Wow, you are one paranoid mofo.
My simple tube is all you need.
The simplest stuff is all anyone needs but people like yourself appear to feel intimidated with simple stuff because it's likely too logical and simple which takes away any credence you build up with the complicated stuff that basically shows up nothing, yet bamboozles the average Joe who soon get intimidated themselves and simply agree. It's a case of peer pressure by mass count and always has been in this so called scientific mumbo jumbo set up.
You've never shown any evidence of your experiment. Why? Because you're absolutely devious and you know it?
-
You can carry on saying whatever you like Scepti. All your preaching's about this and that. It really is wasted on me I can assure you.
Of course it is. I wouldn't expect anything else from people like yourself who are massively indoctrinated, unconditionally into a global mindset.
There's plenty of you and I used to be one of those, so I'm under no illusions.
You have programmed yourself to only accept what you believe and that is that. You will only ever see your own point of view and reject as pseudo-science or whatever other fancy labels you choose to attach to it anything else that you don't believe in.
I can see anyone's point of view but I do not have to accept it or believe it, just as you don't with mine.
I will reject anything if it's labelled as fact, without presentation of proof. And this is where I'm at.
You have presented zero proof but have presented what you believe is proof, which, as you know, is not a proof that you, yourself, can verify.
Time and time again we have presented you with far more evidence actually than we should have done.
You've presented me with evidence that cannot be proved to be factual....and you absolutely know this.
Your reliance on it being factual because you trust the authority, is naive.
Each time you flatly (sorry for the punn) reject it because it doesn't pass through your flat earth filter.
Fair enough.
No.
I reject it if there's no proof and I question stuff that is told and sold as proof if there is none to be shown.
It has nothing to do with a flat Earth.
On the other hand we have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that what you dictate to be correct really is true. For you it's a case of you say it and everyone else should just accept it. Just like how you claim the rest of us are about RE.
That's because I don't generally dictate it to be correct, unless there is proof and I tell you people this, time and time and time, again.
And as for decking out. I will decide if and when I wish to participate in a discussion or not.
And you do with regularity. often threatening never to talk with me and doing just that. Make your mind up.
I give myself holidays away for a few days every now and then just like you do.
Yeah, ok.
-
Of course it is. I wouldn't expect anything else from people like yourself who are massively indoctrinated, unconditionally into a global mindset.
There's plenty of you and I used to be one of those, so I'm under no illusions.
Quite simply. Prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong and I and everyone else here will convert to your way of thinking. That's all we ask and all we have ever asked. Trouble is, so far you haven't. Nowhere near it. That's why this discussion has gone on as long as it has.
-
The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
You don't. Instead you just repeat the same lie again and again as it shows you are wrong so you need to dismiss it with whatever excuse you can.
Again, if you are so sure, why don't you go and do the experiment yourself and post a picture here?
And again, plenty of us have done this experiment and know that you are wrong.
The experiment you continually appeal to clearly demonstrates you are wrong.
Now instead of continually appealing to it showing you are wrong, explain why any of us should think these photos are bogus.
Stick to the downward slope/curve that I mentioned with your scope set to level and see if you can see the ground. You know you can't and you know the reason why, which is blatantly obvious.
Stop lying.
We have been over this repeatedly.
We KNOW we can see the ground.
We know this not because "it is obvious" (which is really your pathetic cop out way of saying you have no justification at all); but because that is what the math shows.
Again, if you wish to disagree, tell us just how far down you need to look to see ground.
We know we can see it when we look straight down, so where is the division?
And again, we know it isn't obvious that it isn't visible because we know there are 2 separate effects at play.
One is the ground curving down, making it lower. The other is perspective making it appear higher.
So asserting it is obvious is quite pathetic and not going to cut it at all.
If you truly think it wont, explain why you shouldn't be able to see it and tell us just how far down you have to look to be able to see it.
Proof for what you people are saying. That proof. You know....the proof that will change my mind. Do you have any PROOF?
You have made it clear that nothing will change your mind.
Why keep repeating the same dishonest act of pretending it will?
You have been provided proof, an irrefutable logical argument, which you just continue to ignore.
Rather than accept that you were wrong, you just continually repeat the same lies.
So it is clear you have no interest in any proof, nor the truth, nor admitting you were wrong.
I'm not pretending it's faked
Yes you are.
Again, the real experiment shows you are wrong.
You have no justification at all for why it is fake other than it shows you are wrong.
That is not good enough.
Your (and other) pictures refuse to show what I've asked and for good reason
Because it is impossible.
Because the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, so no matter how hard you try, you can't have a picture from a high altitude showing the horizon at eye level.
Again, the pictures provided show a clear water level to establish where level is, with some having this water level in line, meaning the camera is at eye level.
It has everything you need to establish that the horizon is below eye level.
But you reject it due to the simple fact that it shows you are wrong.
Again, if you think the experiment is so simple, then you go do it and provide your results.
When you get the chance to look at your Earth from a distance that shows it to be like the basketball on your table then you will have a great case for your own truth...for you.
Fortunately, we have cameras in space that can do just that.
Sure, you dismiss it all as fake, but for no reason other than it shows you are wrong.
focus on what I've been saying
Perhaps you should start focusing on what other people have been saying.
Again, you are standing on top of a ball, looking straight down at the ball and see the ground.
Then you slowly raise your head until you are looking up at the sky.
What do you see in between?
How does it change from seeing ground, to seeing sky?
Where does this change occur?
Can you address any of these simple questions, or can you just continually dodge as it clearly shows you are wrong?
If this is the case then your simple scope at a few feet from the ground and perfectly level, you will not see the ground directly under that end of scope.
Stop repeating the same lie.
The math shows you are wrong.
This is math and arguments you are yet to refute. Instead you just continually ignore it because you have no refutation and you know it completely destroys your claim.
Stop avoiding it, stop spamming the same garbage and instead grow up and deal with this. Deal with the logical argument that shows you are wrong, deal with the math that shows you are wrong.
Either provide an actual justifiable issue with it, or admit you are wrong.
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
It's all down to semantics and pseudo-science on the part of the indoctrination crew and swallowed by yourself and many others....including myself at one stage in my life.
You mean it is all down to you continually deflecting from simple arguments and math which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong, and you dismissing the evidence that shows you are wrong as fake, as you have no interest in the truth or admitting you are wrong.
It has nothing to do with anyone else being indoctrinated, as the evidence supports a RE, just like the rational arguments and math supports a RE.
Meanwhile, you have nothing other than your repeatedly lies to challenge it.
No. I've programmed myself to be rid of what I believe is pseudo-science and replaced it with my own ongoing thought process of what I believe may be a much closer potential reality
And that's the problem. It is all based upon your beliefs, rather than reality, rather than any evidence.
-
Sceptimaniac, I noticed you failed to respond to my post? Is that because I made use of a dirty organisation : NASA? Lol! ;D
I'm curious...... what's your day job?
Can your flat earth model explain:
Earth's atmospheric composition and temperature, atmosphere and surface energy balances, earths temperature patterns, wind essentials including air pressure, the coriolis force, friction force, upper atmosphere circulation, local winds, monsoonal winds, oceanic currents, surface currents, deep currents, the distribution of earth's water, heat properties if water in nature, humidity, clouds and fig, cloud formation processes, cloud types and identification, air masses, mid latitude cyclonic systems, thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, the hydrologic cycle, the soil-water balance equation, groundwater profile and movement, micrithermal climates, polar climates, dry arid and semi arid climates, global climate change, earyh's structure and internal energy, earth's core, earth's mantle, eartg's lithosphere and crust, the rock cycle, the geologic cycle, minerals and Rick's, igneous processes, sedimentary processes, plate tectonics, sea-floor spreading and production of new crust, subduction of the new crust, the formation and breakup of pangaea, plate boundaries, earthquake and volcanic activity, hot spots, crystal formation processes, crystal deformation processes, orogenesus (mountain building), folding and broad warping, faulting, landmass sensation, geomorphic models of land firm development, weathering processes, physical weathering processes, chemical weathering processes, karst topography and landscapes, lands covered with sink holes, caves and caverns, mass movement processes, mass movement mechanics, fluvial processes and landscapes, stream flow characteristics, exotic streams, floods and river management, physical structure of the ocean, ecosystem essentials, terrestrial biomes, bio geographic realms, earth's major terrestrial biomes......
I could go on and on......but you all get the point.
When your flat earth model can adequately explain all of the above geographic components I mention above, sceptimaniac, then please continue to argue the earth is flat. Until then, I think you know what model belongs in the toilet along with your sophisticated horizon viewing apparatus? ;D
-
Proof for what you people are saying. That proof. You know....the proof that will change my mind. Do you have any PROOF?
Define for me what you mean by proof exactly.
And also could you list me just a few things which in your eyes have been proved and explain how they have been proved right or wrong.
-
No, I only know what you SAY. And you said the words I quoted, and keep saying they mean something else but until you actually say something all you're doing here is whining about being misunderstood without actually explaining what that is.
Again... you said "the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels" which is not true. If you meant something else, say it.
It doesn't matter what's going on in your head, what matters is what you say. So say what you mean or quit complaining people aren't mind readers.
I'll leave you to whine on.
If this is your official surrender and refusal to explain, then I'll accept it.
-
Why not?
You could try and model it to see if model matches reality.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
This is amazing!
Im not sure what youre talking about here.
What ground or side are you expecting to see?
If you were at the bottom of a hill and look at the peak, do you expect to see the back side of the hill?
We're not taking about the bottom of a hill and this is exactly why I know you're playing games...which is fine because it allows me to give a variation of explanations....not for you...but for those who genuinely want to find the truth.
Stick to the downward slope/curve that I mentioned with your scope set to level and see if you can see the ground. You know you can't and you know the reason why, which is blatantly obvious.
All you are dealing with is the hill/downward slope and whether you can see that ground of that hill at any point from your simple scope, nothing more at this point.
Can you post a photo of this kitchen tube and highlight where the horizon is and why its different from.the ocean horizon?
-
Of course it is. I wouldn't expect anything else from people like yourself who are massively indoctrinated, unconditionally into a global mindset.
There's plenty of you and I used to be one of those, so I'm under no illusions.
Quite simply. Prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong and I and everyone else here will convert to your way of thinking. That's all we ask and all we have ever asked. Trouble is, so far you haven't. Nowhere near it. That's why this discussion has gone on as long as it has.
I don't care what you convert to, or not. You are unimportant to me. Feel free to go your own way.
-
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
A level scope offers zero transition in the way you're trying to cover. But will offer transition on a flat sea with a curved (concave) sky.
Your effort assumes a convex earth and a concave sky. Can you see the major problem here?
-
this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?
what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.
let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.
-
A level scope is just a smaller view of what's in front of you, without the scope. Lines around you are still converging to the eye line, aka the horizon. You will still see ground or sea meeting sky, through the scope. A level scope changes nothing.
Using the horizon calculator, for an average person who stands 1.7 meters tall, at sea level, the horizon is 4.7 kilometers away. Using the earth curve calculator, that horizon line is in fact 1.73 meters lower than what it would be, if the sea were perfectly flat.
If you were to make your toilet tube perfectly level, sceptimatic, with perfect cross hairs, and the centre of your eye line to line up with the horizontal hair, you will find the actual horizon line to be just underneath the horizontal hair of your toilet tube. The 1.73 meter difference would be almost imperceptible at a distance of 4.7km, using the naked eye.
You could prove this to yourself.
-
You are unimportant to me.
Well at least that's one thing we've established we have in common. Now you keep droning on about proof so tell me one thing which you are satisfied has been 'proved' and something you accept as being real and true. Just one thing?!?
Or do you live in The Matrix or something?
-
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
A level scope
Notice how that in no way addresses any of these points.
At no point do I bring up a level scope there.
The only part where that would be involved is when you actually get to the location of the horizon, a mere 2.7 arc minutes below level, meaning if the FOV of your level scope is greater than 5.4 arc minutes, you would see that horizon.
But you hadn't gotten to that point.
You were only up to the point of establishing beyond any doubt that the horizon actually would exist for a RE.
Now again, care to actually address the argument rather than running off on yet another deflection?
Can you point out any actual issue with those 4 points, or those which follow it?
Here they are again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
And in case you don't know, the actual way to bring up a problem with this argument is not to just spout something irrelevant.
To actually show a problem with it, you should pick the first point you disagree with, clearly indicate that point, and say why you disagree with it (including providing a justification) and what you think it should be.
e.g:
Your claim that you would not see such a transition/horizon on the RE through a level scope is wrong, instead it would depend upon your elevation and the FOV of the scope.
This is because for a RE the horizon would be located at an angle below level of arctan(r/(r+h)) where r is the radius of Earth and h is the height of the eye above its level surface.
When you are close to the surface, this angle would be quite small, for example, at 2 m, it is a mere 2.7 arc minutes.
Thus if the scope has a FOV which includes that angle the horizon would be seen for a RE.
It is only if the FOV of the scope is smaller than 2 times that angle that the horizon would not be seen.
Notice how it clearly identifies what claim is wrong (you didn't have numbered points in an argument so I couldn't use that), it also provides a justification for why it is wrong (admittedly it is incomplete as it doesn't have the diagram to support the trig, but that can be left for if you argue that point), and clearly indicates what it should be instead.
eg2:
Your claim that it always curving downwards would prevent it from appearing in a level scope is wrong.
There are 2 competing effects, one of which you rely upon to have a flat surface appear in a level scope even though it is below you. For a FE you just perspective causing things to appear higher, thus ground at the same level as the ground below you can appear in a level scope, even though the ground directly below you cannot.
This effect of perspective/convergence will still occur for a RE and thus there will be 2 competing effects.
The effect of Earth sloping downwards making it appear lower will compete with the effect of perspective causing objects to appear higher.
Thus the overall effect will depend on the magnitude of each.
When close to the observer, the effective of perspective is greatest and Earth is sloping downwards the least, with the obvious possibility of perspective having a greater effect, bringing it into view of a level scope.
Thus without considering the magnitude of each effect you cannot simply ignore one and focus entirely on the other to claim that the horizon would not appear in a level scope.
Again, clearly pointing out what the issue, why it is wrong (with justification), and what it should actually be.
And just to further drive the point home, no where in your claims have you in any way appealed to the radius of Earth. As there is no dependence on the radius, your arguments would apply equally to a round earth with a radius of 1 mm, and to a round earth with a radius of 1 Ym (10^24 m).
The big problem with that is that for the "known" region of Earth, that 1 Ym radius earth is pretty much identical to a FE. (and as an aside, this is why the ancient Earth models were initially flat, with them working just fine, because their "known" region of Earth was pretty much identical to the level of accuracy they could use)
The bulge at the centre for a width of 2l (i.e. from the middle, it is a distance of l to the edge), and radius r is given by l^2=b*(2*r-b).
Assuming b is small enough, 2*r is much larger than b, and thus 2*r-b is roughly the same as 2*r.
This allows a first order approximation of l^2=2*r*b, and thus b=l^2/(2*r). (This is the origin of the 8 inches per mile squared).
So putting in l of 20 000 km, to match the radius of the alleged FE, and r of 1 Ym, we end up with b=0.2 nm, roughly the size of an atom.
There is no way you would ever be able to distinguish that tiny difference with the topography of Earth.
Thus if your argument holds for a RE of any size (as it must), then it would also apply to this RE of massive radius, and as this massive RE is indistinguishable from a FE, it must also apply to a FE.
The only way to not have it apply to a FE is if you admit that it is dependent upon the size of Earth, which then requires doing math to see if it would apply to a RE with a radius of 6371 km.
Your effort assumes a convex earth and a concave sky.
No, my effort assumes a round Earth, which has sky all around it, like a shell.
If you want to call that concave, I don't really give a damn, as that is what the RE model is, the solid and liquid Earth, with a gaseous atmosphere around it.
-
The flat earth mantra is that the average Joe doesn't possess the skills with simple means, to prove the earth is a globe. That's a total crock.
The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone, by simple means a child with common sense could apply.
Just remember sceptimatic, if I insult you and your intelligence, it's only to elicit an emotional response. It's difficult at times for me to comprehend you aren't a robot, and you actually tie your own shoe laces.
-
The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone,
Is that an exuberant utterance or a factual statement?
-
this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?
what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.
let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.
I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.
-
The flat earth mantra is that the average Joe doesn't possess the skills with simple means, to prove the earth is a globe. That's a total crock.
It's the truth.
The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone, by simple means a child with common sense could apply.
It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.
Just remember sceptimatic, if I insult you and your intelligence, it's only to elicit an emotional response. It's difficult at times for me to comprehend you aren't a robot, and you actually tie your own shoe laces.
You are fine, you don't insult my intelligence, you simple fuel your own ego for your own reasons and I'm absolutely fine with that. You carry on.
-
this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?
what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.
let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.
I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.
Where the white and grey ball meets the black background is the “horizon”.
You keep saying that on a globe earth we shouldn’t see a horizon. I’m not even sure what you think we should see?
Clearly if you look down you see the ground and if you look up, you see the sky (whatever the shape of the ground). At some point, ground stops and sky starts, and that’s the horizon. Simple.
-
I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.
The horizon for a RE, and just how close it is to level.
The flat earth mantra is that the average Joe doesn't possess the skills with simple means, to prove the earth is a globe. That's a total crock.
It's the truth.
No, just because you don't understand and refuse to do the simple test to prove beyond any sane doubt that Earth isn't flat doesn't mean that an average person can't.
The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone, by simple means a child with common sense could apply.
It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.
Then explain how the horizon appears so far below eye level, and at a distance which varies depending on height.
While technically that doesn't show the full globe, it does show the required curvature.
And of course, after having your counter completely destroyed, you still ignore the extremely simple proof that you are wrong.
Yet again, just which point in the following line of reasoning do you think is wrong? Why do you think it is wrong, i.e. what is your justification for that false belief of yours? And what do you think it should be? I was even nice and provided examples of how to rationally object to an argument.
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
-
It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.
Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it. If so how? Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual. That is the difference between proof and opinion. Proof is general and while opinion is individual. An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth. That is generally what you do.
-
this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?
what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.
let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.
I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.
Where the white and grey ball meets the black background is the “horizon”.
You keep saying that on a globe earth we shouldn’t see a horizon. I’m not even sure what you think we should see?
Clearly if you look down you see the ground and if you look up, you see the sky (whatever the shape of the ground). At some point, ground stops and sky starts, and that’s the horizon. Simple.
By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.
Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.
Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.
The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
-
I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.
The horizon for a RE, and just how close it is to level.
How close it is to level is neither here nor there. It would never be level and if we want to go down the route, going by your 24,000 mile circumference (approx) that you stick to, then we go with a fall of 8 inches per mile squared, unless you want to mess with that figure, which, if you feel the need....do so.......but.....you will still know there would be a remarkable drop over distance and a drop over a short distance....always, in that case.
You know this and you cannot get away from that, no matter how hard you try.
You will never get any horizon on your globe but we do have one on this Earth, which means...at the very least.....the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
-
It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.
Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it. If so how? Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual. That is the difference between proof and opinion. Proof is general and while opinion is individual. An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth. That is generally what you do.
Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.
Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.
The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not.....and it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
-
By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.
Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.
Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.
The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
This is so amazing.
Amazing i say!
From what i gather you had two complaints
1
The horizon should be visibly curved at ground level (which has been explained to you why not)
2
If the water curved away from us we should see the sky (which is exactly what we see and exactly what you described above)
Then you are shown a simulation of both and still seem confused.
Amazing!
-
this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?
what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.
let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.
I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.
Where the white and grey ball meets the black background is the “horizon”.
You keep saying that on a globe earth we shouldn’t see a horizon. I’m not even sure what you think we should see?
Clearly if you look down you see the ground and if you look up, you see the sky (whatever the shape of the ground). At some point, ground stops and sky starts, and that’s the horizon. Simple.
By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.
Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.
Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.
The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
With enough magnification on a level scope and/or enough height, then sure the horizon would be below your field of view. But you’d need a very very powerful scope or a lot of height.
The horizon is still there though. Aim the scope down slightly and you’d see it.
Is that all you mean?
-
Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.
Really. What sort of distance scales do you mean here? Describe to me how water can provide direct proof of a flat Earth surface. In line with your own rules have you managed to personally verify it? Remember you said you should only believe something if you can personally verify it (e.g. your reply #280). So since you have already accepted it as proof then obviously you have already personally verified it. So how did you do it and what results did you get?
If it was that simple and obvious don't you think the entire world would agree that the Earth is indeed flat by now. Instead of the Flat Earth Society this would be the Round Earth Society. Is that really the best you can do?!? Water proves absolutely nothing in terms of the Earth being flat.
But if it makes you happy to believe otherwise then that's fine with me.
-
I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
And look at just how close the horizon is to level.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.
No, no one can.
That is because, as repeatedly shown, the horizon is not the convergence point.
Surely you can understand the horizon is a physical distance away from you, regardless of what optical systems you use, with the distance depending upon the height. That is not the convergence point. That is a physical horizon, just like shown in that animation.
Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
Keep what I said before in mind.
There are 2 competing effects. Convergence/perspective brings Earth up to the level sight.
That is needed for your FE to produce a horizon in that level sight.
You have no reason to ignore it with a RE, and doing so, without any appeal to the size of this Earth, works equally well for the FE.
This means, unlike your repeated lie, your ability to see the horizon on a RE through your level scope is dependent upon the size of Earth, the height above it, and the FOV of your scope.
When close to the surface, without an absolutely tiny scope (so tiny you would only be able to see a fraction of the moon), you WILL SEE THE HORIZON of a RE through your level scope.
Now stop just repeating the same lies.
Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless.
No, it isn't. Because this shows your claim that the horizon would not exist for a RE to be pure garbage.
It then raises the question of WHERE IS THIS HORIZON?
A question you repeatedly avoid because you know an honest answer to it will show you to have been lying for this entire thread.
Does this mean you accept the RE should have a horizon?
If so, at what angle would it appear below level?
The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
All the available evidence shows otherwise, and all you have to counter it is repeating the same lies again and again while ignoring or dismissing that evidence and the rational, logical proofs that you are wrong.
How close it is to level is neither here nor there.
It is of extreme impotance.
The only way to make it of no importance at all is if you have the scope perfectly level with no uncertainty at all, and have a FOV of 0, in which case you can't see anything at all, and with the horizon being a finite distance away, you wouldn't see it on a FE either.
you will still know there would be a remarkable drop over distance and a drop over a short distance....always, in that case.
No, there isn't.
For the horizon when viewed from 2 m above the level surface, it would be 4 m below. A mere doubling of the distance below for a FE.
I wouldn't call that remarkable.
And if perspective can bring that 2 m to be at eye-level, why can't it bring the 4 m to appear at eye level?
Both are quite clearly BELOW, one 2 m below and the other 4 m below.
One 2.7 arc minutes below, one 1.4 arc minutes below.
The only way out for you is to accept some uncertainty in your measurement of level, and/or some FOV of your scope. But this can then allow both to be seen, not just the FE.
You will never get any horizon on your globe
Again, if you wish to claim that with any shred of integrity you need to deal with the logical argument presented. Point out exactly which step in the process you disagree with and provide a justification for why.
Until you do, this simple logical proof shows you are wrong.
It shows conclusively that you do have a horizon on a RE, and under normal circumstances you will see that horizon through a level scope.
Repeating the same lie with no refutation of the argument presented shows you have no case and don't give a damn about the truth at all.
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Do you have any rational objection to the argument, or are you only capable of repeating the same lies and deflection?
Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable.
Yes, such as how, when standing above water, looking towards a distant object which is also above the water level, the bottom of it is obstructed, clearly showing that the water is curving such that the bottom of the object is behind the water, with the water obstructing the view. Clearly showing, beyond any sane doubt, that Earth is round, not flat like your fantasy.
Your horizon line is the next best proof
Yes, the horizon is the next best proof that Earth can't be flat.
If Earth was flat, the horizon should be the very edge. Instead of getting a clear horizon you should have the sea and sky blur into each other, either due to limited resolution of optics, with better optics allowing you to see further, or due to the air scattering the light so it would look like a foggy day. You certainly shouldn't be able to so easily observe it to be so far below level from a high mountain, like the photos and simple tests show.
So yes, 2 very simple proofs that Earth is round, and clear disproofs of Earth being flat.
Yet rather than accept either of these you just repeat the same lies and deflections.
Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.
The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not
So you know it isn't flat and are just lying to everyone? If not, you don't know what is it not, you just delude yourself into thinking you do.
Your 2 clear proofs show beyond any sane doubt that Earth cannot be flat.
Considering the same effect can be observed basically everywhere the rational conclusion is that Earth is roughly a sphere.
Then the question is just how close to a sphere is it.
-
It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.
Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it. If so how? Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual. That is the difference between proof and opinion. Proof is general and while opinion is individual. An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth. That is generally what you do.
Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.
Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.
The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not.....and it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
"The only issue now is to figure out exactly what earth is in its entirety....." One of life's little mysteries for you, isn't it? The shape of this planet.....
That post I did, listing some of the many geosystems operating on this planet, (you know, the post you totally ignored) takes into consideration many physical aspects that make up the totality of this world - all of which could not exist if earth were flat, and domed, as you so fantasize.
You aren't going to fare well if earth is ever faced with a danger from outer space, are you? Your world view will implode.
Humor me. What do you do for a living, sceptimatic?
-
This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one. How would you do it accurately? You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally. Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.
Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source? After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.
Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level. How do you verify that the laser is level? Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.
If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel. However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction. So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance). That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.
If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface. To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away. By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred. This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first. Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously. That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter. If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.
-
This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one. How would you do it accurately? You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally. Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.
Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source? After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.
Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level. How do you verify that the laser is level? Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.
If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel. However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction. So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance). That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.
If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface. To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away. By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred. This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first. Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously. That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter. If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.
Speaking of lasers, a couple of large engineering endeavors that required taking into account "level" and "curvature":
"SLAC’s linear accelerator must be extraordinarily straight to ensure that electrons and positrons don’t bump into the walls as they zip along. (The design required the accelerator pipe to be within one-eighth of an inch from perfectly straight along the entire two miles. To put that in perspective, the ends of a perfectly straight, two-mile-long pipe would be about 16 inches farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe, due to the Earth’s curvature.)"
https://www.scu.edu/illuminate/thought-leaders/phil-kesten/accelerating-science-for-more-than-50-years.html
"Beam Tube Installation
LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work. Reinforced concrete floors 75 cm thick under the interferometers minimize leak-through of seismic vibrations."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum?
-
Jack black, you need to accept nothing will change sceptimatic's argument, and make him say the words you so desperately want him to say : "I admit defeat. Earth is a globe."
He's radicalized. He probably thinks 77 virgins await him, for believing what he does. Who knows, and who cares.
You can use a telescope that will not let you see ocean beyond the horizon, but will let you see an aircraft in the sky well beyond the horizon.
Sceptimatic probably licks stamps for a living in a post office somewhere..... let it be.
-
By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.
Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.
Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.
The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
This is so amazing.
Amazing i say!
From what i gather you had two complaints
1
The horizon should be visibly curved at ground level (which has been explained to you why not)
2
If the water curved away from us we should see the sky (which is exactly what we see and exactly what you described above)
Then you are shown a simulation of both and still seem confused.
Amazing!
You're getting far too excited.
You've seen exactly what I've explained and you are trying your best to bring up stuff to go against it....and failing.
This "amazing" stuff may make you feel better but it gives you zero proof against what I'm saying.
Put some more effort in.
-
With enough magnification on a level scope and/or enough height, then sure the horizon would be below your field of view. But you’d need a very very powerful scope or a lot of height.
It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe. The fact you do see one should tell you you are not living upon a globe.
The horizon is still there though. Aim the scope down slightly and you’d see it.
Is that all you mean?
Aiming your scope slightly down means you are not using a level scope. Are you missing something?.
-
Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.
Really. What sort of distance scales do you mean here? Describe to me how water can provide direct proof of a flat Earth surface. In line with your own rules have you managed to personally verify it? Remember you said you should only believe something if you can personally verify it (e.g. your reply #280). So since you have already accepted it as proof then obviously you have already personally verified it. So how did you do it and what results did you get?
Start again and look back. You'll see what I've proved for myself.
If you do not, or can not do those simple experiments for yourself. FOR YOURSELF....then you will always be arguing it, which is fine by me as I do not require your input to have my iown proof's and belief's.
If it was that simple and obvious don't you think the entire world would agree that the Earth is indeed flat by now.
People harass and even physically assault sopa actors in the street if their character has done something that isn't agreed with.
Can those people tell fact from fiction?
Same thing here. Sever indoctrination and saturation of the mind that skews it in the direction the indoctrinator wants to take it.
Instead of the Flat Earth Society this would be the Round Earth Society.
But it is the flat Earth society forum, not the round Earth society forum.
You are here spending all your time trying to tell what you think are nutters, that you believe it's a globe. Why?
Is that really the best you can do?!? Water proves absolutely nothing in terms of the Earth being flat.
It's not a case of it being the best I can do. It's a case of, it's there right in your observable face and testable for that very same face...and repeatable for that very same face of your and anyone else's.
Denying flatness/levelness of water in favour of a hump, is bemusing and a stark reminder to myself how easily it was for my young self to be basically conned into a belief that some imaginary force that cannot be explained (gravity) can bend water around a globe...a spinning globe...in a vacuum of space and even pull in a big moon rock ball...and so on and so on and so on.
I'm just glad I had the time and the mind to question this stuff, because, once upon a time I believed what you did.
But if it makes you happy to believe otherwise then that's fine with me.
It makes me content to question and muse over my own stuff.
-
Your 2 clear proofs show beyond any sane doubt that Earth cannot be flat.
The water is flat and that's all the proof that is required.
Rough terrain is not an argument.
Considering the same effect can be observed basically everywhere the rational conclusion is that Earth is roughly a sphere.
Then the question is just how close to a sphere is it.
The Earth cannot be a sphere in its entirety. You can have gradients at certain points, like mountains and such but certainly not on a sphere that also supposedly holds water with some magical mysterious made up load of nonsensical mumbo jumbo such as gravity and all its add ons to nudge it in the faces of those who are willing to swallow it.
-
It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.
Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it. If so how? Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual. That is the difference between proof and opinion. Proof is general and while opinion is individual. An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth. That is generally what you do.
Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.
Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.
The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not.....and it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
"The only issue now is to figure out exactly what earth is in its entirety....." One of life's little mysteries for you, isn't it? The shape of this planet.....
That post I did, listing some of the many geosystems operating on this planet, (you know, the post you totally ignored) takes into consideration many physical aspects that make up the totality of this world - all of which could not exist if earth were flat, and domed, as you so fantasize.
You aren't going to fare well if earth is ever faced with a danger from outer space, are you? Your world view will implode.
Humor me. What do you do for a living, sceptimatic?
Any danger to this Earth will happen from inside or maybe outside, as and when it happens. I don't know what's outside of this cell but I can certainly guess it and it's not a space vacuum with so called stars and planets but may very well be bunched cells just like our very own.
However, I won't go into that as you struggle with flat water.
As for humouring you. You get enough humour from your own self so I have no need to add anything to that and spoil it all.
-
This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one. How would you do it accurately? You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally. Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.
Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source? After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.
Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level. How do you verify that the laser is level? Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.
If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel. However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction. So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance). That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.
If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface. To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away. By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred. This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first. Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously. That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter. If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.
Do you accept the 8 inches per mile squared with your globe?
If not then what do you accept as your downward curvature?
-
This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one. How would you do it accurately? You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally. Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.
Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source? After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.
Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level. How do you verify that the laser is level? Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.
If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel. However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction. So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance). That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.
If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface. To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away. By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred. This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first. Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously. That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter. If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.
Speaking of lasers, a couple of large engineering endeavors that required taking into account "level" and "curvature":
"SLAC’s linear accelerator must be extraordinarily straight to ensure that electrons and positrons don’t bump into the walls as they zip along. (The design required the accelerator pipe to be within one-eighth of an inch from perfectly straight along the entire two miles. To put that in perspective, the ends of a perfectly straight, two-mile-long pipe would be about 16 inches farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe, due to the Earth’s curvature.)"
https://www.scu.edu/illuminate/thought-leaders/phil-kesten/accelerating-science-for-more-than-50-years.html
"Beam Tube Installation
LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work. Reinforced concrete floors 75 cm thick under the interferometers minimize leak-through of seismic vibrations."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum?
16 inches?
-
Jack black, you need to accept nothing will change sceptimatic's argument, and make him say the words you so desperately want him to say : "I admit defeat. Earth is a globe."
He's radicalized. He probably thinks 77 virgins await him, for believing what he does. Who knows, and who cares.
You can use a telescope that will not let you see ocean beyond the horizon, but will let you see an aircraft in the sky well beyond the horizon.
Sceptimatic probably licks stamps for a living in a post office somewhere..... let it be.
You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?
-
You've seen exactly what I've explained
You mean what you have repeatedly asserted without any justification at all.
And what was then refuted.
What was clearly explained to be wrong, with you then coming up with whatever excuse you can to ignore that refutation, even though you cannot show a single thing wrong with those explanations.
Instead you just continue to appeal to the same lies.
It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.
So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.
As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth, with the radius of Earth being 1 Ym, then you would certainly see it.
Remember, this Earth with a radius of 1 Ym is basically indistinguishable from a FE.
So the only way for the scope to not matter is if you claim it would be impossible to see the horizon without Earth curving upwards.
The fact you do see one should tell you you are not living upon a globe.
You mean the fact that you continually avoid the simple logical argument which conclusively shows you are wrong shows that you are wrong and you know it.
You'll see what I've proved for myself.
That you have no sense of integrity at all and will continue to repeat the same lies even after they have been proven to be lies beyond any sane doubt?
Can those people tell fact from fiction?
Same thing here.
Well finally you said something I can agree with.
You cannot tell the difference between facts, that of observable reality; and your own delusional fantasies.
It's not a case of it being the best I can do. It's a case of, it's there right in your observable face and testable for that very same face...and repeatable for that very same face of your and anyone else's.
And it conclusively shows you are wrong.
But you cling to your fiction and continue to lie by saying it is magically proves Earth is flat, while ignoring the evidence which shows otherwise.
The evidence clearly shows you are wrong.
The fact that water is clearly observed to obscure the bottom of distant objects, objects beyond the horizon, objects which are well above water level, with the observer well above water level; shows beyond any sane doubt that the surface of that water is curved.
Denying this fact in favour of a fantasy of Earth being flat is just pathetic, especially when you cannot provide an explanation for this clear, repeatable observation.
The water is flat and that's all the proof that is required.
Stop lying.
The water is not flat.
Again, simple observations show you are wrong.
Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same lies while being completely incapable of dealing with the evidence and logical arguments against you in any rational, honest manner?
The Earth cannot be a sphere in its entirety.
Why?
You have no evidence or arguments to support that claim at all.
Instead you just continually dismiss reality or ignore it, or ridicule it.
You have less than nothing.
Again, here is the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are blatantly lying to everyone:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
You are yet to show a single problem with it.
Now why don't you stop lying and admit you are wrong, or do the impossible and point out exactly which point of that logical argument you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, complete with a justification?
Until you actually deal with this argument, every time you claim the horizon shows Earth is flat, you are lying to everyone and showing you have no concern for the truth at all.
You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?
No, that would still be you.
Still no explanation for the mountains of evidence showing you are wrong, nor any rational objection to the logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Sure seems like you are the one who is struggling.
-
This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one. How would you do it accurately? You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally. Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.
Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source? After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.
Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level. How do you verify that the laser is level? Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.
If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel. However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction. So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance). That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.
If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface. To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away. By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred. This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first. Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously. That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter. If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.
Speaking of lasers, a couple of large engineering endeavors that required taking into account "level" and "curvature":
"SLAC’s linear accelerator must be extraordinarily straight to ensure that electrons and positrons don’t bump into the walls as they zip along. (The design required the accelerator pipe to be within one-eighth of an inch from perfectly straight along the entire two miles. To put that in perspective, the ends of a perfectly straight, two-mile-long pipe would be about 16 inches farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe, due to the Earth’s curvature.)"
https://www.scu.edu/illuminate/thought-leaders/phil-kesten/accelerating-science-for-more-than-50-years.html
"Beam Tube Installation
LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work. Reinforced concrete floors 75 cm thick under the interferometers minimize leak-through of seismic vibrations."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum?
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
-
Jack black, you need to accept nothing will change sceptimatic's argument, and make him say the words you so desperately want him to say : "I admit defeat. Earth is a globe."
He's radicalized. He probably thinks 77 virgins await him, for believing what he does. Who knows, and who cares.
You can use a telescope that will not let you see ocean beyond the horizon, but will let you see an aircraft in the sky well beyond the horizon.
Sceptimatic probably licks stamps for a living in a post office somewhere..... let it be.
You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?
Yes, I do require some help. I am struggling.
How many stamps have you licked this week?
What is your complaint with Earth curvature being 8 inches per square mile? Do you feel 8 inches is not enough? I could understand 2 inches not being enough, which is a complaint you've probably heard many times, but 8 inches?
Eight inches is plenty to do the job, sceptimatic......on a planet with a curcumference of 40,075 kilometers.
Why are you struggling with this?
-
The water is flat
Over what distance scale are you talking here? An inch, a foot, a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles etc? Simply saying water is flat is totally meaningless and therefore proves nothing.
Also a quick question for you. Who was the first person in history to propose that the Earth is a sphere and when? By definition that person had not had anything 'indoctrinated' into them because they were the first person to propose it. So on what basis do you think they might have proposed that the Earth is a sphere?
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
-
It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.
So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.
As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.
The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it. You lose your chance of any horizon for this.
Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.
You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned but I respect your right to believe you do.
-
This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one. How would you do it accurately? You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally. Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.
Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source? After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.
Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level. How do you verify that the laser is level? Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.
If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel. However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction. So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance). That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.
If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface. To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away. By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred. This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first. Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously. That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter. If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.
Speaking of lasers, a couple of large engineering endeavors that required taking into account "level" and "curvature":
"SLAC’s linear accelerator must be extraordinarily straight to ensure that electrons and positrons don’t bump into the walls as they zip along. (The design required the accelerator pipe to be within one-eighth of an inch from perfectly straight along the entire two miles. To put that in perspective, the ends of a perfectly straight, two-mile-long pipe would be about 16 inches farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe, due to the Earth’s curvature.)"
https://www.scu.edu/illuminate/thought-leaders/phil-kesten/accelerating-science-for-more-than-50-years.html
"Beam Tube Installation
LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work. Reinforced concrete floors 75 cm thick under the interferometers minimize leak-through of seismic vibrations."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum?
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
So you accept the 8 inches per mile squared, right?
-
Jack black, you need to accept nothing will change sceptimatic's argument, and make him say the words you so desperately want him to say : "I admit defeat. Earth is a globe."
He's radicalized. He probably thinks 77 virgins await him, for believing what he does. Who knows, and who cares.
You can use a telescope that will not let you see ocean beyond the horizon, but will let you see an aircraft in the sky well beyond the horizon.
Sceptimatic probably licks stamps for a living in a post office somewhere..... let it be.
You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?
Yes, I do require some help. I am struggling.
How many stamps have you licked this week?
What is your complaint with Earth curvature being 8 inches per square mile? Do you feel 8 inches is not enough? I could understand 2 inches not being enough, which is a complaint you've probably heard many times, but 8 inches?
Eight inches is plenty to do the job, sceptimatic......on a planet with a curcumference of 40,075 kilometers.
Why are you struggling with this?
Do you accept 8 inches per mile squared on your global Earth?
-
The water is flat
Over what distance scale are you talking here? An inch, a foot, a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles etc? Simply saying water is flat is totally meaningless and therefore proves nothing.
Also a quick question for you. Who was the first person in history to propose that the Earth is a sphere and when? By definition that person had not had anything 'indoctrinated' into them because they were the first person to propose it. So on what basis do you think they might have proposed that the Earth is a sphere?
How about you enlighten me and explain how and why.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
-
How about you enlighten me and explain how and why.
How about you just answer the question put to you.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
-
It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.
So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.
As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.
The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it. You lose your chance of any horizon for this.
Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.
You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned but I respect your right to believe you do.
What daft reason have you given that the horizon destroys the globe?
Is it looking level in front of you, you would only see sky, or is it the main fact the horizon we see is straight? The earth is always curving down away from you, imperceptibly. Relatively speaking, we are like the size of microbes on a basketball.
There is something wrong with you, sceptimatic. You need professional help.
How do you believe your waist size? You measured it? How the hell do you think humankind knows the circumference of this planet? We measured it.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
-
Aren't you forgetting something... In Sceptis world it is all about self-verification. So unless you happen to have built a replica SLAC or LIGO in your back yard and done the experiments for yourself, then nothing they have done counts as evidence or proof of anything! If by any chance you have of course then please.. tell me how and where you got the funding!
I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to live your life only believing 'stuff' that you can personally verify yourself. Just in case all those who write the worlds text and reference books are (for whatever reason) lying to us.
Unless of course someone some day wrote a book in support of flat Earth. That would be accepted unconditionally and without question. To prove that point an example from the past (mid-19th century) of course is ENAG by our dear old friend My Rowbotham. The FE 'bible'.
-
Aaah
But the simulation shows the visuals match reality.
-
It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.
So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.
As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
Yes, the reality is very simple, all three factors above matter.
Repeatedly lying and it doesn't, with no justification at all, just shows you don't care about the truth at all.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.
Except in the plenty of examples you have been provided which clearly shows it doesn't.
Again, all the evidence indicates the horizon is a physical phenomenon due to an actual edge of Earth, not perspective or convergence.
You are yet to provide any justification at all for your outright lie that it cannot be anything other than a magically level horizon.
The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.
Wrong again. A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE. So like so many of your claims, the reality is the exact opposite. The fact that we have a horizon at all totally destroys your FE nonsense.
Additionally you haven't stated reasons. You have stated outright lies which are effectively just repeating the same assertion again and again.
You have provided no reason at all for why a RE cannot have a horizon.
The closest you have come to doing so is effectively claiming a RE would be invisible as you would see nothing but sky.
But that will killed when you admitted that looking straight down would result in you seeing Earth.
Saying Earth curves down doesn't mean there can't be a horizon. That is the very thing that results in a horizon.
So just where is your explanation that a RE cannot have a horizon?
Once more, you have been provided with a logical argument which clearly shows that your claims about a RE not having a horizon, it being impossible and it not appearing in a level scope to be nothing more than blatant lies.
If you want to have any chance of honestly pretending that you have provided reasons you need to deal with this argument, otherwise, claiming you have justified your position is also a blatant lie.
Once more:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
And once more, the fact you continually avoid this argument, being completely incapable of a single thing wrong with it, shows you almost certainly know that you are blatantly lying to everyone. It shows you almost certainly know that the RE does have a horizon, and that when close to Earth it will appear to be level.
Now why don't you stop just repeating the same lies and deal with the argument, either identifying what point you think is wrong and why it is wrong; or by admitting you have been lying to everyone and that a RE would produce a horizon which would be visible in a level scope depending on the conditions?
You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it.
Yes, eventually curving down such that it obstructs the view to the more distant parts of it, creating a horizon.
This is different to a flat surface, where it doesn't obstruct the view at all, making a horizon impossible.
Again, this shows a FE can't have a horizon while a RE must have a horizon.
Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.
Again, only true with a FOV of 0, which would simply mean you see nothing.
As soon as you have a non-0 FOV you need to consider just where the horizon would be.
And that is something you have repeatedly refused to do, likely because you know it shows you are wrong.
Again, if you have a FOV of 180 degrees, just what do you think you would see on a RE?
Still nothing but sky, even though you have already admitted that you would see ground when looking straight down (which is included in the 180 degree FOV?
You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned
Yes, you live in a fantasy land, with no connection to reality.
It isn't simply my belief that we live on a globe. It is what all the available evidence indicates, with no evidence indicating otherwise.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
You can talk about it either way. The problem is the author is wrong.
It is a 32 inch "drop" from one end to the author. But that doesn't mean the ends are 16 inches above the middle.
Instead they are only 8 inches above the middle.
Also, FEers talking about the drop from one end to the other is a reason many claim you can see things that should be hidden. In those cases they should be talking about the drop from the horizon to either end.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
You can talk about it either way. The problem is the author is wrong.
It is a 32 inch "drop" from one end to the author. But that doesn't mean the ends are 16 inches above the middle.
Instead they are only 8 inches above the middle.
Also, FEers talking about the drop from one end to the other is a reason many claim you can see things that should be hidden. In those cases they should be talking about the drop from the horizon to either end.
Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.
And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.
-
Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.
And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.
My understanding of the "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." is this:
Consider the middle of the pipe passing tangent to a circle of radius r, centred on Earth. (This is the only way to make it symmetric so the same is true for both ends, but I think is also not how it was designed)
This gives us an image like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fcSoWXw.png)
The blue line is the circle of Earth, the purple line is one of the beams, the grey lines are drawn to the centre of Earth, with r being the radius, the distance from the centre of Earth to the middle of the beam. The ends are an extra distance h away from the centre.
That extra distance should be ~8 inches.
The other option for the setup is more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wga8u5E.png)
h1 is 8 inches, and h2 is 32 inches.
Now one end is the closest part to Earth's centre, the middle is 8 inches further away and the other end is 32 inches further away.
-
Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.
And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.
My understanding of the "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." is this:
Consider the middle of the pipe passing tangent to a circle of radius r, centred on Earth. (This is the only way to make it symmetric so the same is true for both ends, but I think is also not how it was designed)
This gives us an image like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fcSoWXw.png)
The blue line is the circle of Earth, the purple line is one of the beams, the grey lines are drawn to the centre of Earth, with r being the radius, the distance from the centre of Earth to the middle of the beam. The ends are an extra distance h away from the centre.
That extra distance should be ~8 inches.
The other option for the setup is more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wga8u5E.png)
h1 is 8 inches, and h2 is 32 inches.
Now one end is the closest part to Earth's centre, the middle is 8 inches further away and the other end is 32 inches further away.
All makes sense now. Thx for the explainer and especially the visuals.
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
-
Has sceppy ever explained what his version of the horzion is?
-
I miss Ron
-
Has sceppy ever explained what his version of the horzion is?
Yes, he has - Flat. The horizon version available for everybody to see, is, in sceptimatic's view - the flat earth horizon. According to him, what we see, is the flat earth horizon. We are the ones with the problem - apparently - crapping on with some garbage, earth is a globe.
This is how radicalisation works - it rewires the brain.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.
-
It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.
So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.
As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.
The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it. You lose your chance of any horizon for this.
Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.
You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned but I respect your right to believe you do.
What daft reason have you given that the horizon destroys the globe?
Is it looking level in front of you, you would only see sky, or is it the main fact the horizon we see is straight? The earth is always curving down away from you, imperceptibly. Relatively speaking, we are like the size of microbes on a basketball.
There is something wrong with you, sceptimatic. You need professional help.
How do you believe your waist size? You measured it? How the hell do you think humankind knows the circumference of this planet? We measured it.
You didn't measure it, at all.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.
-
Aren't you forgetting something... In Sceptis world it is all about self-verification. So unless you happen to have built a replica SLAC or LIGO in your back yard and done the experiments for yourself, then nothing they have done counts as evidence or proof of anything! If by any chance you have of course then please.. tell me how and where you got the funding!
I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to live your life only believing 'stuff' that you can personally verify yourself. Just in case all those who write the worlds text and reference books are (for whatever reason) lying to us.
Unless of course someone some day wrote a book in support of flat Earth. That would be accepted unconditionally and without question. To prove that point an example from the past (mid-19th century) of course is ENAG by our dear old friend My Rowbotham. The FE 'bible'.
If you cannot verify it yourself then your reliance is solely based on trust.
If you think we live in a world full of trust then good for you. I believe we live in a world of a mucky mixture of human truth's, lies and misconceptions, among many other things.
It's all about what each person is willing to accept, unconditionally when offered as bait by a so called authority.
Basically the best storytellers that will not.... or can not, verify the story being told or that was told and sold to them.
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
-
If you cannot verify it yourself then your reliance is solely based on trust.
Oh OK then. So who should I trust in this world to tell me the truth then?
-
Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.
And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.
My understanding of the "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." is this:
Consider the middle of the pipe passing tangent to a circle of radius r, centred on Earth. (This is the only way to make it symmetric so the same is true for both ends, but I think is also not how it was designed)
This gives us an image like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fcSoWXw.png)
The blue line is the circle of Earth, the purple line is one of the beams, the grey lines are drawn to the centre of Earth, with r being the radius, the distance from the centre of Earth to the middle of the beam. The ends are an extra distance h away from the centre.
That extra distance should be ~8 inches.
The other option for the setup is more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wga8u5E.png)
h1 is 8 inches, and h2 is 32 inches.
Now one end is the closest part to Earth's centre, the middle is 8 inches further away and the other end is 32 inches further away.
And also to add, seeing as you've managed to do a correct diagram. Where's the horizon?
You see that level line if view, left to right or just to the left or right, in this case.
No horizon but plenty of sky....if your Earth was a globe.
But we do see a horizon. Global Earth we supposedly walk upon does not work and the simplicity ot prove it gets lost in the complexity of the explanations to keep it as a supposed reality.
-
It's a big ball. And your angle of view is more than a plane.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.
No motive no crime. What would be the motivation for these engineering efforts to claim they took earth's curvature into account when designing these facilities when the overall effort and research purposes of said have zero to do with the shape of the earth? In short, why lie?
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.
You always appeal to your bathtub as representative of water not 'curving' relative to an ocean. What's the difference?
-
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you
No, not just to me.
To every sane, honest individual, as clearly demonstrated by the logical argument you are yet to refute.
It just seems to not be to you, because you have no concern for the truth and are willing to continually repeat the same lies.
Again, if you want to claim the RE can't have a horizon, with any sense of integrity, you need to honestly and rationally deal with the argument that shows it does.
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Have you been able to find anything wrong with it yet?
If not, your lies are useless.
Again, why not grow up and admit you have been lying to us all this time?
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
No, that isn't the point, that is your blatant lie, a lie that is clearly refuted by the available evidence.
The fact that it is clearly observed to be below the convergence point shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence and instead is entirely physical.
The fact that it is a finite distance away rather than infinitely far away shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence and instead is entirely physical.
The fact that it obscures the lower parts of objects beyond the horizon shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence and instead is entirely physical.
The fact that it independent of the optics used (unless those optics are quite poor, with a limit to how far you can see the land/sea to existing) shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence and instead is entirely physical.
Almost everything about the horizon shows clearly that it is physical, not perspective.
You have provided literally nothing to indicate it is due to perspective/convergence.
If the horizon was the result of convergence then it would need to be infinitely far away, as that is the distance required to make parallel lines converge.
This means nothing could every go beyond the horizon and be obscured by it.
Instead, objects would simply shrink as they approach the horizon, with the bottom remaining just as visible as the top.
If you use better optics you would have more resolving power and be able to see the object more clearly, extending the effective distance (which would be based upon how well you can resolve the land and objects visually near the horizon.
But no matter how good the optics are, the bottom of the object would never be obscured by the horizon, and the horizon would always appear at eye level.
Again, repeating the same lies does not help your case.
Again, why not grow up and admit you have been lying to us all this time?
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work.
Why not?
You are yet to point out any problem with the argument provided.
And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Yes, you did lie by saying that. But that doesn't make it true.
I KNOW it works because that is what the logical proof shows, as well as plenty of simple observations about a ball.
The fact that you have no objection at all to the argument provided also further supports the idea, but that is much less support than the argument itself.
It has nothing to do with me being educated, and absolutely nothing to do with indoctrination.
Once more, you are yet to provide any justification for why the RE should magically not have a horizon.
-
And also to add, seeing as you've managed to do a correct diagram. Where's the horizon?
This is not a diagram to show the horizon in any way.
It is a cross sectional view, not a perspective view.
It also has no observer indicated to indicate where the horizon should be.
The closest you could get is if this was for an observer at near infinite distance from Earth, at which point the horizon is that round, blue line.
If you would like an alternative view, here is an example, just or you. First, a side on view:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
The circle (only part of which is shown) is Earth.
The person is indicated by the red line, with their eyes being quite high above this Earth (and thus the angle of dip to the horizon is much greater than we experience in every day life).
The brown lines represent the bounds of this person's FOV.
The purple line shows the line of sight from them to the horizon. Where this purple line touches Earth is the horizon.
The region of Earth coloured green is the visible portion that can be seen.
The light grey regions of Earth are below the surface and thus can't be seen.
The dark grey line represents the edge of Earth which is not visible. One portion is not visible because it is outside the view cone of the person (directly below or behind them). But another portion is not visible because the visible portion of Earth obstructs the view.
The light blue region show the visible portion of the sky below the horizon, where your line of sight passing through it would hit Earth.
The darker blue region shows the visible portion of the sky which is above the horizon.
(note: just realised dark blue region is also light blue. It is meant to be the light blue region above the purple line).
Also shown is a tower standing on Earth some distance around the curve. The visible portion is shown in black. The part that is obstructed by the Earth is shown in dark grey.
Here is what the person would see (only a thin strip due to it coming from a 2D slice):
(https://i.imgur.com/MTFIhax.png)
Notice, a clear line is seen, below which there is green, showing Earth, and above which is blue, showing sky.
We also see the top of the black building, but not the bottom, which is obstructed by Earth.
In this case, the horizon is quite low, but that is due to just how high above Earth it is.
If you move closer to the surface, the horizon will appear higher and higher, until when you are at the surface, it is at eye level exactly, and 0 m away from you.
If you change your FOV you can make the horizon move closer to the edge (or outside) by reducing your FOV, or closer to the centre of the image by increasing the FOV.
So no, unlike your blatant lie, back in reality a RE DOES have a horizon.
Again, if you wish to disagree, point out just what issue you have with the argument I presented.
Or provide an image like the latter one, but for a vertical FOV of 180 degrees.
But we do see a horizon.
Yes, just like as any sane person would expect for the RE.
Again, you have not provided any justification for why the horizon could not exist for a RE.
Instead you just repeat the same lies.
Global Earth we supposedly walk upon does not work and the simplicity ot prove it
If it was so simple, why are you completely incapable of doing so?
It seems your lies are too simple to withstand any rational scrutiny so even a tiny bit of "complexity" shows the massive flaws in your lies.
After all, it isn't that hard to understand that a RE MUST have a horizon.
Just go look at any ball.
See the edge? That is your horizon.
But instead of admitting this, you just want to appeal to needless complexity by claiming that somehow standing on that ball will magically turn it invisible, even though you have no justification for that at all.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever
Yes, what a crazy idea, comparing a round object to a round object.
if you were stood on it.
Again, why should standing on it magically make it invisible?
The fact it has an edge shows beyond any doubt that a RE MUST have a horizon.
All that is left to debate by any sane people is exactly where that horizon should appear.
Noticing how if you are looking straight at the ball, bringing it closer to you moves the edge outwards shows that the distance matters, and you cannot simply ignore it.
And by using a camera with a zoom lens you can have a similar effect, but due to the FOV decreasing, showing the FOV is important.
Again, why do you need to appeal to such pathetic complexities when the simple observation of a ball shows that balls do have horizons?
You make things needlessly complex when you need that needless complexity to pretend to have a case, but reject any complexity which shows your simple lies to be wrong.
-
If you cannot verify it yourself then your reliance is solely based on trust.
Oh OK then. So who should I trust in this world to tell me the truth then?
Trust whoever you want. I'm not you and have no control over who you will or won't trust.
I'm telling you that I question stuff that has no direct proof and I do not accept a lot of stuff that is told and sold as factual but hidden behind all kinds of cloaks and nonsensical gobbledygook.
And...I know I know. I just don't understand it and you l'ot do and blah blah blah.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.
No motive no crime. What would be the motivation for these engineering efforts to claim they took earth's curvature into account when designing these facilities when the overall effort and research purposes of said have zero to do with the shape of the earth? In short, why lie?
Do you think they used a spirit level of some description in order to set this thing up?
What does it look like to you?
Can you see how it was set up?
It is a real thing....right?
You know this....right?
Help me out.
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.
You always appeal to your bathtub as representative of water not 'curving' relative to an ocean. What's the difference?
An ocean is rarely calm enough to measure anything of a level.
A lake or a pond or a bathtub, is.
-
And also to add, seeing as you've managed to do a correct diagram. Where's the horizon?
This is not a diagram to show the horizon in any way.
It is a cross sectional view, not a perspective view.
It also has no observer indicated to indicate where the horizon should be.
The closest you could get is if this was for an observer at near infinite distance from Earth, at which point the horizon is that round, blue line.
If you would like an alternative view, here is an example, just or you. First, a side on view:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Show a level view, not a dipped line to the ground as if you'd see some kind of line.
You're attempting to try and make something so simple, obscure by using this bad effort.
You already did a good job with your earlier level line on your globe.
No need nor point to try and get out of it with this effigy.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.
No motive no crime. What would be the motivation for these engineering efforts to claim they took earth's curvature into account when designing these facilities when the overall effort and research purposes of said have zero to do with the shape of the earth? In short, why lie?
Do you think they used a spirit level of some description in order to set this thing up?
What does it look like to you?
Can you see how it was set up?
It is a real thing....right?
You know this....right?
Help me out.
It was quite a complicated engineering endeavor and there are papers written about how they engineered it. Mostly using GPS if I remember correctly. I can dig up the engineering documents specific to this if you would like. But I think you wouldn't care. Just let me know. It is interesting stuff.
But that doesn't answer the question: Why lie when it's not material to what the facilities are designed to measure? It is just how they constructed the facilities to make for accurate results of other non-shape-of-earth research.
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.
You always appeal to your bathtub as representative of water not 'curving' relative to an ocean. What's the difference?
An ocean is rarely calm enough to measure anything of a level.
A lake or a pond or a bathtub, is.
You missed the point. You have a problem with someone relating household observations for larger issues, especially scale, when you do the same all the time with a bathtub. "...from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it." Well, you use a bathtub in place of an ocean. Get it? Basically pot-kettle.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.
No motive no crime. What would be the motivation for these engineering efforts to claim they took earth's curvature into account when designing these facilities when the overall effort and research purposes of said have zero to do with the shape of the earth? In short, why lie?
Do you think they used a spirit level of some description in order to set this thing up?
What does it look like to you?
Can you see how it was set up?
It is a real thing....right?
You know this....right?
Help me out.
It was quite a complicated engineering endeavor and there are papers written about how they engineered it. Mostly using GPS if I remember correctly. I can dig up the engineering documents specific to this if you would like. But I think you wouldn't care. Just let me know. It is interesting stuff.
But that doesn't answer the question: Why lie when it's not material to what the facilities are designed to measure? It is just how they constructed the facilities to make for accurate results of other non-shape-of-earth research.
Do you think it was more complicated than this?(https://i.postimg.cc/NjHWnfct/Star-Trek-Enterprise-In-a-Mirror-Darkly-Constitution-class-cross-section.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.
You always appeal to your bathtub as representative of water not 'curving' relative to an ocean. What's the difference?
An ocean is rarely calm enough to measure anything of a level.
A lake or a pond or a bathtub, is.
You missed the point. You have a problem with someone relating household observations for larger issues, especially scale, when you do the same all the time with a bathtub. "...from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it." Well, you use a bathtub in place of an ocean. Get it? Basically pot-kettle.
I could use a lake or pond, either liquid or frozen....and do it to show level.
Sitting at a table with a basketball on it and saying you can see a line, is nothing more than duping others and yourself, if you actually believe this represents your global Earth you think you walk upon.
So, no...not pot and kettle.
-
I'm telling you that I question stuff that has no direct proof
What do you call direct proof then?
If you cannot verify it yourself then your reliance is solely based on trust.
Tell me then, who do you trust in this world? No just yourself surely?
-
And yet again, you ignore the simple irrefutable argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are lying to everyone in this thread. Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Care to grow up and honestly and rationally address it, such as by admitting there is no problem with it and it clearly shows you are wrong?
I'm telling you that I question stuff that has no direct proof
And even that is a lie.
You question anything which shows you are wrong, and refuse to accept it in any way, even when you can point out nothing wrong with it.
The sole "reason" you reject it is because it shows you are wrong.
Meanwhile, you accept all sorts of nonsense, like Earth being flat, with no proof at all to support it and plenty of proof against it.
Or is your excuse now that you don't actually question that which clearly proves you are wrong and instead you just ignore it entirely, as you know you stand no chance of refuting it?
An ocean is rarely calm enough to measure anything of a level.
A lake or a pond or a bathtub, is.
And you have measured it accurately enough to know there is no curvature consistent with the 6371 km radius of Earth?
Because guess what? It actually works out the exact opposite way.
The measurement accuracy required to detect the curvature at such a tiny scale is massive. The fluctuations in the surface will dominate and you have no chance at all of detecting the curvature of Earth in a bathtub.
But at a larger scale, the accuracy required is much lower, due to the much greater curvature, and now the fluctuations can be small compared to the curvature.
See, this is the massive difference between us and you.
We appeal to everyday objects which accurately portray the point being made to clearly show why you are wrong. You dismiss this with no justification at all.
You appeal to everyday objects which do not accurately portray the point you are trying to make, and we can clearly explain why.
Show a level view
I did.
It is a 90 degree FOV centered directly on level.
That means the FOV goes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above level.
The "dipped" line is merely the line to the horizon, not the centre of the level.
You're attempting to try and make something so simple
I wouldn't say I am attempting anything.
I have clearly provided an extremely simple example of a level view for a RE which clearly includes the horizon.
And what is your response?
Just pathetic dismissal, without being able to show a single issue with it.
Your only apparent objection is that it isn't a level view, which is just an outright lie.
That is just how pathetic your position is.
All you can do is ignore or dismiss all the evidence and logical proofs that you are wrong, and just resort to repeating the same pathetic lies.
I even provided a nice simple way out for you, draw what you think it would look like if you had a 180 degree FOV.
Can you do that? It should be a pretty simple task, but apparently, even that is still to challenging for you, likely because you cannot think of any way to do it which wouldn't instantly show you to have been lying right from the start.
Sitting at a table with a basketball on it and saying you can see a line, is nothing more than duping others and yourself, if you actually believe this represents your global Earth you think you walk upon.
WHY?
It is showing that balls have edges. That if you look at it there will be a line and on one side of that line you see the object, and on the other you see the surroundings.
That sure sound like a horizon on a RE, where below that line you see Earth and above it you see sky.
Again, just what do you think is wrong with this?
Can you provide any rational justification, or can you just dismiss it?
Again, we can provide a rational justification for why testing a bathtub for flatness is pointless.
Remember, as a first approximation, the drop if given by l^2/(2*r)
If your bath tub is 2 m long, then the drop from the centre is a mere 78 nm.
You are not going to be able to detect that.
But for a ball, the edge is there, no matter how big it is.
And the larger that ball is, the closer it would be to the RE and the FE.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Show a level view, not a dipped line to the ground as if you'd see some kind of line.
You're attempting to try and make something so simple, obscure by using this bad effort.
You already did a good job with your earlier level line on your globe.
No need nor point to try and get out of it with this effigy.
Most likely you do not understand this very simple diagram.
Also
A very simple dynamic video was produced and provided to you showing a 3d simulation does match observed reality.
Whos making life obscure by using nonconforming language and contradicting analogies and who refuses to provide a clear diagram of their proposed system in an attempt to better communicate their thoughts?
This is now turning into a very sad and pathetic row
-
I think sceptimatic's short term goal, is for this ridiculous debate to hit 50 pages. From what I can see, he will succeed.
Everyone, still hoping like mad, they can get through to this dolt. But, is he a dolt if his grand scheme is just to watch people floundering around trying to prove to some nincompoop the earth is a globe? Maybe i see the sick, psychopathic joy, sceptimatic is getting out of this.
Nobody in this thread is any closer to changing sceptimatic's piblic viewpoint. One hundred more pages from here, nobody will be any closer to changing sceptimatic's mind.
This is absolutely pointless and a waste of precious time, just like debating with that fool - cikljamas.
-
Well as goes the common saying, so long as you keep supplying fuel to the fire it will keep on burning. Cut off the fuel and the fire soon goes out.
What conspiracy theorists lack in terms of factual knowledge they make up for through their abilities of making claims which are so ridiculous that they know they will provoke a reply. That way they keep the spotlight of attention on themselves.
Which of course is the main reason why they become a conspiracy theorist in the first place. They enjoy the attention. Even if it is all for the wrong reasons.
-
I'm telling you that I question stuff that has no direct proof
What do you call direct proof then?
I'm sure you can work that one out.
If you cannot verify it yourself then your reliance is solely based on trust.
Tell me then, who do you trust in this world? No just yourself surely?
I trust a few, wholeheartedly and I have some trust, in many and little trust in, many more.
-
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
When you're ready to deal with looking out from a level sight, let me know.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Show a level view, not a dipped line to the ground as if you'd see some kind of line.
You're attempting to try and make something so simple, obscure by using this bad effort.
You already did a good job with your earlier level line on your globe.
No need nor point to try and get out of it with this effigy.
Most likely you do not understand this very simple diagram.
Also
A very simple dynamic video was produced and provided to you showing a 3d simulation does match observed reality.
Whos making life obscure by using nonconforming language and contradicting analogies and who refuses to provide a clear diagram of their proposed system in an attempt to better communicate their thoughts?
This is now turning into a very sad and pathetic row
I can understand it quite clearly and it's showing nothing what you people see on this Earth. This is due to this Earth not being the globe you think it is.
And yes, you're right, it is getting pathetic....but not from my side.
-
I'm sure you can work that one out.
No you've got me there I'm afraid. But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof. That's why I asked the question. So perhaps you could answer it.
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
And who are the trusted few?
-
I think sceptimatic's short term goal, is for this ridiculous debate to hit 50 pages. From what I can see, he will succeed.
Everyone, still hoping like mad, they can get through to this dolt. But, is he a dolt if his grand scheme is just to watch people floundering around trying to prove to some nincompoop the earth is a globe? Maybe i see the sick, psychopathic joy, sceptimatic is getting out of this.
Nobody in this thread is any closer to changing sceptimatic's piblic viewpoint. One hundred more pages from here, nobody will be any closer to changing sceptimatic's mind.
This is absolutely pointless and a waste of precious time, just like debating with that fool - cikljamas.
And yet, here you are doing exactly what you're trying to tell others not to do.
-
Well as goes the common saying, so long as you keep supplying fuel to the fire it will keep on burning. Cut off the fuel and the fire soon goes out.
What conspiracy theorists lack in terms of factual knowledge they make up for through their abilities of making claims which are so ridiculous that they know they will provoke a reply. That way they keep the spotlight of attention on themselves.
Which of course is the main reason why they become a conspiracy theorist in the first place. They enjoy the attention. Even if it is all for the wrong reasons.
So....cut off this fuel then and let it go away, as you think.
-
I'm sure you can work that one out.
No you've got me there I'm afraid. But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof. That's why I asked the question. So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.
-
I am not adding any more fuel to the fire. Just looking at it from different angles to verify for myself that it is real and giving it a poke every now and then.
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.
I know who you don't trust. My question was who you do trust. Shouldn't take you long as you clearly don't trust many people. Only one comes to mind at the moment. But you mean to say there are others?!?
Mind you, you are right about one thing though. I just put a tape measure across my fish pond and from what I could see it is completely level. Gosh... the Earth is flat after all!
-
I am not adding any more fuel to the fire. Just looking at it from different angles to verify for myself that it is real and giving it a poke every now and then.
That is adding fuel to the fire you make out you dearly want to put out.
So help to put it out by not fuelling it.
See if you can do it.
-
16 inches?
Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"
Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?
Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:
A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so
My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.
No motive no crime. What would be the motivation for these engineering efforts to claim they took earth's curvature into account when designing these facilities when the overall effort and research purposes of said have zero to do with the shape of the earth? In short, why lie?
Do you think they used a spirit level of some description in order to set this thing up?
What does it look like to you?
Can you see how it was set up?
It is a real thing....right?
You know this....right?
Help me out.
It was quite a complicated engineering endeavor and there are papers written about how they engineered it. Mostly using GPS if I remember correctly. I can dig up the engineering documents specific to this if you would like. But I think you wouldn't care. Just let me know. It is interesting stuff.
But that doesn't answer the question: Why lie when it's not material to what the facilities are designed to measure? It is just how they constructed the facilities to make for accurate results of other non-shape-of-earth research.
Do you think it was more complicated than this?(https://i.postimg.cc/NjHWnfct/Star-Trek-Enterprise-In-a-Mirror-Darkly-Constitution-class-cross-section.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:
Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...
At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Why doesn’t it work though? You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.
For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.
Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not). You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary). There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half. What do you think you should see where they meet?
-
Everyone, still hoping like mad, they can get through to this dolt.
No, I know there is no chance to get through to him.
He appears vastly too far gone with self delusion.
The only question is if he genuinely believes his nonsense or if he is just a pathetic troll spouting garbage he knows to be garbage.
The problem with FEers is that it can be quite difficult to tell if the troll is playing their character consistently.
But I will continue to object to his nonsense to prevent anyone else who doesn't know better from foolishly beleiving it; until he either does the impossible and justifies his nonsense, or until he stop spouting such nonsense.
-
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
So who are the privileged and trusted few then?
-
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
When you're ready to deal with looking out from a level sight, let me know.
That is point 8.
So I am quite willing to deal with it.
Are you?
Including the logic that leads up to it and proves beyond any doubt that you are lying to everyone?
Or are you just willing to continually dismiss it with whatever excuse you can think of, without being able to show anything wrong with the logic?
See how it goes?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
1 establishes that you can see Earth, it is not simply nothing but sky.
The next few points establish that this means you MUST have a horizon on a RE, unlike your repeated blatant lie.
7 and 8 then establish where this horizon would visually be, with point 8 showing that when close to the surface, the horizon would appear at basically eye level.
If you like, just to be explicit:
9 - Thus, if you set up a level scope, at an altitude of 2 m above sea level, if that scope has a FOV >=5.4 arc minutes you will see the horizon.
So when you are ready to deal with the logical proof which includes a level scope and clearly shows you are wrong, let everyone know, because that will be a miracle.
I'm telling you that I question stuff that has no direct proof
What do you call direct proof then?
I'm sure you can work that one out.
I assume you require it to show you are correct, and thus anything that shows you are wrong is instantly dismissed as not proof, because it doesn't agree with you?
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.
The issue is not us knowing what it is. It is what you think it is.
This is because you have been provided with direct proof that you are wrong.
Yet you just continue to dismiss or ignore it.
So either you are lying to us yet again when you claim you will admit you are wrong when provided with direct proof; or you are effectively lying to us by using a completely different meaning of "direct proof".
I can understand it quite clearly
So you are intentionally being dishonest when you ask about a level scope?
Because if you understood it quite clearly you would know it is showing a level scope with a FOV of 90 degrees, clearly showing that the horizon would be visible.
The only possible rational, honest objection you could have to it is by saying that the FOV is too large and it should be smaller for the comparison, but then to be honest you would also need to accept the observer is far too high, and thus it should be lowered, a lot, which would then bring the horizon back into view.
If you want it to be too scale, to accurately show a person at 2 m height, all the way to the horizon, with a width of 1920 px (A standard HD monitor), this 1920 px would be ~5000 m, and thus it would be roughly 2.7 m per pixel.
The drop to the horizon would only be 2 m, i.e. less than a pixel, and the height of the person would be less than a pixel as well.
The difference in height between the person's eye and the horizon would be between 1 and 2 pixels.
And at that scale the curvature would be so tiny you would not easily see it. Again, it is less than 1 pixel.
And yes, you're right, it is getting pathetic....but not from my side.
Oh it is certainly from your side. Right from the start you spout an outright lie, get it completely refuted, and then continually ignore that refutation or just make up whatever excuse you can to dismiss it.
You are yet to rationally and honestly engage in the argument which clearly shows you are wrong.
So it is quite clearly your side that is completely pathetic from that.
Likewise you continually repeat the lie that the horizon is the convergence point, and dismiss all the evidence showing that is an outright lie as fake, with no justification at all for why it is fake. The sole reason you have for dismissing this evidence as fake is that it shows you are wrong.
Likewise you continually repeat the lie that water proves Earth is flat, even though you have been provided with evidence that shows beyond any sane doubt that it is curved, clearly obstructing the view to the bottom of a distant object that is above the horizon. Again, no rational justification at all. Instead you just appeal to a bathtub, where the budge would be on the order of 10s of nm, far too tiny for you to detect.
So it is certainly your side that is pathetic. You have nothing but lies and need to ignore/dismiss all the evidence and logical proofs that you are wrong.
-
I'm sure you can work that one out.
No you've got me there I'm afraid. But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof. That's why I asked the question. So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.
I'm happy to debate with you on other topics in this fine forum, sceptimatic, but I'm not adding any more fuel to this dwindled fire.
So you don't trust me on anyone else in this debate. Fine. Why don't you tell us then, who you do trust? Afterall, you don't even trust your own eyes.
Maybe jack black is right. Maybe you're just an actor and "Sceptimatic" is your flat earther character. If so, you played your role well. >:D
If not, you need to see a doctor, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. :'(
Everybody enjoys a challenge, but there are limits. Nothing will change your mind.
-
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
The diagram is there.
You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:
Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...
At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Why doesn’t it work though? You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.
For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.
Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not). You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary). There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half. What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.
In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.
Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.
But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
-
Everyone, still hoping like mad, they can get through to this dolt.
No, I know there is no chance to get through to him.
He appears vastly too far gone with self delusion.
The only question is if he genuinely believes his nonsense or if he is just a pathetic troll spouting garbage he knows to be garbage.
The problem with FEers is that it can be quite difficult to tell if the troll is playing their character consistently.
But I will continue to object to his nonsense to prevent anyone else who doesn't know better from foolishly beleiving it; until he either does the impossible and justifies his nonsense, or until he stop spouting such nonsense.
This is what I do with you people.
-
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
So who are the privileged and trusted few then?
Nobody you need to be concerned about.
-
So it is certainly your side that is pathetic. You have nothing but lies and need to ignore/dismiss all the evidence and logical proofs that you are wrong.
Nope. I'm not dismissing any evidence. I'm responding.
You are dismissing anything I say and coming back with the very same questions.
You have the issue, not me.
You are certainly having trouble with the word, level.
-
I'm sure you can work that one out.
No you've got me there I'm afraid. But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof. That's why I asked the question. So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.
I'm happy to debate with you on other topics in this fine forum, sceptimatic, but I'm not adding any more fuel to this dwindled fire.
So you don't trust me on anyone else in this debate. Fine. Why don't you tell us then, who you do trust? Afterall, you don't even trust your own eyes.
Maybe jack black is right. Maybe you're just an actor and "Sceptimatic" is your flat earther character. If so, you played your role well. >:D
If not, you need to see a doctor, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. :'(
Everybody enjoys a challenge, but there are limits. Nothing will change your mind.
Facts will change my mind.
p to now, none of you lot are armed with them.
You are all armed with massive appeals to what you believe is, authority. That does not guarantee, truth's...and you know it.
-
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
The diagram is there.
There are diagrams for lots of things, real and not real. So now you discount the existence of a facility that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth only that they mentioned the challenge the shape of the earth posed in constructing it? Lots of journalists and researchers have written about their work at the facility. I haven't read anything from journalists and researchers regarding real workings on the Enterprise.
As well, I can visit the site and go on a tour, even can see it on google maps just like I can my house. And I'm pretty sure my house is real. I have a diagram of my house too.
(https://i.imgur.com/b1EqRF7.jpg)
You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
There's physical proof. Like I mentioned before, you can visit either of the two LIGO facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Washington. What makes you say I accept anything? Because I'm convinced a research facility exists? Because there's a massive amount of evidence that it exists? Conversely, you believe in a carbonite crystal thing-a-mabob that projects the sun onto a membrane covering earth with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And you say I'll believe anything? Hilarious.
No, you really, really don't care about the truth. That's plain to see by everyone. But that is your prerogative.
Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:
Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...
At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.
And what silliness might that be?
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.
Hey look, someone did exactly what ytou asked for. The "Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave." - I.e., The simple set up you gave: a leveled tube. Simple, just what you asked for:
(https://i.imgur.com/EB2DYN3.jpg)
Any hey, using your simple set up, the one you have asked for, the leveled tube, not only can I see the horizon but I can see that it is below eye level. Go figure.
-
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking
Stop lying. You have no interest in the truth at all.
Again, the only question is if that is because you have deluded yourself so much that you truly believe your delusions are the truth and will reject anything that shows otherwise, or if it is because you are just a troll.
If you actually cared about the truth you would have accepted the evidence provided or provided a rational reason to object to it, even if that reason was your own photos showing a different result.
But ignoring that evidence, if you actually cared about the truth you would have accepted the logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong, or you would have done the impossible and refuted it.
But instead you just use whatever excuse you can to dismiss it, with no objection to any point of the argument.
So it is quite clear you have no interest in seeking the truth, at least not on this forum.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
Again, if we accepted anything, we would have accepted your plentiful lies.
The fact we don't, the fact we reject them and refute them shows that we don't just accept anything.
I accept things based upon evidence and logical reasoning, 2 things you are yet to provide, and 2 things which easily show you are wrong.
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky
No, only if your FOV is small enough, such as it being 0, in which case you see nothing.
Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
For a RE, the horizon is only 2 times the distance below you that it is in your FE fantasy with a magically and inexplicably close horizon.
If it can do the 2 m, why can't it do the 4 m?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.
Again, PROVE IT!
Stop just repeating the same pathetic lie.
This is what I do with you people.
Yes, you ignore and insult the people that clearly show you are wrong, beyond any doubt, leaving you no wiggle room for any attempt at a rebuttal as you know you have been beaten.
Nope. I'm not dismissing any evidence. I'm responding.
You dismiss it as a conjob, with no justification at all other that it doesn't agree with you.
That is dismissing.
You are dismissing anything I say and coming back with the very same questions.
No, I am pointing out why your lies are lies.
That is not dismissing what you say. It is explaining why you are wrong.
Facts will change my mind.
Stop lying.
You have been presented with facts which you just repeatedly dismiss.
This facts are facts of math, not subject to any evidence.
It is a fact that the RE DOES have a horizon.
It is a fact that its position is dependent upon the altitude of the observer (and the radius of Earth, but as Earth is a physical object with a radius which changes so negligibly, and which you cannot control, that can be ignored as a variable).
It is a fact that all scopes have a FOV.
It is a fact that your ability to see the horizon though a level scope is dependent upon the above factors, i.e. the height of the scope above Earth and the FOV of the scope.
Thus it is a fact that your claim that you would never see the horizon through a level scope on a RE is an outright lie.
This was proven to you beyond any doubt with a simple logical argument you are yet to point out any problem with.
So it is a fact that you do not give a damn about facts and truth and that you have no interest in changing your mind.
Once more, here is the logical argument you are yet to present any rational challenge to:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Are you going to try to honestly and rationally deal with it?
Are you going to event attempt to point out something that you believe is wrong with it, why you think it is wrong and what you think it should be?
Or will you surprise everyone and admit you have been lying to us this whole time?
If not, you have been presented with facts which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong, and these facts are not changing your mind.
You are all armed with massive appeals to what you believe is, authority.
The plentiful evidence you have been provided with is not authority.
The logical arguments you have been provided with is not authority.
We are not appealing to authority.
We are using evidence and logical arguments to establish facts which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.
This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection
The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.
If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.
The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment
So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.
-
I'm sure you can work that one out.
No you've got me there I'm afraid. But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof. That's why I asked the question. So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.
I trust a few, wholeheartedly
And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.
I'm happy to debate with you on other topics in this fine forum, sceptimatic, but I'm not adding any more fuel to this dwindled fire.
So you don't trust me on anyone else in this debate. Fine. Why don't you tell us then, who you do trust? Afterall, you don't even trust your own eyes.
Maybe jack black is right. Maybe you're just an actor and "Sceptimatic" is your flat earther character. If so, you played your role well. >:D
If not, you need to see a doctor, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. :'(
Everybody enjoys a challenge, but there are limits. Nothing will change your mind.
Facts will change my mind.
p to now, none of you lot are armed with them.
You are all armed with massive appeals to what you believe is, authority. That does not guarantee, truth's...and you know it.
One last post then.... >:( >:( >:(
Facts will change your mind, will it? Like the fact, the moment you declare we live on a flat earth, all of a sudden you can't explain thousands of planetary phenomena which are easily explained by Earth being a globe? Fact like that?
You think you know more about facts than I do, then? You think you know more about gathering evidence, investigating, and establishing facts than I do?
Take a wild guess at what my career has been for the past 21 years, sceptimatic.
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Why doesn’t it work though? You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.
For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.
Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not). You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary). There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half. What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.
In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.
Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.
But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
So you can clearly see the ground in front of you (it’s only dropped 8 inches over the first mile), and you can see the sky in front of you.
So what would you see where the ground and sky meet?
It’s a simple question, why can’t you answer it?
-
Facts will change my mind.
O that's a good one.... If we weren't nearly 50 pages into this discussion I would almost believe that. But any chance of anyone changing your mind was lost a long time ago.
I've got a book here.. The Family Book of Facts... had it for years. How about I try some out on you and see what you think. O wait a minute.. perhaps not. I can't find any mention in it about the Earth being flat. I'm sure Scepti has has his own book of 'facts'.
-
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.
It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on. How would that even work? I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.
I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.
You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.
I can see the edge of my table. I can stand on it and still see the edge. How can you not understand this? ::)
Tell me, what is the exact size an object needs to be before you can't see the edge any more? When does it go from being able to see the edge to not being able to see an edge any more?
Please tell us how far that is.
-
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
The diagram is there.
There are diagrams for lots of things, real and not real. So now you discount the existence of a facility that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth only that they mentioned the challenge the shape of the earth posed in constructing it? Lots of journalists and researchers have written about their work at the facility. I haven't read anything from journalists and researchers regarding real workings on the Enterprise.
As well, I can visit the site and go on a tour, even can see it on google maps just like I can my house. And I'm pretty sure my house is real. I have a diagram of my house too.
(https://i.imgur.com/b1EqRF7.jpg)
You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
There's physical proof. Like I mentioned before, you can visit either of the two LIGO facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Washington. What makes you say I accept anything? Because I'm convinced a research facility exists? Because there's a massive amount of evidence that it exists? Conversely, you believe in a carbonite crystal thing-a-mabob that projects the sun onto a membrane covering earth with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And you say I'll believe anything? Hilarious.
No, you really, really don't care about the truth. That's plain to see by everyone. But that is your prerogative.
Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:
Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...
At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.
And what silliness might that be?
Tell me what you're looking at and how can you describe it from your point of view, not the one you go by?
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.
Hey look, someone did exactly what ytou asked for. The "Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave." - I.e., The simple set up you gave: a leveled tube. Simple, just what you asked for:
(https://i.imgur.com/EB2DYN3.jpg)
Any hey, using your simple set up, the one you have asked for, the leveled tube, not only can I see the horizon but I can see that it is below eye level. Go figure.
This gets a bit tedious.
So a level has been set from the side view and then we are shown a view through the simple tube scope and have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?
Well let's try and make this more clear.
You see how simple that is and if you are an honest person you would try it for yourself and find, for yourself that looking through that scope on the level will give you a level horizon.
Just try it for you because you will keep bringing this clear rubbish to the fore to supposedly back you up when you should know fine well what the horizon level is.
-
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.
It may be impossible to physically manifest but it's never impossible for a story teller to manifest it as a cloaked secret portrayed as reality.
Look at unobtanium.
Every day we get the urine taken out of us and every day people just swallow it all up.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.
This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection
The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.
If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.
The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment
So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.
Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.
-
One last post then.... >:( >:( >:(
Facts will change your mind, will it? Like the fact, the moment you declare we live on a flat earth, all of a sudden you can't explain thousands of planetary phenomena which are easily explained by Earth being a globe? Fact like that?
There's no fact in any of what you're saying. It's acceptance from schooling, whether kid to adult indoctrination camps or by your own bookshelf/internet perusing.
There's no physical facts from yourself relating to what you're arguing....and you know it.
You think you know more about facts than I do, then?
No. You will know many facts in your life that I won't know and so will I and everyone else.
You think you know more about gathering evidence, investigating, and establishing facts than I do?
Nope. It just depends on what it is we both investigate to become factual.
Take a wild guess at what my career has been for the past 21 years, sceptimatic.
It's hard to internet judge a character.
I'll use weak evidence of your forum name.
I'll say you set up equipment for stage performers that fill the stage with smoke and such.
Am I close?
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Why doesn’t it work though? You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.
For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.
Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not). You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary). There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half. What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.
In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.
Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.
But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
So you can clearly see the ground in front of you (it’s only dropped 8 inches over the first mile), and you can see the sky in front of you.
So what would you see where the ground and sky meet?
It’s a simple question, why can’t you answer it?
Let me make it even simpler, because this is what we were dealing with.
You seem to accept your globe drops 8 inches per mile, squared.
Let's just deal with that first mile.
You're stood upright. Let's say 5 feet minimum to eye level.
You look through the simple scope tube we've been talking about, or stash's plastic pipe...set level.
Assume you are stood at the edge of a lake. A calm lake with no obstructions.
Ok, you can surely accept that, below the end of the scope to the ground, you will not see anything due to your scope being 5 feet from it and levelled horizontally.
This alone means you've lost 5 feet of ground/water.
In addition to that, your focus is directly horizontal over the lake and this lake will be dropping by 8 inches in the first mile of it, along with the 5 feet height of your eye.
How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
If you argued that your lake curves up by 5 feet 8 inches then I'd see how you could have your horizon of water to sky.
Any logical person should easily see how silly this globe is.
-
Facts will change my mind.
O that's a good one.... If we weren't nearly 50 pages into this discussion I would almost believe that. But any chance of anyone changing your mind was lost a long time ago.
I've got a book here.. The Family Book of Facts... had it for years. How about I try some out on you and see what you think. O wait a minute.. perhaps not. I can't find any mention in it about the Earth being flat. I'm sure Scepti has has his own book of 'facts'.
Anything to add?
-
I can see the edge of my table. I can stand on it and still see the edge. How can you not understand this? ::)
Course you can see the edge of your table. You can also see the edge of a basket ball or tennis ball on that table....etc....etc....etc.
Why?
Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever. But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?
Tell me, what is the exact size an object needs to be before you can't see the edge any more?
When does it go from being able to see the edge to not being able to see an edge any more?
Please tell us how far that is.
It depends how you're looking at it and from what vantage point.
We are dealing with you supposedly being stood atop your globe looking horizontally level.
You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.
-
One last post then.... >:( >:( >:(
Facts will change your mind, will it? Like the fact, the moment you declare we live on a flat earth, all of a sudden you can't explain thousands of planetary phenomena which are easily explained by Earth being a globe? Fact like that?
There's no fact in any of what you're saying. It's acceptance from schooling, whether kid to adult indoctrination camps or by your own bookshelf/internet perusing.
There's no physical facts from yourself relating to what you're arguing....and you know it.
You think you know more about facts than I do, then?
No. You will know many facts in your life that I won't know and so will I and everyone else.
You think you know more about gathering evidence, investigating, and establishing facts than I do?
Nope. It just depends on what it is we both investigate to become factual.
Take a wild guess at what my career has been for the past 21 years, sceptimatic.
It's hard to internet judge a character.
I'll use weak evidence of your forum name.
I'll say you set up equipment for stage performers that fill the stage with smoke and such.
Am I close?
You're very close!
What do you mean there are no physical facts for what I, or others here, are arguing? You mean physical facts I have verified myself?
Like, standing on a beach with a telescope and watching boats rise from under or behind the horizon as they get closer and the opposite occurring as they go out to sea? Like, watching planes still in the sky, well past the horizon? Like watching the entire eastern horizon slowly move down as the sun appears to rise? Like watching clouds at sunset illuminated from underneath by the sun's light? Like watching the same sunrise twice by changing my altitude quickly? These are physical facts. All easily recorded on camera or video camera.
God gave me eyes so that I can see, sceptimatic. No indoctrination or school teacher words, or internet perusing from me. Just simple observation.
So, have you observed the same facts, and interpret these observations differently, or have you never taken the time to observe these facts?
-
One last post then.... >:( >:( >:(
Facts will change your mind, will it? Like the fact, the moment you declare we live on a flat earth, all of a sudden you can't explain thousands of planetary phenomena which are easily explained by Earth being a globe? Fact like that?
There's no fact in any of what you're saying. It's acceptance from schooling, whether kid to adult indoctrination camps or by your own bookshelf/internet perusing.
There's no physical facts from yourself relating to what you're arguing....and you know it.
You think you know more about facts than I do, then?
No. You will know many facts in your life that I won't know and so will I and everyone else.
You think you know more about gathering evidence, investigating, and establishing facts than I do?
Nope. It just depends on what it is we both investigate to become factual.
Take a wild guess at what my career has been for the past 21 years, sceptimatic.
It's hard to internet judge a character.
I'll use weak evidence of your forum name.
I'll say you set up equipment for stage performers that fill the stage with smoke and such.
Am I close?
You're very close!
What do you mean there are no physical facts for what I, or others here, are arguing? You mean physical facts I have verified myself?
Like, standing on a beach with a telescope and watching boats rise from under or behind the horizon as they get closer and the opposite occurring as they go out to sea?
You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
The fact you see it is, it emerges into view from the vanishing point, not from up a globe.
Like, watching planes still in the sky, well past the horizon?
You see planes in the sky because it's much clearer to see at an angle, up from below. Less atmosphere.
You don't see past any horizon. Your horizon does not exist when looking at a plane. It only exists when you look directly at it.
Like watching the entire eastern horizon slowly move down as the sun appears to rise?
Down?
Like watching clouds at sunset illuminated from underneath by the sun's light?
Like reflective light bounce?
Like watching the same sunrise twice by changing my altitude quickly? These are physical facts. All easily recorded on camera or video camera.
Changing altitude would ensure you could only see one sunrise if you were on a globe. Your globe would have to be spinning towards the sun, meaning your sunrise has already happened and height elevation would do nothing to change that.....so have a think on this.
And if you want to use seeing a sunset twice, then your Earth would be spinning away from it, meaning you are angling away from it, meaning, if you were to see your sunset as you spin away from it, any elevation would create more of an angle as you spin away, meaning you would never see another.
So something is very wrong.
That something is, Earth cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon.
God gave me eyes so that I can see, sceptimatic. No indoctrination or school teacher words, or internet perusing from me. Just simple observation.
God?
Do you have any proof for this?
You many argue that any or all of what you argue, is your own self doing but the honest person in you should tell you your reliance is basically on acceptance of stuff you cannot prove.
So, have you observed the same facts, and interpret these observations differently, or have you never taken the time to observe these facts?
Only the facts which I've stated, such as level/flat water and stuff like that.
They're all I really need to push me on to where I'm at, because they give me the scope to understand something very clearly...and that is....we are living on/in something other than a spinning globe we've been indoctrinated into accepting as a truth, which cannot be and this ensures that many other things require questioning, which is what I'm doing.
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Why doesn’t it work though? You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.
For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.
Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not). You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary). There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half. What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.
In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.
Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.
But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
So you can clearly see the ground in front of you (it’s only dropped 8 inches over the first mile), and you can see the sky in front of you.
So what would you see where the ground and sky meet?
It’s a simple question, why can’t you answer it?
Let me make it even simpler, because this is what we were dealing with.
You seem to accept your globe drops 8 inches per mile, squared.
Let's just deal with that first mile.
You're stood upright. Let's say 5 feet minimum to eye level.
You look through the simple scope tube we've been talking about, or stash's plastic pipe...set level.
Assume you are stood at the edge of a lake. A calm lake with no obstructions.
Ok, you can surely accept that, below the end of the scope to the ground, you will not see anything due to your scope being 5 feet from it and levelled horizontally.
This alone means you've lost 5 feet of ground/water.
In addition to that, your focus is directly horizontal over the lake and this lake will be dropping by 8 inches in the first mile of it, along with the 5 feet height of your eye.
How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
If you argued that your lake curves up by 5 feet 8 inches then I'd see how you could have your horizon of water to sky.
Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface? Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
-
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.
Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.
Why doesn’t it work though? You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.
For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.
Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not). You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary). There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half. What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.
In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.
Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.
But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
So you can clearly see the ground in front of you (it’s only dropped 8 inches over the first mile), and you can see the sky in front of you.
So what would you see where the ground and sky meet?
It’s a simple question, why can’t you answer it?
Let me make it even simpler, because this is what we were dealing with.
You seem to accept your globe drops 8 inches per mile, squared.
Let's just deal with that first mile.
You're stood upright. Let's say 5 feet minimum to eye level.
You look through the simple scope tube we've been talking about, or stash's plastic pipe...set level.
Assume you are stood at the edge of a lake. A calm lake with no obstructions.
Ok, you can surely accept that, below the end of the scope to the ground, you will not see anything due to your scope being 5 feet from it and levelled horizontally.
This alone means you've lost 5 feet of ground/water.
In addition to that, your focus is directly horizontal over the lake and this lake will be dropping by 8 inches in the first mile of it, along with the 5 feet height of your eye.
How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
If you argued that your lake curves up by 5 feet 8 inches then I'd see how you could have your horizon of water to sky.
Any logical person should easily see how silly this globe is.
Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?
The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see?
There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet?
You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?
-
Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface? Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.
-
Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?
The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see?
If it were possible, you would see sky, only.
There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet?
They would not meet.
You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?
Sky.....if it were magically possible for that scenario....which it isn't.
-
Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface? Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.
Ive read through carefully. I still do not understand, so am asking you. If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?
-
Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?
The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see?
If it were possible, you would see sky, only.
There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet?
They would not meet.
You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?
Sky.....if it were magically possible for that scenario....which it isn't.
Just sky? I can’t see the ground at all? I’d be standing on an object 12000 km across and it would be invisible?
-
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.
It may be impossible to physically manifest
And that is the big issue.
It is not physically possible, so we know it is fiction.
You are yet to present any problem with the RE.
Your repeated, refuted, lies alleging problems are not any actual problems.
And again, you just ignore the same argument which clearly shows that you are wrong. Why?
Why not grow up and deal with this argument? Either by doing the impossible and saying what you think is wrong with it, or admitting there is nothing wrong with it and your prior statements were outright lies?
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
There's no fact in any of what you're saying.
No, that would be you.
You have been provided with plenty of facts.
These include pure logical facts based upon logical reasoning which clearly show you are wrong, as well as facts based upon observation from physcial reality which also clearly show you are wrong.
Us accepting the fact that Earth is round is not just because that is what we are taught in school, but because that is what all the available evidence clearly demonstrates.
You are the one without any facts at all.
You are the one resorting to repeatedly lying by repeatedly making false, baseless claims, and just dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
You are the one that clearly doesn't care about facts or truth or reality.
This gets a bit tedious.
Yes, I can see how repeatedly being refuted can get tedious for you.
have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?
Sure, because it is far more rational to assume the entire world is conspiring against you, fabricating evidence to show you are wrong, than it is for you to be wrong?
Back in sane land, we accept that the entire world is not trying to deceive us on the shape of the world, especially as plenty of us have taken these measurements ourselves.
And again, that is why having the water level visible in the shot is far superior.
But you dismissed that as well.
Again, other than it clearly showing that you are wrong, what is your justification for dismissing this along with all the other evidence like it provided as fake?
You see how simple that is and if you are an honest person you would try it for yourself
Again, plenty of us have. YOU ARE WRONG!
How hard is it for you to understand that?
Let's just deal with that first mile.
Why just the first mile?
Why not all the way to the horizon?
We know that if we were to look out level we wouldn't see the first mm in front of our foot because we don't have a large enough FOV, but the horizon is roughly 5 km away at that height, and that is a tiny drop. A mere 2.7 arc minutes, clearly visible through all bar the tiniest of scopes.
I'm going to continue to use 2 m as the eye height.
How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
The same thing you need to bring your ground below you up into view, PERSPECTIVE (aka convergance).
See, those 2 m at a mere 0 m would be 90 degrees down.
But at 1 km it is only ~0.1 degree below level.
See, perspective (aka convergence) makes things below you appear higher than they are.
Any logical person should easily see how silly this globe is.
No, any logical person should easily see how you ignore the math and logical arguments that show you are wrong, and complete ignore perspective to pretend if something is below you can't see it.
And guess what else they see?
The fact that your argument does not need Earth to be round at all.
So lets go back to it shall we.
Rather than dealing with the first mile, we will only deal with the first cm.
So looking out level, you have no chance of viewing the ground directly below you and to 1 cm in front of that point (not unless you have a FOV of 180 degrees).
So with not seeing this ground directly below you, and it remaining the same distance below your line of sight, how in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
Notice how your argument works equally well for a FE?
Thus your argument shouldn't be that the horizon refutes a RE, but that it refutes a RE and a FE.
But no, you know your argument is pure BS, and you know that perspective can make something below you appear quite close to eye level, just by it being far away.
But you choose to ignore this when it comes to the RE, because you don't give a damn about the truth and are willing to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
If you disagree, feel free to tell us what magically brings the ground below you into view on your FE and why that can't work for the RE.
Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever.
Yes, like the sky that surrounds Earth.
But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?
What we don't get is why standing on it should magically change it.
I can easily simulate standing on it level, extremely close to the surface by just placing my line of sight like that.
Why should it magically change?
You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.
Again, that has been shown to be nothing more than a blatant lie.
Why do you keep repeating it?
I even provided you with a visualisation of it to clearly show that you are wrong, and you were provided with a video also showing you are wrong.
You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
Nope.
If that was the case it would appear as a point and grow from that, without any part being hidden.
The fact it appears from the top down shows it is coming from behind the horizon with the horizon obstructing the view to the lower portion.
-
You see planes in the sky because it's much clearer to see at an angle, up from below. Less atmosphere.
As already pointed out, if it was the atmosphere limiting visibility you would have a blur, not a horizon.
So again, we know that is not the case.
The horizon is a physical edge of Earth which obstructs the view.
Changing altitude would ensure you could only see one sunrise if you were on a globe. Your globe would have to be spinning towards the sun, meaning your sunrise has already happened and height elevation would do nothing to change that.....so have a think on this.
So you also have no idea how a sunrise happens on the very real Earth?
Similar to the above, we clearly see the sunrise occurring earlier the higher you are.
This is because the time of sunrise depends on the distance to the horizon.
So you can have a sunrise, then go lower, and have another.
You are aware altitude can change both ways right? Either increasing or decreasing?
So something is very wrong.
Yes, you.
You either have no idea what you are talking about, or are yet again blatantly lying to everyone.
That something is, Earth cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Again, WHY?
You are yet to present any justification as to why Earth cannot be the globe that it is.
All you can offer is the same repeated pathetic lies.
Only the facts which I've stated, such as level/flat water and stuff like that.
You mean the lies you have stated, which are refuted by the facts, facts based upon logic and evidence?
Including evidence clearly showing water is not flat?
They're all I really need to push me on to where I'm at
Yes, it is quite clear that those lies are all you need as you have no interest in the truth.
But people like me actually care about the truth, and wont just accept those blatant lies.
Instead we expect evidence and logical justification.
many other things require questioning, which is what I'm doing.
No, you're not questioning anything.
You are just repeatedly dismissing and rejecting reality, attempting to replace them with blatant lies.
Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface? Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.
No you didn't.
You post merely falsely attacked the RE model.
It provided no justification for how the FE magically gets out of the problem you have set for both the RE and the FE.
Like me, he has realised that your argument works just as well on a FE.
You claim you can't see the ground/sea through a level scope on a RE because it is below you.
But guess what? On a FE, the ground/sea is still below you, and thus by your absence of reason you shouldn't see the ground/sea through a level scope on a FE either.
So you have refuted yourself.
Either you can't see the horizon through a level scope for both a RE and a FE, and thus Earth must be concave, or your argument is pure nonsense with you leaving out a massive part of the problem which allows you to see things at an altitude below you through a level scope.
Which is it?
There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet?
They would not meet.
Again, forget the level scope.
We know that looking down we see the ground and looking we see sky.
And you have even admitted that is the case for a RE.
So just what do you think will happen visually when you look up?
Again, you start looking down seeing ground, and slowly raise your head.
Just what do you think you would see?
Do you accept that just like all other balls you reach a point where you would see the ball (i.e. Earth, i.e. ground/sea) and the surroundings (i.e. sky), with an apparent dividing line between them?
And that as you raise your head more and more that dividing line appears to move lower in your vision with you seeing more sky and less Earth?
And that after you raise your head enough the line disappears from view and you see nothing but sky?
Or do you think it magically just flashes to sky, where lifting your head above a point, even just a tiny bit, will magically change it so you see only sky, even though Earth should still clearly be in your FOV?
Or do you think you get a region of darkness instead?
You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?
Sky
No, that is the sky.
Look down lower, low enough such that you can see both ground/sea and sky.
Again, the argument I presented quite some time ago, which you are yet to show any problem with, clearly shows you are wrong. Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Care to try to address it this time, even if it is just by admitting you are wrong?
if it were magically possible for that scenario
No need for any magic.
All you need to do is go outside, unless that requires magic for you.
You can do it with the very real RE you live on.
The only magical part of this scenario is your claim that there is no horizon, especially with no explanation of what is there instead.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.
This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection
The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.
If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.
The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment
So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.
Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.
Keep dodging
The video is self explanatory.
So you clearly dont get it.
Pick a point.
Youre clearly dodging for all to see.
All these other monkeys have fallen into your endless trap of miscommunication and vague dsscriptions.
But this video is clear and concise as it is a scale model.
I pick from start to end.
So what is wrong with it?
-
You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
The fact you see it is, it emerges into view from the vanishing point, not from up a globe.
This is simply not true, as you well know. If a ship was simply emerging out of a convergence line then the whole ship would be visible as it emerged from the convergence. Draw the path of the rays of light from your eye as an observer to all parts of the ship and then extrapolate beyond the ship, they will converge to your vanishing point. You simply wouldn't see just the upper part of the ship first and then the whole ship if the Earth was flat. All parts of the visible parts of the ship are at the same distance and so they would all emerge at the same time if the Earth was flat.
https://flatearth.ws/disappearing-ship
As you can clearly see from this link, the ship does emerge from under the horizon, contrary to what you claim.
-
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
The diagram is there.
There are diagrams for lots of things, real and not real. So now you discount the existence of a facility that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth only that they mentioned the challenge the shape of the earth posed in constructing it? Lots of journalists and researchers have written about their work at the facility. I haven't read anything from journalists and researchers regarding real workings on the Enterprise.
As well, I can visit the site and go on a tour, even can see it on google maps just like I can my house. And I'm pretty sure my house is real. I have a diagram of my house too.
(https://i.imgur.com/b1EqRF7.jpg)
You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
There's physical proof. Like I mentioned before, you can visit either of the two LIGO facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Washington. What makes you say I accept anything? Because I'm convinced a research facility exists? Because there's a massive amount of evidence that it exists? Conversely, you believe in a carbonite crystal thing-a-mabob that projects the sun onto a membrane covering earth with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And you say I'll believe anything? Hilarious.
No, you really, really don't care about the truth. That's plain to see by everyone. But that is your prerogative.
Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:
Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...
At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.
And what silliness might that be?
Tell me what you're looking at and how can you describe it from your point of view, not the one you go by?
I'm looking at an overhead topdown view of a facility I have read about - There are many references and cross-references evidencing the existence and exact location of said structure. There are two wing like structures that span out from a hub, measuring in google maps sets the arms at 4km each in length. They seem structurally uninterrupted in that distance.
What else are you looking for?
-
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
I see. So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such. Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it. Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.
How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.
Hey look, someone did exactly what ytou asked for. The "Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave." - I.e., The simple set up you gave: a leveled tube. Simple, just what you asked for:
(https://i.imgur.com/EB2DYN3.jpg)
Any hey, using your simple set up, the one you have asked for, the leveled tube, not only can I see the horizon but I can see that it is below eye level. Go figure.
This gets a bit tedious.
Oh yes, I'm sure. And for all of us.
So a level has been set from the side view and then we are shown a view through the simple tube scope and have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?
Yes, that is correct, the level was not tampered with. You'll never take my word for it, and that's fine. I know the experimenter and I could assure anyone that he would never fudge an experiment. Nor would I. It makes no sense to. But I know how paranoid you are so all that is neither here nor there.
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
-
I can see the edge of my table. I can stand on it and still see the edge. How can you not understand this? ::)
Course you can see the edge of your table. You can also see the edge of a basket ball or tennis ball on that table....etc....etc....etc.
Why?
Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever. But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?
What I don't get is how you think the edge of the table will magically vanish if you get down close enough to it? I can stand on a table and see the edge. I can lay down on a table and see the edge. There is nowhere I can't see the edge. You seem to imagine at some point I can't see the table any more? What?
How does that make any sense?
Have you yet to find anyone who agrees with you that you can't see the edge of an object if you're standing on it?
Tell me, what is the exact size an object needs to be before you can't see the edge any more?
When does it go from being able to see the edge to not being able to see an edge any more?
Please tell us how far that is.
It depends how you're looking at it and from what vantage point.
We are dealing with you supposedly being stood atop your globe looking horizontally level.
You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.
So you have no numbers, just some vague assertion that you can't possibly see the edge of something big.
You are claiming that if you are standing on a large sphere, you can't see it, even though your feet are touching it. If I look down, I will see it. If I look up, I won't. If I look level, I see both the sky and the Earth.
That's just insane.
Maybe you need to draw a picture of what you think you will see standing on a globe Earth and looking at the horizon. Because you certainly can't describe it with words.
-
Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface? Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.
Ive read through carefully. I still do not understand, so am asking you. If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?
On your globe you would...yes.
-
Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?
The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see?
If it were possible, you would see sky, only.
There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet?
They would not meet.
You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?
Sky.....if it were magically possible for that scenario....which it isn't.
Just sky? I can’t see the ground at all? I’d be standing on an object 12000 km across and it would be invisible?
Yep, if you were looking horizontally level.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.
This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection
The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.
If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.
The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment
So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.
Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.
Keep dodging
The video is self explanatory.
So you clearly dont get it.
Pick a point.
Youre clearly dodging for all to see.
All these other monkeys have fallen into your endless trap of miscommunication and vague dsscriptions.
But this video is clear and concise as it is a scale model.
I pick from start to end.
So what is wrong with it?
Pick any point and explain ity, then we can deal with it.
You can do that, right?
-
You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
The fact you see it is, it emerges into view from the vanishing point, not from up a globe.
This is simply not true, as you well know. If a ship was simply emerging out of a convergence line then the whole ship would be visible as it emerged from the convergence. Draw the path of the rays of light from your eye as an observer to all parts of the ship and then extrapolate beyond the ship, they will converge to your vanishing point. You simply wouldn't see just the upper part of the ship first and then the whole ship if the Earth was flat. All parts of the visible parts of the ship are at the same distance and so they would all emerge at the same time if the Earth was flat.
https://flatearth.ws/disappearing-ship
As you can clearly see from this link, the ship does emerge from under the horizon, contrary to what you claim.
The ship emerges from the vanishing/convergence point.
-
URMGRD!
the human field of view is 200degrees left-right and 130degrees up-down.
insanity!
also, stash
you're falling into the technical mumbo jumble trap of sceppy.
get him to answer the video.
-
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
The diagram is there.
There are diagrams for lots of things, real and not real. So now you discount the existence of a facility that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth only that they mentioned the challenge the shape of the earth posed in constructing it? Lots of journalists and researchers have written about their work at the facility. I haven't read anything from journalists and researchers regarding real workings on the Enterprise.
As well, I can visit the site and go on a tour, even can see it on google maps just like I can my house. And I'm pretty sure my house is real. I have a diagram of my house too.
(https://i.imgur.com/b1EqRF7.jpg)
You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
There's physical proof. Like I mentioned before, you can visit either of the two LIGO facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Washington. What makes you say I accept anything? Because I'm convinced a research facility exists? Because there's a massive amount of evidence that it exists? Conversely, you believe in a carbonite crystal thing-a-mabob that projects the sun onto a membrane covering earth with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And you say I'll believe anything? Hilarious.
No, you really, really don't care about the truth. That's plain to see by everyone. But that is your prerogative.
Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:
Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...
At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.
And what silliness might that be?
Tell me what you're looking at and how can you describe it from your point of view, not the one you go by?
I'm looking at an overhead topdown view of a facility I have read about - There are many references and cross-references evidencing the existence and exact location of said structure. There are two wing like structures that span out from a hub, measuring in google maps sets the arms at 4km each in length. They seem structurally uninterrupted in that distance.
What else are you looking for?
You are simply accepting this without proof.
-
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.
The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.
Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.
This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection
The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.
If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.
The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment
So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.
Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.
Keep dodging
The video is self explanatory.
So you clearly dont get it.
Pick a point.
Youre clearly dodging for all to see.
All these other monkeys have fallen into your endless trap of miscommunication and vague dsscriptions.
But this video is clear and concise as it is a scale model.
I pick from start to end.
So what is wrong with it?
Pick any point and explain ity, then we can deal with it.
You can do that, right?
i pick the whole video.
you can do that right?
pick anything wrong with it.
one thing to discredit the video.
go!
or keep dodging.
looks like you're dodging.
pathetic.
-
The ship emerges from the vanishing/convergence point.
Why then is only half (the upper half) of the ship visible? Convergence relies on distance and since the lower part of the ship is same distance from the camera as the upper half then if your convergence line idea was right then you would be able to see the whole ship. If the Earths surface was flat.
Convergence means to come together, to converge (ultimately to a point source) so if the Earth was flat the whole ship would remain visible as the distance between camera and ship increased. The ship would simply get smaller and smaller until it became too small to be recognisable as a ship.
If you take the Earths surface as being flat then we can think of it as the adjacent side of a triangle. The camera is at point A and at a height AB above the surface. So the height of the camera is the opposite side of the triangle. The ship is at point C so the line BC is the adjacent side of the triangle and represents the Earths surface. Line CA is therefore the hypotenuse and the line of sight from the camera to the ship. As the distance of the ship increases, it will simply appear smaller and smaller as angle ACB gets less and less. If an object (be it a ship, a building, a tree or whatever) is sitting on the adjacent side then all parts of it will exist above the line BC and hence will remain wholly visible to the camera at A. Since we can see the top half of the ship as a clearly extended (non-point source) object it follows that if the Earth is flat then we would be able to see the lower half of the ship at the same size scale and above the level of the water surface.
At no point would any part of the ship vanish from the direct line of sight of the camera. Unless of course the adjacent side (BC) started to curve away. In which case the the ship would disappear, lower half first or reappear, upper half first which is exactly what we observe. The hypotenuse side (BC) would become a tangent to the curve at that point. For a ship travelling along the line of the horizon (as in the photo) the lower half would remain invisible to us.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Definition-of-vanishing-points-and-the-horizontal-vanishing-line_fig5_304530575
-
Ive read through carefully. I still do not understand, so am asking you. If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?
On your globe you would...yes.
Again, you are missing the point.
Your argument applies equally to the FE and the RE.
What you need to resolve it is a concave Earth.
You are claiming that because you don't see the ground directly below you, you have no chance of seeing it through a level scope.
That argument does not need a RE.
On a FE, the ground/sea directly below you is still not seen through a level scope, and thus according to your absence of reason you still stand no chance to see the ground further out through a level scope. Instead you should see nothing but sky.
So again, what magic are you appealing to which will allow you to see ground/sea through a level scope on a FE, but not a RE? Even though in both cases, that ground/sea that you are seeing is at a lower altitude and physically below your line of sight?
if you were looking horizontally level.
Again, stop repeating the same refuted lie.
Forget about just looking out level.
Doing so is just making you confused, as you are jumping too far ahead of yourself.
This is because you are claiming you would not see the horizon at all on a RE, that you would never see the ground/sea and sky meet.
But that has no requirement to be looking level. That would apply regardless of where you look.
Start identifying what happens visually between the ground/sea and sky on the RE.
Once you have honestly and rationally done that, you would realise that that is the horizon.
Then identify where that would be in your vision.
Again, if you do it honestly, you would find the angle depends on the radius of Earth and the height of the observer.
So in addition to that, your ability to see it would depend on the FOV.
Again, the logical argument I provided, which you are yet to point out a single problem with, shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
It clearly shows that under normal circumstances (e.g. within a few m of Earth), if you were to look out level, you would see the horizon, even through a decent scope.
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
The ship emerges from the vanishing/convergence point.
Repeating the same lie doesn't help your case.
It has been explained why we know that isn't the case.
Once more, if that was the case, the ship would appear as a point and simply become more resolved, with the entire ship (above the water line) being visible at once. You would not have the top of the ship appear while the bottom is obscured by the horizon as is repeatedly observed.
Also, that would then make it entirely dependent upon optics, where as the ship disappeared you would be able to use better optics to bring it back into view. But again, that doesn't happen. No matter how good the optics that you use are, once the bottom of the ship is obscured by the horizon, it cannot be brought back into view except by reducing the distance between you and the ship, or going to a higher altitude.
And we see the same with buildings, where we can easily observe that the bottom of them is obscured by the horizon. Again, this is not an effect of convergence. If it was, the building would merely shrink, with all of it remaining above the horizon, until it shrunk so much that it was an unresolved point.
-
It follows doesn't it JB that if we knew the actual height of the ship then by knowing the rate of curvature of the Earths surface with distance, we could calculate how far away the ship would need to be for us to be able to see only the very top of it.
We could then use GPS to verify and confirm the calculated distance.
-
just stick to the video.
to resolves everything.
no need to endless type words when sceppy doesn't even speak english.
-
Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface? Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.
Ive read through carefully. I still do not understand, so am asking you. If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?
On your globe you would...yes.
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
-
It follows doesn't it JB that if we knew the actual height of the ship then by knowing the rate of curvature of the Earths surface with distance, we could calculate how far away the ship would need to be for us to be able to see only the very top of it.
We could then use GPS to verify and confirm the calculated distance.
Almost.
Due to refraction, and how it varies, the distance required will vary.
However, we can use an estimate for standard refraction (where you pretend Earth has a radius 7/6ths of what it actually does), to calculate where it should be in standard conditions.
But the important part is that the bottom disappears, which is exactly what you expect for a RE, and the complete opposite of what is expected for a FE.
-
Agreed. You could work out the errors caused by atmospheric refraction to arrive at a figure for the distance which is very close to the actual value.
Scepti can dress this up as much as he likes and however he likes but if the Earth was flat you would always see the whole ship. It would just get smaller and smaller until its image size on the camera sensor reduces to a size less than its resolution. I.e. less than the size of one pixel. Angular resolution of CCDs/CMOS chips is quoted in terms of arc seconds per pixel.
-
Sceptimatic, this is a stalemate.
Nobody here will ever change your mind, and you will never change anybody else here's mind, on this topic.
So, where do we go from here?
The only thing left, is to discuss each person's life journey for arriving at the view they hold, if that even has any bearing.
-
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
-
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.
-
It follows doesn't it JB that if we knew the actual height of the ship then by knowing the rate of curvature of the Earths surface with distance, we could calculate how far away the ship would need to be for us to be able to see only the very top of it.
We could then use GPS to verify and confirm the calculated distance.
Almost.
Due to refraction, and how it varies, the distance required will vary.
However, we can use an estimate for standard refraction (where you pretend Earth has a radius 7/6ths of what it actually does), to calculate where it should be in standard conditions.
But the important part is that the bottom disappears, which is exactly what you expect for a RE globe, and the complete opposite of what is expected for a FE.
It's what you expect because you've been conditioned to expect and accept it being global.
The bottom disappears because the bottom reflects less light back to your eyes, from it, which means, you lose it.
The higher part of the ship is still reflecting light back to your eye, which is why you still see that.
This is not happening on a globe.
-
Agreed. You could work out the errors caused by atmospheric refraction to arrive at a figure for the distance which is very close to the actual value.
Scepti can dress this up as much as he likes and however he likes but if the Earth was flat you would always see the whole ship. It would just get smaller and smaller until its image size on the camera sensor reduces to a size less than its resolution. I.e. less than the size of one pixel. Angular resolution of CCDs/CMOS chips is quoted in terms of arc seconds per pixel.
Atmospheric horizontal density ensures you lose the light from the ship, in parts or in whole, depending on distance from the eye.
It's the entire reason why telescopes do not see farther, only magnify what the eye can see, by what light is reflected.
-
Sceptimatic, this is a stalemate.
Nobody here will ever change your mind, and you will never change anybody else here's mind, on this topic.
So, where do we go from here?
The only thing left, is to discuss each person's life journey for arriving at the view they hold, if that even has any bearing.
It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind. I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.
-
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?
-
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
So you know you are wrong and have been lying to us all?
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
The sky curving down doesn't help.
The ground is still below that line of sight.
How does it get into view of the level scope?
The only way out is for you to admit that something below your level line of sight can still be seen in a level scope.
But that would mean admitting that your argument against the RE is wrong.
It's what you expect because you've been conditioned to expect and accept it being global.
Again, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It is entirely due to rational thought and evidence.
It is what I would expect for a globe, because that is exactly what the model shows, just like the simple image I provided.
And it is entirely consistent with what is observed in reality.
The bottom disappears because the bottom reflects less light back to your eyes, from it, which means, you lose it.
Just like I pointed out before, that wouldn't cause it to disappear beyond the horizon. That would make the bottom vanish, so you would have something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
All that would happen is the bottom would vanish. The top wouldn't magically be lowered.
So again, observations match the globe, not your FE fantasy.
It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind.
Yes, because you have no interest in ever admitting you are wrong as you don't give a damn about the truth.
I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.
Is that why you are completely incapable of providing anything to support that baseless lie of yours and completely incapable of rationally refuting the arguments and evidence presented against you?
Here is the argument you have been refusing to address for ages:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
If you truly knew Earth was not a globe you would have no problem either admitting you were outright lying before and that you can see the horizon through a level scope for a RE, or you would do the impossible and refute the argument.
But instead of doing that, you just continually ignore it as it shows beyond any doubt that your lies about the RE are nothing more than outright lies and you know that to be the case.
-
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.
Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening. I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky. Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
-
We all see the same thing when we look out towards a clear horizon.
If an object, be it a ship, a tree, a building or whatever lies just beyond the distance of the horizon we only see the top half of it.
If a moving ship is coming towards us we see the whole of the ship gradually come into view. The lower half of the ship initially hidden from view below the horizon line.
Now going purely by what you see, how would you best explain that? What does it look like is happening and why?
Imagine two little microbes sitting on a beach ball. Separated by a distance so the are just out of direct view of one another. Now one starts walking towards the other while the other remains motionless. What happens? What would they see as the distance between them gets les and less?
Now how does that compare to a ship coming towards you from just beyond the horizon?
Scepti would insist that you see what you see because it has been 'indoctrinated' (his favourite word) into us. But he will see exactly what we see. He simply has a different interpretation based on what he believes. Remember whatever Scepti believes is true and real regardless of what anyone says or what photos we post or what videos we post.
But if what he believes was true then neither he nor us would see what we see. So someone is wrong.
-
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?
Trying to deflect still.
The entire video stands alone on its own merit.
ANY POINT!
-
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
So you know you are wrong and have been lying to us all?
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
The sky curving down doesn't help.
The ground is still below that line of sight.
How does it get into view of the level scope?
The only way out is for you to admit that something below your level line of sight can still be seen in a level scope.
But that would mean admitting that your argument against the RE is wrong.
It's what you expect because you've been conditioned to expect and accept it being global.
Again, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It is entirely due to rational thought and evidence.
It is what I would expect for a globe, because that is exactly what the model shows, just like the simple image I provided.
And it is entirely consistent with what is observed in reality.
The bottom disappears because the bottom reflects less light back to your eyes, from it, which means, you lose it.
Just like I pointed out before, that wouldn't cause it to disappear beyond the horizon. That would make the bottom vanish, so you would have something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
All that would happen is the bottom would vanish. The top wouldn't magically be lowered.
So again, observations match the globe, not your FE fantasy.
It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind.
Yes, because you have no interest in ever admitting you are wrong as you don't give a damn about the truth.
I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.
Is that why you are completely incapable of providing anything to support that baseless lie of yours and completely incapable of rationally refuting the arguments and evidence presented against you?
Here is the argument you have been refusing to address for ages:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
If you truly knew Earth was not a globe you would have no problem either admitting you were outright lying before and that you can see the horizon through a level scope for a RE, or you would do the impossible and refute the argument.
But instead of doing that, you just continually ignore it as it shows beyond any doubt that your lies about the RE are nothing more than outright lies and you know that to be the case.
Yoyre falling into his facts trap.
He needs to address the video.
-
We all see the same thing when we look out towards a clear horizon.
If an object, be it a ship, a tree, a building or whatever lies just beyond the distance of the horizon we only see the top half of it.
If a moving ship is coming towards us we see the whole of the ship gradually come into view. The lower half of the ship initially hidden from view below the horizon line.
Now going purely by what you see, how would you best explain that? What does it look like is happening and why?
Sceptimatic obviously doesn't have a geometrically consistent description of what is going on here, and he obviously doesn't have a grasp of geometry in general. But sometimes it seems like it goes beyond simply a poor grasp, and into the realm of some sort of mental defect, where three dimensional spatial reasoning is simply not possible. Why is he unable to even conceptualize what the view from a vantage above a sphere would look like? Why do simple concepts such as perspective and triangulation ~completely~ elude him, even when slowly and carefully spoon-fed.
The world he lives in is imagined completely without measure, angle, span, width or height. Vague in shape, and impossible to quantify. I think he likes it like that, as those geometric concepts are alien to his thinking and he can not get his head around them at all.
What would it be like to be completely baffled by geometry? Wouldn't any solution to the sights we all see be equally inscrutable? If they are all equally inscrutable, wouldn't anything work just as well as anything else?
-
Why is he unable to even conceptualize what the view from a vantage above a sphere would look like? Why do simple concepts such as perspective and triangulation ~completely~ elude him, even when slowly and carefully spoon-fed.
Because he has a clear phobia when it comes to anything spherical. We can see things as we want them to be or as they really are. He goes on and and on about 'globalists' being indoctrinated etc etc but in reality it seems to be he who has indoctrinated himself to just believing one thing. Apparently we only believe what we are told but science is about going out there and looking for the best explanations for what we see.
I will accept what I read or what I am told if it makes logical sense in relation to my personal experience. If it doesn't then I will question it. Scepti simply questions anything which doesn't fall within the framework of his belief system. Looking out at the horizon and seeing the top half only of a ship would strongly suggest to you I'm sure that the lower half of the ship is hidden below the horizon. But that contradicts Sceptis beliefs so he has to make up an alternative explanation for it. Horizontal atmospheric density no less. Which means what exactly? Atmospheric density decreases with altitude.
So when Scepti says he 'questions something' what he actually means is he doesn't believe it. Everyone questions things. That's how we learn. That's why lecturers and teacher encourage their students to ask questions about anything they don't understand.
I don't know about you but one thing I see a lot of nowadays, increasingly in fact is off shore wind turbines. Rarely can you look out to sea from the coast and not see any. They are arranged in grids and so if they are far enough away you can see the bases of them gradually disappearing below the horizon. Take this photo for example:
http://www.seakeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/OWF-on-the-horizon-2337x1000.jpg
Can you see the group of 7 on the left. All are identical and have yellowish bases as you can see. However there is far more of the base visible on the turbine on the left of the group compared to one on the right of the group. That's because the one on the far left is nearest to the observer and then they get progressively further away as we move to the right. If the Earth was flat you would still be able to see the whole of the base section. The angular size of the base section would get less as the distance increased. The same effect can be seen for the second group nearest the ship, which is actually sitting on the horizon.
According to Sceptis earlier claim, we should be seeing the lower half of the ship less clearly due to what he calls atmospheric horizontal density. But to me the lower half of the ship looks as clear as the top half. As you would expect surely since the lower half of the ship is (obviously) the same distance away from the camera as the top half is. Scepti can try and conjure up alternative explanations for why the ship in the first photo is only half visible but to me it is a blatantly obvious case of the lower half is obstructed by the ocean. Atmospheric distortion/refraction/density/scattering is completely irrelevant. Distant objects look more hazy and misty than objects near to the observer but in the case of the photo the ship is at the same distance. So if you can see the top half then you would also be able to see the bottom half.
This ship is also viewed side on as was the ship in my previous photo example. The difference in the first photo is that the ship was further away and so the lower half was hidden below the horizon.
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
-
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
So you know you are wrong and have been lying to us all?
Go and do a legitimate experiment and see for yourself. Anyone can do it so don't keep wasting your time telling me I'm a liar. It's only winding you up.
-
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.
Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening. I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky. Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
When you look out to sea from any elevation, it appears that the sea rises UP to meet your eye....right?
It never appears to curve down away from your eye....right?
So what's happening?
It's all about light to your eye. Look at your eye and understand that your sight looks down, up, right and left, all around. Basically you see a wide view over distance, bringing everything within that eye lens together, as much as the light can reflect back by your very own ability to see what is naturally magnified by the atmosphere at any particular time and in any particular atmospheric change.
Because the sea is darker compared to the sky, you see the reflected light from that sky and lose the reflected light from the sea, meaning your light to dark convergence point becomes your horizon line.
On a globe, looking through a level scope,as I mentioned, you take away your ability to use your eye in this manner. It changes your convex view into tunnel vision.
As you believe your Earth curves down, then in 3 miles you lose 6 feet and that would be laid level to the ground view, so imagine at upright eye level of, say, 5 feet to eye level, looking out.
You're seeing nothing below but will be seeing sky, only.....if it were possible to be on a globe...which it is clearly not.
Don't get mixed up with a belief that the horizon is physically real.
It only appears a real line because your eye level convergence makes it so.
It's atmospheric, not lines on a basket ball whilst sat back looking at it on a table top.
-
God and do a legitimate experiment and see for yourself. Anyone can do it so don't keep wasting your time telling me I'm a liar. It's only winding you up.
I have, you are wrong. You are continually lying about what should be seen.
So perhaps you should stop wasting everyone's time by lying about what is seen? Especially when you can't provide any evidence at all showing what you claim.
Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening. I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky. Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
When you look out to sea from any elevation, it appears that the sea rises UP to meet your eye....right?
Yes, and the question is why? More specifically why does this magically happen for your FE but it is impossible for the RE?
This is because your argument against the RE having its horizon appear through an eye level scope works equally well for the FE.
It never appears to curve down away from your eye....right?
And now you are just conflating terms.
The fact that it reaches a horizon shows that it is curving down.
If it didn't curve down we should see it continue.
So what's happening?
It's all about light to your eye. Look at your eye and understand that your sight looks down, up, right and left, all around. Basically you see a wide view over distance, bringing everything within that eye lens together, as much as the light can reflect back by your very own ability to see what is naturally magnified by the atmosphere at any particular time and in any particular atmospheric change.
Because the sea is darker compared to the sky, you see the reflected light from that sky and lose the reflected light from the sea, meaning your light to dark convergence point becomes your horizon line.
If this was the case, the sky at night would be bright. As it isn't it is quite clear there is no magical bringing together done by the eye.
Likewise, the fact your eyes don't magically remove the black regions of images shows that is not how it works at all.
How your actually works is that it receives light from a range of angles. This light coming into your eye, goes through the lens, and hits the retina and photosensitive cells causing your brain to detect light from that angle and mark that as bright in your vision.
Cameras work in much the same way, but instead of photosensitive biological cells, they typically have metal oxide semiconductors which are photosensitive. But the dependence on angle is the same.
On a globe, looking through a level scope,as I mentioned, you take away your ability to use your eye in this manner.
HOW?
How does Earth being round magically change it all?
Once more, nothing in your argument has any need of a RE. For both a RE and a FE, that level ground is physically below your level line of sight.
The sole distinction is how far down the ground you are trying to see is. But again, you have made no appeal to that. Instead you appeal to the fact that it is below you.
If that is all it takes, then it would be impossible to see any ground through a level scope, even on a FE, because that ground is still below you.
Again, this is not a difficult concept to understand.
Your argument applies equally to a FE and a RE.
You are intentionally ignoring a very significant aspect when you discuss the RE so you can pretend reality doesn't match a RE, but in reality, it just doesn't match your pathetic strawman of a RE.
so imagine at upright eye level of, say, 5 feet to eye level, looking out.
You're seeing nothing below but will be seeing sky, only
And again, that would apply equally for a RE and a FE.
For a FE, the horizon would be 5 feet below, for a RE it would be ~10 feet below.
Now again, how can the FE magically have it be brought back into view but the RE can't?
Don't get mixed up with a belief that the horizon is physically real.
You mean don't try to bring reality into it by bringing in the fact that the horizon is physically real, as it is clearly not a result of optical limitations or even brightness.
Again, all the available evidence shows it is a real line.
The fact that using better optics, such as spotting scopes or binoculars and so on don't push it further away shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence.
The fact that it is observed to be below the convergence point shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence.
The fact that it is a clear line rather than a blur shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of the atmosphere.
The fact that it is independent of light level and independent of the light sensitivity of cameras shows beyond any doubt it is not the result of not enough light.
The fact that the bottom of objects are obscured by it shows beyond any doubt that it is a physical barrier that stops you seeing beyond it.
So again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.
And yet again, you ignore the simple logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you have been outright lying to us all for the entire thread:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
-
We all see the same thing when we look out towards a clear horizon.
If an object, be it a ship, a tree, a building or whatever lies just beyond the distance of the horizon we only see the top half of it.
If a moving ship is coming towards us we see the whole of the ship gradually come into view. The lower half of the ship initially hidden from view below the horizon line.
Now going purely by what you see, how would you best explain that? What does it look like is happening and why?
You see your own convergence line, like I said.
Light to darker.
Anything that moves into your convergence line will be large enough to rise above that line and show into the light which reflects back to your eye. You see an elevation above your line of the object (ship).
It's what you would expect on the Earth I believe but not what you would expect on your globe.
Going by what you suggest, your ships hull should appear first if it's coming up your curve. You know this doesn't happen because you know in your logical mind you cannot have curving water in a sea like that with ships and such just pushing up it.
Imagine two little microbes sitting on a beach ball. Separated by a distance so the are just out of direct view of one another. Now one starts walking towards the other while the other remains motionless. What happens? What would they see as the distance between them gets les and less?
As one walked towards the other, just like you walking up a slight gradient towards your friend on the other side of the gradient, you would eventually see their head if you angle your walk and keep your eyes angled.
But let's put this into the perspective of what you're led to believe.
Walking up that gradient to see someone who is down the other side of it, would not happen if you walked perfectly straight and level, because that would mean you were angled backwards whilst your friend, or microbe was also angled backwards....but would be level to how you see it in normal life...as of right now.
Makes no sense.
Now how does that compare to a ship coming towards you from just beyond the horizon?
Scepti would insist that you see what you see because it has been 'indoctrinated' (his favourite word) into us. But he will see exactly what we see. He simply has a different interpretation based on what he believes. Remember whatever Scepti believes is true and real regardless of what anyone says or what photos we post or what videos we post.
But if what he believes was true then neither he nor us would see what we see. So someone is wrong.
You are definitely wrong.
-
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?
Trying to deflect still.
The entire video stands alone on its own merit.
ANY POINT!
Still waiting for you to make one. It seems you've put up a vidoe and can't explain he argument.
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
-
God and do a legitimate experiment and see for yourself. Anyone can do it so don't keep wasting your time telling me I'm a liar. It's only winding you up.
I have, you are wrong. You are continually lying about what should be seen.
Then you should have no further need to carry on. Just accept your own stuff and be done with it.
Meanwhile I'll stick to what I'm doing.
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
That's not the question I asked. I'm not asking you to admit you are wrong right now. I'm simply asking if I do the experiment you have devised and showed you an uninterrupted documentation of it and the result was that you are wrong, would you actually admit it?
I am totally willing to do all that and if it shows I am wrong, I will completely and utterly agree to and publicly admit I was wrong. I'm just asking for the same pledge from you.
What say you?
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
That's not the question I asked. I'm not asking you to admit you are wrong right now. I'm simply asking if I do the experiment you have devised and showed you an uninterrupted documentation of it and the result was that you are wrong, would you actually admit it?
I am totally willing to do all that and if it shows I am wrong, I will completely and utterly agree to and publicly admit I was wrong. I'm just asking for the same pledge from you.
What say you?
I'm going to be totally and utterly honest with you. 100% and no less.
If you follow everything I mentioned and you show me a truthful discrepancy in what I'm saying...I will definitely accept I could be wrong.
But remember one thing.
I have done it and I know a few people that have...and there is exactly what I'm telling you of a level.
So here's what I propose.
If you're willing to do this simple experiment and have easy access, which, living in Ireland, you most certainly will do, then show me it all and I will scrutinise it.
If I'm not happy about certain stuff (assuming you find disagreement) then can I ask you to amend what I find questionable?
I'll promise you right now I will do it all honestly and will not deliberately send you on wild goose chasing.
I'm not sat typing in this forum just to be an arse. I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself. This is where I'm at.
Fair enough?
-
You see your own convergence line, like I said.
The problem is, reality is not like you repeatedly lie.
We do not see a convergence line.
We see a physical horizon that objects can go behind.
Once more, if it was convergence you would be just as capable of seeing the bottom as you would be able to see the top.
But instead of admitting it is a physical horizon, as that destroys your FE fantasy, you resort to any excuse you can.
It's what you would expect on the Earth I believe but not what you would expect on your globe.
And it has been clearly explained why it is not what you would expect on a FE, and actually what you would expect on a RE.
You have no explanation at all for why the ship appears to sink, and why buildings appear to have sunk, such that if you put a scaled down version next to them, their base appears below water level.
This makes no sense at all on a FE.
Again, if it was an issue of light, you would have a region of darkness.
If it was the atmosphere scattering the light, it would be a blur.
If it was convergence you would simply have the building/ship appear smaller, without the bottom magically obscured.
The best you have come up with to explain why it happens on a FE is that your vision is pure magic and will magically stitch out the region of darkness, even though it clearly doesn't in plenty of other cases.
Going by what you suggest, your ships hull should appear first if it's coming up your curve.
Why?
That makes no sense at all.
Consult the diagram I provided before, the highest part of the ship would come into view first, unless it is an incredibly long ship.
Remember that 8 inches per mile squared you love bringing up?
That means if you have 2 parts of the ship, where 1 is 8 inches above the other part, in order for the lower part to appear first, it needs to be 1 mile in front of the higher part.
Again, you you are presenting a strawman of the RE, not what the RE model actually indicates, and you are just making up whatever crap you feel like, with no justification at all.
Can you even attempt to justify why you think the hull should appear first? Preferably by using math or a diagram?
you cannot have curving water in a sea like that with ships and such just pushing up it.
And again you present a strawman which shows a complete lack of understanding just what "up" is.
The surface of water on the very real globe, is LEVEL!
That doesn't mean flat, it means that if you take water from one spot on this surface and move it to another, there would be no change in energy.
This means the boat is not going "up". It is going along a level surface.
Just like if you were on a merry go round, the horse in front of you would always be going left. That doesn't mean they are going closer to the centre.
As one walked towards the other, just like you walking up a slight gradient towards your friend on the other side of the gradient, you would eventually see their head if you angle your walk and keep your eyes angled.
And as the math before has shown, that angle is basically 0.
But let's put this into the perspective of what you're led to believe.
Walking up that gradient to see someone who is down the other side of it, would not happen if you walked perfectly straight and level, because that would mean you were angled backwards whilst your friend, or microbe was also angled backwards....but would be level to how you see it in normal life...as of right now.
Makes no sense.
You are right about one thing, your objection makes no sense.
You wouldn't be walking straight and level.
You would be walking level, following the curve, without turning left or right.
Yes, you would both be angled away from each other, but again, the question is how much? That would vary with distance, and when close, the angle would be basically 0.
Do you really think you would be able to see a tiny fraction of a degree tilt away from you?
Then you should have no further need to carry on.
I will continue to "carry on" by pointing out your blatant lies, while you continue to make them and refuse to justify them.
Yet again, you have ignored a simple logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why not just admit you are wrong?
What do you hope to gain by repeatedly lying to everyone?
Here it is again, still just as unrefuted as before:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
If you follow everything I mentioned and you show me a truthful discrepancy in what I'm saying...I will definitely accept I could be wrong.
Considering you wont even accept that you are wrong when a simple logical argument clearly shows it, why would we believe you would accept you are wrong?
And even now, your answer still appears to be "no", with you instead looking for any excuse you can to dismiss the experiment.
I have done it and I know a few people that have...and there is exactly what I'm telling you of a level.
And what altitude where you when you did the experiment? How accurate was your measurement?
I'm not sat typing in this forum just to be an arse. I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself. This is where I'm at.
Stop lying,
If you were after the truth you would have dealt with the argument provided to you right near the start and either admitted that one of the very first claims you made in this thread was an outright lie, or have done the impossible and refuted the argument.
Your actions show you have no interest in the truth at all.
-
If I'm not happy about certain stuff (assuming you find disagreement) then can I ask you to amend what I find questionable?
What do you mean in this sentence exactly? Sounds a bit like you are laying down the rules and conditions of how Stash does the experiment already to me. 'Amend' what exactly? The results he gets if they are different to the ones you expect him to get? Or amend how he does the experiment so that it becomes 'Scepti compliant'?
-
What about in your world? If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.
Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening. I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky. Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
When you look out to sea from any elevation, it appears that the sea rises UP to meet your eye....right?
It never appears to curve down away from your eye....right?
So what's happening?
It's all about light to your eye. Look at your eye and understand that your sight looks down, up, right and left, all around. Basically you see a wide view over distance, bringing everything within that eye lens together, as much as the light can reflect back by your very own ability to see what is naturally magnified by the atmosphere at any particular time and in any particular atmospheric change.
Because the sea is darker compared to the sky, you see the reflected light from that sky and lose the reflected light from the sea, meaning your light to dark convergence point becomes your horizon line.
Don't get mixed up with a belief that the horizon is physically real.
It only appears a real line because your eye level convergence makes it so.
It's atmospheric, not lines on a basket ball whilst sat back looking at it on a table top.
I’ve read and reread this, thought about it, really trying to parse and figure it out. But I’m honestly at a loss to understand what you are saying.
Maybe it’s just me though, and it is clear to others? Does anyone here understand what he is saying the horizon ~is~? What is he saying I am seeing when I look out over the ocean?
Help would be appreciated.
-
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?
Trying to deflect still.
The entire video stands alone on its own merit.
ANY POINT!
Still waiting for you to make one. It seems you've put up a vidoe and can't explain he argument.
Any point in the video.
It is a scale model.
Whats wrong with it?
Keep pathetically dodging.
-
Sceptimatic, this is a stalemate.
Nobody here will ever change your mind, and you will never change anybody else here's mind, on this topic.
So, where do we go from here?
The only thing left, is to discuss each person's life journey for arriving at the view they hold, if that even has any bearing.
It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind. I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.
No.
It's a stalemate because nobody here can change your mind and you cannot change anybody else here's mind.
You "knowing" there is no globe we walk on is the biggest joke you've posted thus far.
You know what Antarctica looks like from visiting there yourself or flying over in a plane, do you? On your ridiculous model, whichever way you promote it, Antarctica should be some kind of ice wall encircling a circular shape. The fact you believe the earth is shaped like the hubcap of a 1950's motor car is comedy gold in itself.
You don't know there is no globe you walk upon, so my suggestion to you, sceptimatic, is wake up to yourself.
Are you excited your "game" is leading this idiotic discussion to reach page 50?
-
What prize do you get I wonder if you manage to drag out a discussion to page 50 without managing to convince everyone (or anyone) else that you are right. Two things that Scepti has done successfully. Only two mind.
Talking about 50 pages it seems I have the honour of starting off page 50.
-
What prize do you get I wonder if you manage to drag out a discussion to page 50 without managing to convince everyone (or anyone) else that you are right. Two things that Scepti has done successfully. Only two mind.
Talking about 50 pages it seems I have the honour of starting off page 50.
Says the guy who has posted in nearly every page of this thread.
-
Only nearly.. I must have missed one then.
The point being that if Scepti was more convincing we would all be converted to FEers by now surely. But there still seem to be more RE contributing to this than FE.
-
Maybe it’s just me though, and it is clear to others? Does anyone here understand what he is saying the horizon ~is~? What is he saying I am seeing when I look out over the ocean?
He is saying it is some magical combined effect of the atmosphere, perspective (which he likes calling convergence) and limited ability to see light.
Combined with your eyes magical ability to remove a band of darkness and stitch the light below and above together, except only when it wants to.
-
Only nearly.. I must have missed one then.
The point being that if Scepti was more convincing we would all be converted to FEers by now surely. But there still seem to be more RE contributing to this than FE.
The purpose of the thread wasn't for scepti to change your mind. Also, the angry globularists have always outnumbered the FE, I'm not sure why you are surprised that there are more of you posting in this thread.
-
Well I'm certainly not an 'angry' globalist. I realise that in a flat Earth forum the 'globalists' are always going to be frowned on because we think or know (delete as you wish) differently to you on the FE side. But someone claiming that the Earth is flat certainly doesn't anger me. Curious as to why but certainly not angry. Wise was the king of angry and I don't think anyone could say that my posts have had the same tone as his did.
Has anyone ever actually changed their mind as a direct result of being part of this forum I wonder? If not then I certainly won't be the first. And no I'm not in the least surprised that there are more RE than FE contributing to this thread. The same can be applied to many other threads outside of Q&A or Believers.
My question as it has always been though. If you set aside all the usual motives that conspiracy theories are about (anti-authority/establishment/government lies etc etc) then what else is flat Earth belief in the 21st century actually based on? If you can tell me that then I would love to know. I would also set aside the usual 'Earth looks flat from ground level' as well because that in itself is obviously not a proof that the Earth is actually flat.
-
Maybe it’s just me though, and it is clear to others? Does anyone here understand what he is saying the horizon ~is~? What is he saying I am seeing when I look out over the ocean?
He is saying it is some magical combined effect of the atmosphere, perspective (which he likes calling convergence) and limited ability to see light.
Combined with your eyes magical ability to remove a band of darkness and stitch the light below and above together, except only when it wants to.
Fifty pages! The shame of it all! :'( :'( :'(
To give credit where credit is due, if earth were a flat plane, sceptimatic is correct in two respects.
The horizon on flat plane earth would look from the naked eye, practically indisguishable from the horizon on globe earth. Flat plane earth horizon might actually sit slightly higher than globe earth horizon, but the amount would be negligible to the naked eye.
In perspective drawing and art, the horizon line is the eye line, just as sceptimatic preaches it is.
The big difference between the two horizons, is ships on flat earth horizon would "shrink", instead of "sink".
Hasn't somebody already modelled this difference on the computer?
-
Maybe it’s just me though, and it is clear to others? Does anyone here understand what he is saying the horizon ~is~? What is he saying I am seeing when I look out over the ocean?
He is saying it is some magical combined effect of the atmosphere, perspective (which he likes calling convergence) and limited ability to see light.
Combined with your eyes magical ability to remove a band of darkness and stitch the light below and above together, except only when it wants to.
From what he has written, this seems as good of an assessment as can be made, but I doubt this is what he really wants to convey.
Sceptimatic, is this the perception of your argument you are after? Is this how you want your model to be understood by those reading about it?
-
Maybe it’s just me though, and it is clear to others? Does anyone here understand what he is saying the horizon ~is~? What is he saying I am seeing when I look out over the ocean?
He is saying it is some magical combined effect of the atmosphere, perspective (which he likes calling convergence) and limited ability to see light.
Combined with your eyes magical ability to remove a band of darkness and stitch the light below and above together, except only when it wants to.
Fifty pages! The shame of it all! :'( :'( :'(
To give credit where credit is due, if earth were a flat plane, sceptimatic is correct in two respects.
The horizon on flat plane earth would look from the naked eye, practically indisguishable from the horizon on globe earth. Flat plane earth horizon might actually sit slightly higher than globe earth horizon, but the amount would be negligible to the naked eye.
In perspective drawing and art, the horizon line is the eye line, just as sceptimatic preaches it is.
The big difference between the two horizons, is ships on flat earth horizon would "shrink", instead of "sink".
Hasn't somebody already modelled this difference on the computer?
I'd say that Walter Bislin's site has the best modeling and calculators out there - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp
Here's his modeling/simulation of the famous Lake Ponchartrain shot comparing RE to FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/AFEwjjY.jpg)
-
Amazing
Those snaps math the video!
Lets go sceppy you dodgy dodign dodger mf.
-
Only nearly.. I must have missed one then.
The point being that if Scepti was more convincing we would all be converted to FEers by now surely. But there still seem to be more RE contributing to this than FE.
The purpose of the thread wasn't for scepti to change your mind. Also, the angry globularists have always outnumbered the FE, I'm not sure why you are surprised that there are more of you posting in this thread.
I'd love it if a FE believer would actually answer the question this thread is actually about. I got a few RE believers but yet to get a FE perspective.
I've pretty much given up at this point, and am just seeing how far off the tracks this derailment is going to go. :)
-
You see your own convergence line, like I said.
The problem is, reality is not like you repeatedly lie.
We do not see a convergence line.
We see a physical horizon that objects can go behind.
The fact you are saying this shows you seem not interested in finding the truth. You only seem interested in keeping the mass indoctrinated opinion going.
-
Amazing
Those snaps math the video!
Lets go sceppy you dodgy dodign dodger mf.
Explain your video.
Explain what's supposedly happening on your globe.
What can I add if I don't know what it is you're portraying.
Pick a point and let's discuss.
If you want to use stash's effort above, then what is it you're seeing that shows a globe?
Let me make this clear.
If that stash effort is to show a globe then the globe seems to be arcing UP....right?
Shouldn't it be arcing down from your view?
-
Thank you, sceptimatic, but you didn't answer my question. What would change YOUR mind, if anything?
I did answer it, sort of.
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Forget about standing near any edge of the world. Let's deal with what you observe in actual reality.
I'll repeat what I said.
If you ere standing with a perfectly horizontally level scope, looking out to sea and you know the Earth should be curving downwards from your point, then over a short distance your water disappears from your scope to be replaced by sky....only (taking into account unobstructed view).
You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
Your example is in one detention, but we live in three. You assume the curve would would show. I can't because it curves away.
In Auguest of 2014, a friend I and I were traveling throught Kansas going west on I--70 at night. It was severe clear, so we had great visiability. Using a FE Model, we should have seen the lights of cars coming down the Rockies. We didn't. What we DID see was red tower lights popping up to the west. At first we noticed 6 red lights running in a line north to south off in the distance. Then more lights popping up. The orginal 6 added lights under them. As we drove west the 6 became a few dozen, then a few hundred and all of them adding lights below those above on each tower.
We were approaching a Wind Farm. For each 5 miles we got closer to the first set of towers we saw about 16 feet more of each tower and therefore more lights apeared on each tower further toward the ground. When we got to the west end of Kansas we notice the my truck was working harder, it daylight by then and the land looked "level" in all directions, but we had started to climb that would take us into the Rockies. On the way back a week later, we screamed down that same unseen incline as we were now going down hill.
-
Thank you, sceptimatic, but you didn't answer my question. What would change YOUR mind, if anything?
I did answer it, sort of.
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Forget about standing near any edge of the world. Let's deal with what you observe in actual reality.
I'll repeat what I said.
If you ere standing with a perfectly horizontally level scope, looking out to sea and you know the Earth should be curving downwards from your point, then over a short distance your water disappears from your scope to be replaced by sky....only (taking into account unobstructed view).
You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
Your example is in one detention, but we live in three. You assume the curve would would show. I can't because it curves away.
In Auguest of 2014, a friend I and I were traveling throught Kansas going west on I--70 at night. It was severe clear, so we had great visiability. Using a FE Model, we should have seen the lights of cars coming down the Rockies. We didn't. What we DID see was red tower lights popping up to the west. At first we noticed 6 red lights running in a line north to south off in the distance. Then more lights popping up. The orginal 6 added lights under them. As we drove west the 6 became a few dozen, then a few hundred and all of them adding lights below those above on each tower.
We were approaching a Wind Farm. For each 5 miles we got closer to the first set of towers we saw about 16 feet more of each tower and therefore more lights apeared on each tower further toward the ground. When we got to the west end of Kansas we notice the my truck was working harder, it daylight by then and the land looked "level" in all directions, but we had started to climb that would take us into the Rockies. On the way back a week later, we screamed down that same unseen incline as we were now going down hill.
So...what are you trying to say with this?
-
Amazing
Those snaps math the video!
Lets go sceppy you dodgy dodign dodger mf.
Explain your video.
Explain what's supposedly happening on your globe.
What can I add if I don't know what it is you're portraying.
Pick a point and let's discuss.
If you want to use stash's effort above, then what is it you're seeing that shows a globe?
Let me make this clear.
If that stash effort is to show a globe then the globe seems to be arcing UP....right?
Shouldn't it be arcing down from your view?
The guy made a scale model and showedd what is seen for you to compare with what is reality
Whats confusing?
It does show it to be arching down.
Again
What is confusing?
-
Your example is in one detention, but we live in three
What do you mean by one detention. One dimension by any chance?
-
Some dude on plane with a spirit level checking the horizon:
-
Well there you go... one simple YouTube video and I'm converted. What more evidence could you possibly need. I hold my hands up. I've been wrong all this time. The Earth is obviously flat.
I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself.
But I thought you had already found the truth. That's what you seem to be claiming all the time. So what truth are you still trying to get to?
-
We do not see a convergence line.
We see a physical horizon that objects can go behind.
The fact you are saying this shows you seem not interested in finding the truth. You're only seem interested in keeping the mass indoctrinated opinion going.
And how does me stating what is clearly observed in reality make it seem that I am not interested in finding the truth?
It seems you just reject the truth and instead pretend in it "mass indoctrinated opinion", even though all you have to object to it is repeating the same pathetic, refuted lies.
Again, the fact you continually ignore simple logical arguments that show beyond any doubt that you are wrong shows that you do not give a damn about the truth and are not here seeking it.
The fact that you dismiss as fake simply because it shows you are wrong shows beyond any doubt that you don't give a damn about the truth.
Here is the same argument you have still refused to engage with in any rational manner:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
If you truly were seeking the truth you would engage with it, either admitting that it shows you are wrong and that one of your vey first claims in this thread was an outright lie, or you would actually try to refute it.
Again, the fact you don't, the fact you repeatedly ignore it, shows quite clearly that you don't care about the truth at all.
If that stash effort is to show a globe then the globe seems to be arcing UP....right?
Shouldn't it be arcing down from your view?
No, that isn't what it is showing at all.
Instead, just like normal, perspective makes thing further away appear closer to your line of sight.
Meanwhile the globe curves down.
-
Amazing
Those snaps math the video!
Lets go sceppy you dodgy dodign dodger mf.
Explain your video.
Explain what's supposedly happening on your globe.
What can I add if I don't know what it is you're portraying.
Pick a point and let's discuss.
If you want to use stash's effort above, then what is it you're seeing that shows a globe?
Let me make this clear.
If that stash effort is to show a globe then the globe seems to be arcing UP....right?
Shouldn't it be arcing down from your view?
The guy made a scale model and showedd what is seen for you to compare with what is reality
Whats confusing?
It does show it to be arching down.
Again
What is confusing?
It shows it to be arcing up before it arcs down. Care to explain that?
-
Well there you go... one simple YouTube video and I'm converted. What more evidence could you possibly need. I hold my hands up. I've been wrong all this time. The Earth is obviously flat.
I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself.
But I thought you had already found the truth. That's what you seem to be claiming all the time. So what truth are you still trying to get to?
When have ai a said I found the truth?
What I have found is the truth of the lies told to us...meaning we do not live on a spinning globe.
As for my hypotheses/musings......I don't hand them out as facts, so get your facts right.
-
We do not see a convergence line.
We see a physical horizon that objects can go behind.
The fact you are saying this shows you seem not interested in finding the truth. You're only seem interested in keeping the mass indoctrinated opinion going.
And how does me stating what is clearly observed in reality make it seem that I am not interested in finding the truth?
It seems you just reject the truth and instead pretend in it "mass indoctrinated opinion", even though all you have to object to it is repeating the same pathetic, refuted lies.
If you think you see a physical horizon by looking out to sea then you carry on.
It makes your efforts weaker and weaker.
Strengthen them up by actually typing something instead of copy and paste all the time.
-
What about the video I posted, sceptimatic? Any thoughts?
-
What about the video I posted, sceptimatic? Any thoughts?
Utter nonsense, to be fair.
-
Care to elaborate? In my opinion it shows the things you wanted.
It is easy to repeat "it is fake" without actually addressing why.
EDIT: You are certain it is faked? If so, how and why?
-
If you think you see a physical horizon by looking out to sea then you carry on.
It makes your efforts weaker and weaker.
Really?
Why would using reality make my efforts weaker and weaker?
You are the one who seems to be getting quite weak, so desperate you resort to this nonsense, all while still ignoring the argument that has been plaguing you for so long.
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
I will continue to bring it up until either you refute it or admit you have been lying to us all this time.
And no, repeatedly bringing it up doesn't make my argument weaker. It makes it stronger, as it shows just how desperate you are to avoid this simple argument which destroys your claim and exposes you as a liar.
Now care to address it this time?
It shows it to be arcing up before it arcs down. Care to explain that?
Do you mean when it was viewed from the distance, rather than from the surface?
That is typically how a sphere would work. Just what do you think the issue is?
I don't hand them out as facts, so get your facts right.
You repeatedly hand out your wild lies as facts, so perhaps you should get your facts right?
For example, with you repeating the same lie, that the horizon is the convergence point, again and again, with no indication of it being anything other than a fact, except the repeated refutations of that claim.
-
Amazing
Those snaps math the video!
Lets go sceppy you dodgy dodign dodger mf.
Explain your video.
Explain what's supposedly happening on your globe.
What can I add if I don't know what it is you're portraying.
Pick a point and let's discuss.
If you want to use stash's effort above, then what is it you're seeing that shows a globe?
Let me make this clear.
If that stash effort is to show a globe then the globe seems to be arcing UP....right?
Shouldn't it be arcing down from your view?
The guy made a scale model and showedd what is seen for you to compare with what is reality
Whats confusing?
It does show it to be arching down.
Again
What is confusing?
It shows it to be arcing up before it arcs down. Care to explain that?
Now we re getting somewhere
See when you respond we get a sense of where your POV is and then we can move forward eith dialog.
So
You know perspective where you look at train tracks converging to a point far away?
But we know they stay parallel.
They dont actually come together?
Turn your head sideways.
Now the left-right is up-down.
Does the up side converge into the bottom?
No
Nothing has changed.
Thebworld is 3dimensional.
Perspective runs both ways.
The water is not curving up
-
What I have found is the truth of the lies told to us...meaning we do not live on a spinning globe.
O right... and where did you find that truth then?
-
Amazing
Those snaps math the video!
Lets go sceppy you dodgy dodign dodger mf.
Explain your video.
Explain what's supposedly happening on your globe.
What can I add if I don't know what it is you're portraying.
Pick a point and let's discuss.
If you want to use stash's effort above, then what is it you're seeing that shows a globe?
Let me make this clear.
If that stash effort is to show a globe then the globe seems to be arcing UP....right?
Shouldn't it be arcing down from your view?
The guy made a scale model and showedd what is seen for you to compare with what is reality
Whats confusing?
It does show it to be arching down.
Again
What is confusing?
It shows it to be arcing up before it arcs down. Care to explain that?
Now we re getting somewhere
See when you respond we get a sense of where your POV is and then we can move forward eith dialog.
So
You know perspective where you look at train tracks converging to a point far away?
But we know they stay parallel.
They dont actually come together?
Turn your head sideways.
Now the left-right is up-down.
Does the up side converge into the bottom?
No
Nothing has changed.
Thebworld is 3dimensional.
Perspective runs both ways.
The water is not curving up
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
-
Haha oh my goodness.
WhT are you on about?
Its not curving up, its curving down.
Who said its curving up?
Do you know what a circle is?
Draw a big circle.
Draw a small stick figure person at 12oclock and one 9oclock.
Draw a straight line from one head to the others foot.
Let me know if they can see each others feet without the circle getting in the way.
-
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it. 10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough
11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference. The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles. I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing. That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
-
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.
No curving up is required.
You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?
Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.
And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
-
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it. 10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough
11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference. The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles. I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing. That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
haha
Depending on how big a stick figure he draws i tried to give myself the best possible chance with this guy.
this guy!!
oh man...
-
I know... all these years I've been looking out towards the horizon and convinced that it curves down. But all these years I've been wrong. The horizon curves up! How silly of me not to realise.
If you think you see a physical horizon by looking out to sea then you carry on.
OK tell me what it is I'm seeing then. I just looked up the word horizon on dictionary.com and this is what I found.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/horizon?s=t
Just to verify that, I thought I would try a different site completely. So I looked up the word horizon on another dictionary website.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/horizon
So that's two definitions that seem to agree with what JB is saying but not what Scepti is insisting. Here is JBs description of the horizon:
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
Just to be sure lets just try a third website:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/horizon
Seems pretty similar to the previous two dictionary site definitions to me.
So how might a fourth site - dictionaryaccordingtosceptimatic.com define the horizon as I wonder?
-
can someone post a photo of traintracks converging, but turn the photo 90degrees?
-
Here you go...
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/yrFkf9Z.jpg)
Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.
Is this an acceptable set up?
Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):
(https://i.imgur.com/uUfSGMX.png)
With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pOAIIHa.jpg)
The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY6Nrj0.png)
-
Haha oh my goodness.
WhT are you on about?
Its not curving up, its curving down.
Who said its curving up?
Do you know what a circle is?
Draw a big circle.
Draw a small stick figure person at 12oclock and one 9oclock.
Draw a straight line from one head to the others foot.
Let me know if they can see each others feet without the circle getting in the way.
A circle would not get in the way.
A ball would.
So what are you trying to say?
And cut the , my goodness out for crying out loud. Just have a pop at me like you do. I almost thought this was your wife. ;)
-
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it. 10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough
11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference. The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles. I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing. That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.
It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.
-
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.
No curving up is required.
You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?
Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.
And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
-
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it. 10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough
11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference. The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles. I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing. That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.
It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.
But what if I pointed super high powered flood lights at the bottom of the object that is seemingly not illuminated? Would we all of a sudden be able to see it?
And why wouldn't the light fade from light to darkness instead of creating a distinct hard line of visible to non-visible?
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/yrFkf9Z.jpg)
Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.
Is this an acceptable set up?
Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):
(https://i.imgur.com/uUfSGMX.png)
With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pOAIIHa.jpg)
The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY6Nrj0.png)
Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.
-
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it. 10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough
11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference. The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles. I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing. That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.
It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.
But what if I pointed super high powered flood lights at the bottom of the object that is seemingly not illuminated? Would we all of a sudden be able to see it?
And why wouldn't the light fade from light to darkness instead of creating a distinct hard line of visible to non-visible?
The light is a gradual convergence over distance to your sight.
-
A circle would not get in the way.
A ball would.
A circle is to make it 2D, rather than 3D.
A circle would stil get in the way.
So what are you trying to say?
Exactly what you have admitted, the ball, which is curving down from any observer, obstructs the view to a distant object.
There is no need for it to curve up.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.
It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.
It has already been clearly explained why this is pure BS. Why do you repeat the same lie?
What would actually happen in that case is for the ground to blur into the sky like a foggy day. It would not produce a clear horizon.
But more importantly, it wouldn't cause the distant objects to appear lower, such that they appear to have their base well below the horizon.
And we know that isn't the case, because more sensitive optics don't help and it is still clearly resolved rather than a blur.
So no, that is clearly not the reason we have a horizon as it doesn't match what is observed at all.
The reason we actually have a horizon has been explained to you repeatedly, it is because Earth is round.
Here is that argument yet again, the same argument you still refuse to address as you cannot find a single issue with it and know that it shows you to be just repeating the same pathetic lies:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
And again, you attack the globe, but that makes no reference to the globe or lack thereof. Even if we accepted your nonsense as how the horizon works, the only thing to prevent that happening on the globe would be the physical horizon of the globe obstructing the view.
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.
No curving up is required.
You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?
Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.
And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
Stop just repeating the same pathetic lies.
You already tried that and had it refuted.
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.
Now how about you address the point made rather than looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it and pretend to have a point?
And once more, until you actually accept the fact that the RE does have a horizon and start to discuss where it would appear, we are not dealing with level scopes.
The only other reason to discuss level scopes before that, is the plentiful evidence showing the horizon is below level.
-
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/yrFkf9Z.jpg)
Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.
Is this an acceptable set up?
Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):
(https://i.imgur.com/uUfSGMX.png)
With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pOAIIHa.jpg)
The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY6Nrj0.png)
Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.
So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
-
Here you go...
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
-
So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
I believe you are correct, sir.
It appears the video of a guy on plane was somehow faked/falsified as well. Funny how that seems to happen every time there is evidence that'd make what scepti claims to be utter nonsense.
-
So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
I believe you are correct, sir.
It appears the video of a guy on plane was somehow faked/falsified as well. Funny how that seems to happen every time there is evidence that'd make what scepti claims to be utter nonsense.
Yes, it's extremely well documented that he is not the "truth-seeker" he claims to be. Any and all results that are contrary to his wishes will be subjected to claims of manipulation, cons, or what-have-you. No matter how transparent the effort. That's ok, I wouldn't expect anything else - The only result of such an experiment that I am more than 100% sure of is his reaction to it.
-
Which scenario is more probable: all the pictures, videos, and other evidence shown to sceptimatic are faked or that sceptimatic is wrong?
I'd imagine the vast majority would choose sceptimatic being wrong. Yet, as happens with conspiracy theorists, it will just steel his resolve. So it is pathological.
Sceptimatic's hubris knows no bounds. Something very warped, there.
-
The fact is that you can only change some ones mind if they are willing to have it changed. Some people only want to see things according to a particular point of view, no matter what evidence is presented to them. If that suits them then we can have no argument with them since we are all entitled to our individual opinions.
Conspiracy theorists are the classic example. They simply set the conditions for 'evidence; that they will accept. Knowing perfectly well that those conditions mean that no one can prove (to them) that their beliefs, opinions (call it what you will) can be proved wrong.
The more they dismiss things which are quite plain, clear and obvious to us, and the more ludicrous their claims become so the more the 'non-believers' will argue back unsuccessfully. That simply reinforces their belief that they are right. I don't reply back to anything Scepti says because I think I will change his mind anymore. I simply reply back because I kind of enjoy the 'banter' if you can call it that.
-
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.
Show me the level view from left to right.
-
So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
No. I'm saying, make sure you do it so there's no possible chance of manipulation and in a way that I can't pull it up.
Why are you arguing it?
Just go and do your experiment, legitimately, like you said.
-
Here you go...
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
-
Here you go...
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
He's trying to show you you are on the wrong track. See it now?
How about you tell us all what the horizon on a globe earth should look like?
-
Here you go...
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
He's trying to show you you are on the wrong track. See it now?
How about you tell us all what the horizon on a globe earth should look like?
Mr bully boy, do you have anything to add without silly bullying attempts to boost your own silly ego?
-
Here you go...
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
He's trying to show you you are on the wrong track. See it now?
How about you tell us all what the horizon on a globe earth should look like?
Mr bully boy, do you have anything to add without silly bullying attempts to boost your own silly ego?
Mr. Sensitive, that railway track photo reveals nothing of the shape of the earth. (Until you zoom in and can see the end of the tracks curving in)
Do you have to call everyone who asks you a question you can't answer, a "bully"?
I've added plenty - the horizon on a flat earth or globe earth may look identical to the naked eye.
But:
As distance is increased on a flat earth, all objects shrink, and on a globe earth, all objects sink. As distance is decreased on a flat earth, all objects enlarge, and on a globe earth, all objects rise from the ground.
-
As distance is increased on a flat earth, all objects shrink, and on a globe earth, all objects sink. As distance is decreased on a flat earth, all objects enlarge, and on a globe earth, all objects rise from the ground.
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
-
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.
No curving up is required.
You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?
Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.
And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.
Now how about you address the point made rather than looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it and pretend to have a point?
Show me the level view from left to right.
Do you mean what the person sees?
If so, that was also provided before.
If you mean a side on view showing the setup, that is what that picture is.
And again you just look for excuses rather than dealing with the argument that was presented.
Again, this is to presented this time to show how curving down can obstruct the distant buildings.
How about you stop looking for excuses and start addressing the issues?
And again you ignore the extreme simple argument showing one of your earliest claims in this thread is an outright lie.
Are you really incapable of honestly and rationally engaging with it?
If you can't show anything wrong with it this means you have no justification for your claim, and no actual objection to the RE.
Here it is again, care to address it this time:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
No, we use curving down from your position. Not curving up.
Just like the diagram I presented.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
You should be seeing that things below you (like the RE) can appear higher. That you can see the rail "below" your line of sight, even though you cannot see the part directly below you.
Thus your argument for why you shouldn't see the horizon on RE IS WRONG!
Also, while you should see the tracks converging, you should also notice that they end before they converge. Further evidence against the horizon being the convergence point.
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
They aren't raising from the ground, visually the ground is rising.
This has also been explained to you, with you unable to show anything wrong with it so you just ignore it to pretend you weren't refuted yet again.
On a globe, there are 2 competing effects.
Perspective making things below you appear higher, and the curvature of Earth making everything appear lower the further away it is.
In a region close to you, up to some distance depending on several factors, perspective wins, causing Earth to appear to rise up towards the centre of your FOV.
In a more distant region, the curvature wins, and things just appear to get lower and lower.
The horizon is the point where the 2 effects are equal.
-
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
You mean to tell us that you really can't figure that out? It's not that hard and I think we've already given you more than enough explanation (including diagrams) of how this works. We cannot learn it for you. That much you need to do yourself.
Is your definition of a sphere/globe the same as everyone elses?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Can somone draw SAME PICTURE the sticks as stick people with heads and then rotate the image so the people are "on level" and the curve down is a "hump"?
From what he said, i believe he thinks the only way for something to block your view is to hump "up".
And he dails to realise that going "down" and away would produce rhe same effect
-
As distance is increased on a flat earth, all objects shrink, and on a globe earth, all objects sink. As distance is decreased on a flat earth, all objects enlarge, and on a globe earth, all objects rise from the ground.
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
It's not just my globe, I share it with you and the rest of humanity.
In answer to your question, because on a globe, when distance between two objects is decreased, the amount of curving occurring between the two objects is decreased. This allows the viewer to see the object starting from the top and going all the way to the bottom.
Buy yourself a basketball or beach ball, glue different sized objects to it, and experiment what you see when you rotate the objects away from you, and then rotate them forward.
-
This is gold:
But as per Poe's law, I cannot really say whether serious or not.
-
Can somone draw SAME PICTURE the sticks as stick people with heads and then rotate the image so the people are "on level" and the curve down is a "hump"?
Already provided to him before (but not drawn to scale because I couldn't be bothered):
(https://i.imgur.com/MTFIhax.png)
It doesn't easily show the base obstructed, because it's hidden by the green bulge.
The problem is he seems to be perfectly fine to have perspective make things appear higher than they are if they are below him, but not for a globe. He seems to think that for a globe, perspective magically stops working and instead things that are below you will always appear below you, never capable of rising up to appear in your FOV.
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
Right, something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
-
There we go sceppy
Over to you.
-
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.
No curving up is required.
You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?
Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.
And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.
Now how about you address the point made rather than looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it and pretend to have a point?
Show me the level view from left to right.
Do you mean what the person sees?
If so, that was also provided before.
If you mean a side on view showing the setup, that is what that picture is.
And again you just look for excuses rather than dealing with the argument that was presented.
Again, this is to presented this time to show how curving down can obstruct the distant buildings.
How about you stop looking for excuses and start addressing the issues?
And again you ignore the extreme simple argument showing one of your earliest claims in this thread is an outright lie.
Are you really incapable of honestly and rationally engaging with it?
If you can't show anything wrong with it this means you have no justification for your claim, and no actual objection to the RE.
Here it is again, care to address it this time:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
No, we use curving down from your position. Not curving up.
Just like the diagram I presented.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
You should be seeing that things below you (like the RE) can appear higher. That you can see the rail "below" your line of sight, even though you cannot see the part directly below you.
Thus your argument for why you shouldn't see the horizon on RE IS WRONG!
Also, while you should see the tracks converging, you should also notice that they end before they converge. Further evidence against the horizon being the convergence point.
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
They aren't raising from the ground, visually the ground is rising.
This has also been explained to you, with you unable to show anything wrong with it so you just ignore it to pretend you weren't refuted yet again.
On a globe, there are 2 competing effects.
Perspective making things below you appear higher, and the curvature of Earth making everything appear lower the further away it is.
In a region close to you, up to some distance depending on several factors, perspective wins, causing Earth to appear to rise up towards the centre of your FOV.
In a more distant region, the curvature wins, and things just appear to get lower and lower. the horizon is.
Which coloured line is supposed to be the level line?
-
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
You mean to tell us that you really can't figure that out? It's not that hard and I think we've already given you more than enough explanation (including diagrams) of how this works. We cannot learn it for you. That much you need to do yourself.
Is your definition of a sphere/globe the same as everyone elses?
Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
-
It's not just my globe, I share it with you and the rest of humanity.
Nope, you don't share it with anyone because you do not live on one. In my opinion.
In answer to your question, because on a globe, when distance between two objects is decreased, the amount of curving occurring between the two objects is decreased. This allows the viewer to see the object starting from the top and going all the way to the bottom.
Buy yourself a basketball or beach ball, glue different sized objects to it, and experiment what you see when you rotate the objects away from you, and then rotate them forward.
It doesn't solve the level sight. Answer with a realistic standing on that basket ball, not you looking at someone disappearing as you rotate it.
-
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
You mean to tell us that you really can't figure that out? It's not that hard and I think we've already given you more than enough explanation (including diagrams) of how this works. We cannot learn it for you. That much you need to do yourself.
Is your definition of a sphere/globe the same as everyone elses?
Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
Define eye level.
No
Show a picture of what eye level is.
-
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
You mean to tell us that you really can't figure that out? It's not that hard and I think we've already given you more than enough explanation (including diagrams) of how this works. We cannot learn it for you. That much you need to do yourself.
Is your definition of a sphere/globe the same as everyone elses?
Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
Define eye level.
No
Show a picture of what eye level is.
Forget eye level if you can't understand it. Just use horizontally level, like spirit level.
-
Why can't you provide a pic to help us understand it better?
-
And of course, you still ignore the irrefutable argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Which coloured line is supposed to be the level line?
None.
Your view is not a line.
Any view has a FOV.
Do you understand that?
Not a line, a region.
This region is represented by the brown lines in the picture.
Everything inside that is inside your FOV, is inside your level view.
And yet again, you ignore the actual point of that picture.
Once more, here is the picture:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Notice that the Earth curves down from the observer.
Notice that this curve blocks the bottom of the distant object.
We don't need Earth to curve up to obstruct the view to distant objects.
Also notice that the ground directly at their feet is not inside the FOV, but further away it is.
Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
Already did, and already provided in the argument.
But like always, YOU IGNORED IT!
It is the very same thing you need to make your FE ground rise up to eye level.
PERSPECTIVE!
Your eyes see based upon angles not height.
Something 1 m below eye-line, 1 m in front of it will be at an angle of ~45 degrees below level.
But something 1 m below your eye-line 1 km in front of it will only be at an angle of 0.06 degrees.
Once again, there are 2 effects at play, one is the Earth physically curving down making it physically lower, the other is perspective making things below you appear higher.
At short range, perspective wins. At long range, curvature does.
The point were they are equal is the horizon.
Here is another picture you will likely ignore or find an excuse to dismiss:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
The red is for a flat Earth, the green is for a round Earth with a radius of 6371 km.
The x axis shows the distance from the observer, going straight (not following the curve).
The left y axis, along with the solid lines, show the physical height, measured from the height of the observer (note, even a flat Earth doesn't have it magically rise up).
The right y axis, along with the dotted lines, shows the angular position.
Note that for a FE, the ground continues rising, but the rate at which it rises slows dramatically.
This means it will still never get to exactly eye level, and there will never actually be a horizon as there will always be further than you can see.
Note that for a RE, initially perspective wins, with the Earth appearing to rise up. But eventually the curving down becomes dominant, and it starts appearing lower. This means this more distant land is blocked from view by the closer land.
Here is another diagram, but for a larger distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/YustvD2.png)
-
Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
You really don't understand simple geometry do you. If there's any brain engaging that needs to be done around here it is yours, not mine.... and that also seems to be the opinion of everyone else on here so it's definitely not me.
And yes you are right about one thing though. Your claim that we don't all live on a globe is just your opinion. Nothing more. Have you ever been wrong in your life before? If not then please tell me your secret.
-
Why can't you provide a pic to help us understand it better?
Wtf is spirit level?
Haha wtf?!
Also
I agree
Just show us a pciture of what you figure eye level is.
Because youve used that phrase several times just now and really, with your history and mis use of the enlish language we dont need to drag on for another 50pg trying to figure outbwhat youre on about
That said... amazing
Truly amazing!
-
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
You mean to tell us that you really can't figure that out? It's not that hard and I think we've already given you more than enough explanation (including diagrams) of how this works. We cannot learn it for you. That much you need to do yourself.
Is your definition of a sphere/globe the same as everyone elses?
Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
It has been explained. Repeatedly. Simply. Clearly. In fact it was explained in the post you quoted before this one (and apparently it was posted again while I wrote this). Here, I will quote it again -
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level ....
This is an incredibly simple and clear geometric explanation of what the horizon is and where it is from the vantage point above a sphere. It does not rely on any beliefs or preconceived notions, it is just an explanation of geometry and perspective. The same type of analysis could be done for a vantage over a cube, a pyramid, or any other geometrically defined surface.
It is simple, about at the level of what a reasonably thinking 10 year old could understand. There is no trick, no requirement you believe a certain way to understand it, just the normal (but still amazing) ability to abstract geometric concepts. Not being able to understand this as an adult means that there is something abnormal with the way you think, in the way that you either take in or process information. Thats okay, we all have our faults and challenges in life, and homogeneity of thought is not something anyone should ever want, but you should realize this about yourself, and understand that unless YOU put in a lot of effort, you will neither understand people, nor be able to have your own concepts understood. It isn't about agreeing or not, its just about basic comprehension, which is prerequisite of any sort of meaningful exchange of ideas.
Maybe you dont care about the latter, but if so, it all seems like an awful waste of time.
-
Because youve used that phrase several times just now and really, with your history and mis use of the enlish language we dont need to drag on for another 50pg trying to figure outbwhat youre on about
That said... amazing
Truly amazing!
w u t ?
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
Right, something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
Right, something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
-
So draw the goddamn diagram, man!
-
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
No, the doging is entirely be you, such as dodging this photo and issue yet again.
You claimed the RE relies upon Earth curving up to hide the distant objects.
This picture clearly shows Earth curving down, yet still hiding the bottom of the distant object.
Going to admit you were wrong with that claim?
And of course, there is still the blatant lie right from the start that you haven't explained, what magic causes the horizon on the RE to be invisible?
The diagram shows that the horizon does exist and would be visible.
It also shows how you can see ground in front of you (while it is still below your line of sight), even though you can't see the ground directly below you through your current FOV.
The logical you are yet to present any challenge to shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong, yet you still haven't addressed it. So it is quite clearly you who is dodging, not us. Here is the argument yet again. Figured out anything wrong with it yet? Or will you finally be honest and admit you were wrong?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
And then as you seem to think the ground being below you means you can't see it, you need to explain how you magically see it on a FE even though it is below you.
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
Right, something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
Sceptimatic, you dodge and weave so well, I'm thinking of signing you up in my football team! What kindergarten concept are you struggling with here? You won't be able to see the stick man's ankles due to curvature.
Believe me, I get lied to every day I turn up for work at the piggery. You being repeatedly told, and politely explained why the earth is a globe, is the biggest truth you will ever be told.
-
Exactly the same principle. Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball. Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface. Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see. Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.
What happens? The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball. What is so hard to understand about that?
-
So draw the goddamn diagram, man!
What diagram?
You people seem to think you can see over a curve from a horizontally level stand point, looking through a lens...so show me.
-
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
No, the doging is entirely be you, such as dodging this photo and issue yet again.
You claimed the RE relies upon Earth curving up to hide the distant objects.
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.
The issue with you lot is, you contradict yourselves depending on what it is you're arguing with your globe.
-
Sceptimatic, you dodge and weave so well, I'm thinking of signing you up in my football team! What kindergarten concept are you struggling with here? You won't be able to see the stick man's ankles due to curvature.
Believe me, I get lied to every day I turn up for work at the piggery. You being repeatedly told, and politely explained why the earth is a globe, is the biggest truth you will ever be told.
A globe, told and sold, is the biggest lie told to us.
-
Exactly the same principle. Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball. Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface. Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see. Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.
What happens? The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball. What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum, as you think it is..and looking back at your supposed Earth, as you're told and shown manipulated/composite images of, then come back to me with this argument.
In the meantime deal with actually being stood on your global Earth, as you believe...and show me how you can see down a curve from a horizontally level stand point with your scope.
-
Exactly the same principle. Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball. Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface. Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see. Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.
What happens? The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball. What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum, as you think it is..and looking back at your supposed Earth, as you're told and shown manipulated/composite images of, then come back to me with this argument.
In the meantime deal with actually being stood on your global Earth, as you believe...and show me how you can see down a curve from a horizontally level stand point with your scope.
Why are deliberately ignoring the explanations given? Do you like being seen as dishonest or something?
-
You keep on going on about we think this and we are told that. What you haven't explained at all yet is why you are so sure you are right and why we are all wrong.
-
I would love to hear that. And also who is on this subterfuge and conspiracy.
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
Right, something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
You keep askj g where the "hump" is.
Its right there.
Draw a line from foot to foot.
See the "hump"?
Red man cant see the black mans feet from where hes standing
-
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.
I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?
He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like. :o
-
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
No, the doging is entirely be you, such as dodging this photo and issue yet again.
You claimed the RE relies upon Earth curving up to hide the distant objects.
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up.
Pathetic semantics.
The meaning is clear. You are claiming things that we have not said to pretend that is a problem with the RE.
You were the one who said it rises up, not us. You did this to pretend there was a contradiction, when there was none.
You do this because you have no rational objection to the RE model.
This diagram shows you are wrong.
How about you own up to your mistakes for once?
While you are at it you can also admit your claims about the horizon are pure BS?
Unless you have found a problem with the argument you have been repeatedly ignoring:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
And once more, due to how you continually avoid simple questions and simple arguments, it is quite clear we are not the ones with the problem here.
You people seem to think you can see over a curve from a horizontally level stand point, looking through a lens...so show me.
You mean like the diagram I have already provided?
A globe, told and sold, is the biggest lie told to us.
Is that why you are completely incapable of pointing out a single fault with it and instead need to repeat the same refuted lies and repeatedly ignore/dismiss the refutation of those lies?
It sure seems like you are the one trying to sell us a lie here.
Exactly the same principle. Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball. Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface. Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see. Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.
What happens? The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball. What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum
Again, WHY SHOULD THAT MAGICALLY CHANGE ANYTHING???
Yet again you go for pathetic dismissal rather than any rational objection.
-
Sceptimatic's main argument seems to be, if you are looking across at the horizon of the sea meeting sky, from a beach or boat, you should not be able to see the horizon being at eye level. At the eye line which is also referred to as the horizon, on a globe curving away, you should only see sky, not the horizon line at eye level.
I think we've covered this before. In perspective drawing or art, it's just easier to make the horizon and eye line the one and the same.
But if you were to compare side by side, flat earth horizon with globe earth horizon at the same spot, flat earth horizon would sit slightly higher. Flat earth horizon and eye line would truly be one and the same.
But globe earth horizon actually sits slightly lower than the eye line, which means you are always looking ever so slightly down to see it.
Does that make you happy, sceptimatic?
-
Exactly the same principle. Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball. Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface. Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see. Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.
What happens? The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball. What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum, as you think it is..and looking back at your supposed Earth, as you're told and shown manipulated/composite images of, then come back to me with this argument.
In the meantime deal with actually being stood on your global Earth, as you believe...and show me how you can see down a curve from a horizontally level stand point with your scope.
Why are deliberately ignoring the explanations given? Do you like being seen as dishonest or something?
I'm not the one being dishonest.
Put some effort in.
-
You keep on going on about we think this and we are told that. What you haven't explained at all yet is why you are so sure you are right and why we are all wrong.
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.
-
no
not what i meant.
look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).
Right, something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
You keep askj g where the "hump" is.
Its right there.
Draw a line from foot to foot.
See the "hump"?
Red man cant see the black mans feet from where hes standing
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
-
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.
I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?
He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like. :o
You think you're stood on one, so tell me about this hump?
-
Sceptimatic's main argument seems to be, if you are looking across at the horizon of the sea meeting sky, from a beach or boat, you should not be able to see the horizon being at eye level. At the eye line which is also referred to as the horizon, on a globe curving away, you should only see sky, not the horizon line at eye level.
I think we've covered this before. In perspective drawing or art, it's just easier to make the horizon and eye line the one and the same.
But if you were to compare side by side, flat earth horizon with globe earth horizon at the same spot, flat earth horizon would sit slightly higher. Flat earth horizon and eye line would truly be one and the same.
But globe earth horizon actually sits slightly lower than the eye line, which means you are always looking ever so slightly down to see it.
Does that make you happy, sceptimatic?
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.
-
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.
Well let's just pretend that I am a complete dummy like yourself (your previous admission not mine) and try starting from the beginning. Then I will let you know when I start struggling.
-
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.
I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?
He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like. :o
Exactly, it is like he can not hold shapes in his mind at all.
It is so strange that I keep coming back to maybe this just being an act, and he gets off from getting people riled up and pulling their chains. There are people like that out there like that, and this would certainly be a reasonably chosen forum to do it on, no?
Its hard to know really what to think - I would feel sorry for someone as intellectually limited as he presents himself to be, but would be amused if he was just an incredibly persistent and reasonably well-played troll.
-
You have no horizon on a globe
What is your definition of the word horizon then? Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
Im using your language.
Try following the converstaion,
From what i gather, You are expecting the ground to rise up in order to block far away things.
JackB has taken the time to draw two identical pictures where the 2nd shows it rotated (because its a ball) to show your "hump" which is not a hump like a pear, but just the body of the ball being in the way.
Remeber.
This is a really big ball.
Like really really big.
Or youre trolling.
Cant tell.
-
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.
I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?
He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like. :o
You think you're stood on one, so tell me about this hump?
Uh, you are the one confused with all this 'hump' stuff. You seem to have attached some special meaning to 'hump' that you haven't explained to anyone else.
There are plenty of pictures being provided, but all you are doing is talking about humps. I see lines, curves and angled. Please define what this hump is, maybe draw a circle around it?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu2fEgb.png)
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
Im using your language.
Try following the converstaion,
From what i gather, You are expecting the ground to rise up in order to block far away things.
JackB has taken the time to draw two identical pictures where the 2nd shows it rotated (because its a ball) to show your "hump" which is not a hump like a pear, but just the body of the ball being in the way.
Remeber.
This is a really big ball.
Like really really big.
Or youre trolling.
Cant tell.
maybe we can bother jackB to zoom waaaaay out and show the full size of this circle/ ball?
can sceppy confirm what he knows so far?
that things far away converge?
both horizontally AND vertically?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrShKs6c/railway-lines-converging-to-the-horizon-hnp2gf.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/67y9GDKw)
[/quote]
have you even watched the video?
please confirm.
-
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.
Again, it isn't us struggling.
We have made the problem with your lies clear, yet you continue to ignore these problems and pretend there is none.
But if you truly think it is us struggling, then what we are "struggling" (by which I really mean we are repeatedly showing you are wrong) with are a few key points:
A - What is wrong with the argument I have presented to you, which you have repeatedly ignored?
According to this argument, you are wrong, as the RE would have a horizon and when close to the surface that would be imperceptibly different from level. You have repeatedly ignored this argument, and haven't shown a single thing wrong with it.
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
Can you point out exactly what is wrong with this argument?
And again, before you appeal to a level scope, that is dealt with at the end. If you need it explicit:
9 - Thus looking through a level scope with a vertical FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, standing 2 m above Earth, will allow one to see the horizon through this level scope, furthermore, looking through one with a FOV of 2.5 degrees would have the horizon appear to only be 1.8% of the FOV below level, and that still relies upon you having it perfectly level.
B - Just what is wrong the diagram I presented? It clearly shows an observer looking out level, with a FOV of 90 degrees, and still clearly seeing the horizon. It also shows how this physical horizon obstructs the bottom of distant objects.
Here is the diagram again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
And before you repeat the same lie, IT IS A LEVEL VIEW! That purple line is simply one line out of many in the FOV. The FOV is bounded by the brown lines, which is symmetric about the line extending horizontally from the observer, and thus it is a level view.
C - Why do so many photos, found from so many sources, clearly show the horizon to be below the convergence point, below eye level? And no, just dismissing them all as fake is not good enough. Clearly explain why you think they are fake, and no, them showing you are wrong is not good enough either.
D - The closest thing you have to an actual argument against being able to see the ground on the RE is appealing to the fact that it is below you and below your line of sight. But this argument applies equally to the FE. So what magic allows the ground to rise up into your FOV on a FE but doesn't allow the same for a RE?
You can't use perspective, because that would work for both.
E - What magic prevents us from seeing the bottom of distant objects on your hypothetical FE? All the available evidence indicates a real physical horizon, with the distant object having its base below that horizon, likely due to the curvature of Earth.
We know it can't simply be the atmosphere scattering the light, as that would merely create a blur which obscured the bottom of the object and blurs the sea/ground into the sky. It would not magically cause the entire building to appear lower.
We know it can't simply be limited resolution, as that would equally obscure the top and the bottom (technically it would obscure the top slightly more as it is further away). It also wouldn't magically lower the base, instead the entire building should just appear smaller, but still entirely above the horizon. And perhaps most important of all, using a better optics system doesn't allow more to be brought into view, even though it does allow small objects before the horizon (which limited resolution has rendered unresolvable) to be well resolved.
We know it can't simply be that the light reflected off the base isn't strong enough, as that would simply make it dark. It wouldn't magically lower the base to have it appear below the horizon. The best you would get is a dark band in your vision. It also would be dependent upon sensitivity to light, with more sensitive optics allowing you to see further down. That would mean simply changing the exposure setting on a camera should control how much is visible.
You will notice a common theme missing from all the explanations, what makes the building appear to have its base submerged?
Does that clear up the issues that YOU are struggling with, that YOU are struggling to come up with an excuse to dismiss to have it match your flat fantasy and reject the RE model you cannot find fault with, that you wish to pretend we are struggling with as you can't provide any rational objection?
I'm not the one being dishonest.
Put some effort in.
Yes you are.
You are repeatedly lying about the RE.
You are repeatedly lying about reality.
You are repeatedly ignoring arguments and explanations presented only to then ask the same stupid already answered question again and again.
You are repeatedly misrepresenting what we have said or provided.
You are repeatedly dismissing evidence as fake and manipulated, even though the sole justification is that it shows you are wrong.
You are the one being extremely dishonest.
And that dishonesty seems to be the only effort you are willing to put in.
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
And more pathetic dishonesty.
No, we are still using the same round Earth, constantly curving down from any point.
But if you rotate it, it looks like a hump.
That is because you kept on appealing to it curving up.
But thanks for showing your dishonesty yet again.
The sole distinction between those 2 diagrams is that one has been rotated and had the lines turned into stick figures.
Do you see a hump in the second diagram? No. So why pretend anyone is appealing to a hump.
That is just to try to explain it to you, because you don't seem to understand how the RE model works at all, or how sight works at all.
-
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
The justification has been provided in multiple ways and all you have been able to do in anyway against them is just repeat the same pathetic lie.
If you wish to assert that the globe would not have a horizon, and have any shred of integrity, you need to deal with these multiple arguments which show beyond any doubt that the RE WOULD have a horizon.
And the simplest part is asking just what you think the transition from ground/sea to sky should look like on a globe, the very simple questions I started with.
Remember, you have already admitting that on a globe, looking straight down, you would see the ground. You were effectively forced into that to stop your position looking like pure insanity with you claiming the RE should be invisible. But now you have admitted that, and there is no backing out.
Likewise you accept if you look up you see sky.
So what happens between?
Unless you can actually address this and actually refute all the arguments showing beyond any doubt that a RE would have a horizon, all you are doing is showing everyone that you don't give a damn about the truth and are willing to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend that Earth is flat.
-
Sceptimatic's main argument seems to be, if you are looking across at the horizon of the sea meeting sky, from a beach or boat, you should not be able to see the horizon being at eye level. At the eye line which is also referred to as the horizon, on a globe curving away, you should only see sky, not the horizon line at eye level.
I think we've covered this before. In perspective drawing or art, it's just easier to make the horizon and eye line the one and the same.
But if you were to compare side by side, flat earth horizon with globe earth horizon at the same spot, flat earth horizon would sit slightly higher. Flat earth horizon and eye line would truly be one and the same.
But globe earth horizon actually sits slightly lower than the eye line, which means you are always looking ever so slightly down to see it.
Does that make you happy, sceptimatic?
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.
Ok, so you're saying because we can all see a horizon out to sea for example, and that horizon is perfectly flat and horizontal, it can't be part of a globe earth?
So, what shape would I see then, if staring out to sea where the sea meets the sky, on globe earth? Are you saying we should see a curvature instead of a horizon? But, if you get your eye down low on top of a basketball and look across and spin the ball, the line you see in your vision will be horizontal - the basketball's horizon.
Agree?
While you're at it, please prove the Earth horizon always rises to yours or anybody's eye level. The horizon ALWAYS sits lower than your eye level, in reality. The real horizon ALWAYS dips.
Sceptimatic, you do know the statement, "the horizon always rises to your eye level", is a total crock of shit? The truth is, " the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."
-
the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."
If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my eyeballs are under water and the other half out of the water, the horizon would have 'risen' to my eye level :P
-
According to sceppy and giggle tits - people only see in 1 dimension.
-
the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."
If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my eyeballs are under water and the other half out of the water, the horizon would have 'risen' to my eye level :P
"If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my......."
Shifter, in talking about going underwater, you have demonstrated going under the influence.
That bottle of port you were drinking has caused your blood alcohol level to rise to your eye level so that you can't type straight, while your eye level has sunk to sea level, which could be someone's horizon level. So, your eye level has sunk to horizon level, while your typing prowess has sunk to drunk level.
Meanwhile, are you ready to level with us, sceptimatic?
-
You have no horizon on a globe
What is your definition of the word horizon then? Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.
-
Im using your language.
Try following the converstaion,
From what i gather, You are expecting the ground to rise up in order to block far away things.
No, I'm not, so you need to pay attention.
You people use a hump to argue losing the bottom part of objects.
I've already told you where I'm at with your global efforts, in that, You will always look ahead, horizontally level and would always understand that your globe would curve way and down from your standpoint.
You would never be getting anything obscured by any rising hump, so why don't you explain your globe instead of making out I'm saying things that I'm clearly not.
-
maybe we can bother jackB to zoom waaaaay out and show the full size of this circle/ ball?
Yeah and also ask him to show me which part of that drawing is looking horizontally level and point out how that is.
can sceppy confirm what he knows so far?
that things far away converge?
both horizontally AND vertically?
Yep,, I've already stated they converge many many times. Just not on a globe you think we walk upon.
have you even watched the video?
please confirm.
Yep, I've watched the video. What part do you want to discuss?
Let me know what it is I'm supposed to be seeing that supposedly shows your globe?
-
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
Of course we have a horizon. We just don't have one on what you believe, is your globe you supposedly walk upon.
We have the horizon because it is not a walking convex so called planet.
-
the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."
If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my eyeballs are under water and the other half out of the water, the horizon would have 'risen' to my eye level :P
"If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my......."
Shifter, in talking about going underwater, you have demonstrated going under the influence.
That bottle of port you were drinking has caused your blood alcohol level to rise to your eye level so that you can't type straight, while your eye level has sunk to sea level, which could be someone's horizon level. So, your eye level has sunk to horizon level, while your typing prowess has sunk to drunk level.
Meanwhile, are you ready to level with us, sceptimatic?
Already levelled. Now you people need to actually do the levelling instead of getting the hump.
-
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
Of course we have a horizon. We just don't have one on what you believe, is your globe you supposedly walk upon.
We have the horizon because it is not a walking convex so called planet.
And again, you look for whatever pathetic BS you can to ignore the point.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon on the globe..
We have a horizon solely because Earth is round.
If Earth was flat we wouldn't have a horizon.
Once more, it has been repeatedly explained to you that we do, with a diagram like the one below, and with solid rational argument you cannot refute.
Here is the argument you refuse to engage with because you know it shows that you have been blatantly lying this entire time.
Are you going to admit there is nothing wrong with it yet? Or do the impossible and point out just what is wrong with it?
Or will you continue with the pathetic childish antics of repeatedly ignoring this argument that shows you are wrong and just asserting the same pathetic lies?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
You have no horizon on a globe
What is your definition of the word horizon then? Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.
So that's a no. You cannot answer a simple direct question.
All you can do is deflect.
You people use a hump to argue losing the bottom part of objects.
Stop lying.
You are the only one here pretending that.
The downwards curve of Earth is just fine at blocking the the more distant objects. We don't need it to rise up as a hump.
I've already told you where I'm at with your global efforts, in that
In that you are completely incapable of rationally defending any of your claims and instead you just repeat the same refuted lies and strawmen.
so why don't you explain your globe instead of making out I'm saying things that I'm clearly not.
Do you mean like we have done repeatedly, such as with the image you keep on ignoring because it so easily destroys your position?
Once more, we don't need a hump. Once more, look at this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
The line in Red is the observer, with their level FOV indicated by the brown lines.
We clearly see Earth curving down from them.
We clearly see the purple line as well, this is a line tangent to Earth, and is the line of sight to the horizon.
We can clearly see that on the region of Earth between this purple line, and the brown line, Earth is visible.
But the region of Earth past where this purple line meets is hidden by Earth. Attempting to draw a line of sight to the observer from anywhere in the grey region below the purple line will have that line of sight intersect Earth, with Earth blocking the view.
An example is provided with the black line, the region of that black line below the purple line is shown in grey, as that is not visible by the observer.
We see that the downwards curve of Earth has obstructed the view to the bottom of the object, just like is observed in reality
Just what part of this extremely simple concept do you not understand?
Is it nothing at all and you actually understand it all and realise it clearly shows that you have been blatantly lying to us this entire time as you have no concern for the truth at all?
also ask him to show me which part of that drawing is looking horizontally level and point out how that is.
I have done that repeatedly.
Yet you just continually look for whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss it and repeat the same lie.
The diagram above represents a person looking out level with a FOV of 90 degrees.
Yep,, I've already stated they converge many many times. Just not on a globe you think we walk upon.
Again, what magic stops convergence from working on a globe?
What magic prevents objects below you from appearing higher in your vision the further away they are?
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
-
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.
You don't need to go on about clues to me. I know what horizon means but my definition seems to be different to yours. So you tell me what your definition of horizon is. Like I said, a clear and simple question for you to answer.
Try answering a question put to you for a change rather than just posting a comment in your usual condescending style.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
-
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.
You don't need to go on about clues to me. I know what horizon means but my definition seems to be different to yours. So you tell me what your definition of horizon is. Like I said, a clear and simple question for you to answer.
Try answering a question put to you for a change rather than just posting a comment in your usual condescending style.
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.
-
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line
How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it? Theoretical means to hypothesize. We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one. As I posted before, not one but three independent definitions of the word horizon. It is the borderline between the sea or the land and the sky. Actually it is better to use the word boundary line rather than borderline. The word theoretical was not mentioned in any of those definitions from three different dictionaries.
It is only you who has put the word theoretical in.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
I for one would like a diagram from you showing specifically what shape your Earth is. Or is that too complicated for you to draw? I don't need to draw a diagram of Earth myself because umpteen of them have already been drawn. To see multiple examples simply type into Google (other search engines are available) 'diagram of Earth' and see what you come up with. My own search just came up with 821 million results. All showing pretty much the same thing. But yours, Scepti is obviously different to any of those.
I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us. Yet we don't need to be told anything of the sort. I don't spend my life sitting in a lecture room listening to someone telling me what the real world out there (outside the lecture room) is like and expecting me to take their word for it. I actively get off my backside, go outside and observe things for myself. Then I make interpretations of those observations for myself. And all the evidence I have gathered for myself (distinct from what I have been told) tells me the Earth is most definitely a sphere. As it does for 99.9% of the population.
Science doesn't 'indoctrinate' anything into us. It actively encourages us to ask questions about everything we experience and to find out for ourselves using all the data and resources available to us. That's what scientists do for a living. You could say they spend their careers trying to prove themselves wrong. And they are mightily pleased if they do prove themselves to be wrong. Because that provides them (and us) with an opportunity to learn.
When you say 'I question it' it just means you don't believe it. Fair enough. Come up with something better and explain fully (with diagrams) why your ideas are right and everyone else is wrong. Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words. Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs. You said before 'in my opinion' (post #1539). Having an opinion doesn't mean your are right and doesn't prove anything does it.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Plenty of people have asked for something.
An example I asked for was what a 180 degree FOV would look like for someone looking out level on the RE, clearly showing how it changes from ground below to sky above.
As another, since you seem to hate my diagram so much, draw what you think it should look like.
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.
This still isn't a definition like was asked for.
And that also makes no sense. You are saying it is a theoretical line, but saying it is true.
That is a contradiction which would mean there is no horizon.
So care to try to provide an actual definition?
And of course, you still ignored the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
And you yet again ignored the picture clearly showing what one would expect on a RE; where the horizon exists, can still be in the FOV of someone looking looking out level, with a clear horizon, beyond which Earth is hidden, and the bottom of objects are hidden, just like reality.
Again, can you find any actual problem with it?
-
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line
How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it? Theoretical means to hypothesize. We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.
You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.
If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.
If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.
As I posted before, not one but three independent definitions of the word horizon. It is the borderline between the sea or the land and the sky. Actually it is better to use the word boundary line rather than borderline. The word theoretical was not mentioned in any of those definitions from three different dictionaries.
It is only you who has put the word theoretical in.
Really?
I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us.
You do and you have.
Yet we don't need to be told anything of the sort. I don't spend my life sitting in a lecture room listening to someone telling me what the real world out there (outside the lecture room) is like and expecting me to take their word for it. I actively get off my backside, go outside and observe things for myself. Then I make interpretations of those observations for myself. And all the evidence I have gathered for myself (distinct from what I have been told) tells me the Earth is most definitely a sphere. As it does for 99.9% of the population.
Nothing you do or see, tells you the Earth is what you're told, so therefore your reliance on mainstream authority and peer pressure of those who also follow the trend, ensures you stay biased towards something (in this case, global Earth) without having, nor wanting, nor needing, the facts. Just so called evidence and storylines is all that appears to be required.
Nothing scientific about that.
Science doesn't 'indoctrinate' anything into us. It actively encourages us to ask questions about everything we experience and to find out for ourselves using all the data and resources available to us. That's what scientists do for a living.
I agree, science is all about finding truth's and to find truth's you have to ask questions and do experiments, whether they are insignificant to some or massively minor but meaningful to others.
As long as legitimate questions are being asked of science by genuine scientists, then we get to debate as to whether one bunch of questions against another, reveals legitimate answers from one, or a mixture of answers from most.
And this is where we're at, with likely a lot of dishonesty in the middle of it all that does not come from genuine scientists.
It's about distinguishing fact from the fiction or...at the very least looking for the best guess scenario, which becomes a genuine hypothesis/theory.
You could say they spend their careers trying to prove themselves wrong. And they are mightily pleased if they do prove themselves to be wrong. Because that provides them (and us) with an opportunity to learn.
In what we're arguing, those at the top are not playing any games of proving anything wrong. The real scientists do that and with this space and global nonsense, we are not dealing with real scientists...in my honest opinion.
When you say 'I question it' it just means you don't believe it. Fair enough. Come up with something better and explain fully (with diagrams) why your ideas are right and everyone else is wrong.
I have come up with something better. What you think of it and what you think I need to explain, is irrelevant. You've spent most of your time trying to ridicule and got nowhere.
Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words. Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs.
Have a look in your mirror.
You said before 'in my opinion' (post #1539). Having an opinion doesn't mean your are right and doesn't prove anything does it.
When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual, then and only then will I be able to physically prove 99.9% of what I'm saying.
Weirdly you cannot prove any of what you argue for and all your stuff is handed to you, on a plate.
-
Plenty of people have asked for something.
And got it.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
-
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line
How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it? Theoretical means to hypothesize. We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.
You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.
If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.
If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.
This is amazing!
This is exactly what people see when they look out to sea.
Saw?
-
You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.
If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.
If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.
For some reason the word pedantic floated into my mind as I read this. Would you prefer the use of the word linear (pertaining to a line in form) rather than actual line?
I have come up with something better.
Really? You have come up with something better than all of science has been able to come up with so far on your own have you.. that's amazing? Just one question then. What is better about what you have come up with compared to the collective efforts of science and technology? You must excuse my Scepticism at this stage but that is based on everything you have managed to come up with so far. This one claim of yours in itself is a classic case of Dunning–Kruger effect. Unless of course you can prove it. But you've already said you can't.
When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual, then and only then will I be able to physically prove 99.9% of what I'm saying.
Sorry I haven't got that long left in my life to wait... so I will just have to pull your opinions apart instead. Which lets face it is not hard to do is it.
Have a look in your mirror.
I do on a regular basis. And wow I'm still as handsome as I ever was.
You've spent most of your time trying to ridicule and got nowhere.
Now your turn to look in the mirror.
All this bravado from you. What is your main agenda here? Trying to convince us to accept your opinions about the shape of the Earth or just to try and keep outwitting everyone else who doesn't accept your opinions by throwing repeated derogatory comments at us in order to sustain your self-manufactured and over-inflated ego? Either way it ain't working up to now.
-
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
I would say it is a line.
It exists in reality. It is made by the boundary between then 2 colours.
I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us.
You do and you have.
Stop just repeating the same lie.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence that Earth is round.
It is quite clear we are not just accepting what we are told.
Instead we are accepting what the abundant evidence shows.
Nothing you do or see, tells you the Earth is what you're told
Again, stop repeating the same lie.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence.
Just some related to this thread includes the fact that the horizon is easily observed to be below eye level when you are at a high enough altitude.
Then there are the examples of the visual behaviour of objects near the horizon, where the bottom of the object is obscured, as it is hidden by Earth.
You have no explanation for how this happens on a FE.
You outright reject the first example, with no justification at all, and all the attempts at an explanation for the second have been refuted, with a clear explanation of why they are wrong, and no counter from you.
So no, what is clear is that you rely upon extremely dishonest and pathetic dismissal of all the evidence showing Earth is round so you can pretend Earth is flat, meanwhile you have literally nothing to back up that insane claim of yours other than outright lies.
Nothing scientific about that.
As long as legitimate questions are being asked of science by genuine scientists, then we get to debate as to whether one bunch of questions against another, reveals legitimate answers from one, or a mixture of answers from most.
And this is where we're at, with likely a lot of dishonesty in the middle of it all that does not come from genuine scientists.
That's right, all that dishonesty in the middle comes from you and others like you, with you dismissing evidence as fake and ignoring rational objections to your outright lies.
It's about distinguishing fact from the fiction or...at the very least looking for the best guess scenario, which becomes a genuine hypothesis/theory.
And that has been done.
Scientists have realised that Earth is round.
That was settled quite some time ago, and no actual challenge to it has ever been presented.
with this space and global nonsense, we are not dealing with real scientists...in my honest opinion.
There is nothing honest about your opinion.
You have had your lies exposed repeatedly, and you don't care and instead just keep on repeating them.
Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words. Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs.
Have a look in your mirror.
Why?
The RE side has provided diagrams. Diagrams which clearly show your claims to be outright lies.
Yet rather than rationally engage with them, you just deflect/dismiss in whatever way you can.
When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual
You repeatedly spout your outright lies as facts.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that all the evidence that shows you are wrong are fake. You just outright dismiss them as a conjob.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the horizon always rises to eye level. You just outright state it as a fact, even though it is nothing more than a outright lie.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the RE would not have a horizon. You just outright lie and claim it would not.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the RE couldn't obstruct the view to distant objects. You just repeatedly assert it can't.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the bottom of distant objects being obscured by the Earth is impossible on a RE and instead is entirely consistent with a RE. Instead you state it as a fact.
And all these outright lies of yours have been torn to shreds.
Weirdly you cannot prove any of what you argue for and all your stuff is handed to you, on a plate.
And there you go projecting.
Again, we have provided plenty to support the reality of the RE. We are not just taking whatever is handed to us on a plate.
Meanwhile, you cannot prove or even defend any of the nonsense you spout.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Plenty of people have asked for something.
And got it.
Stop lying.
We haven't got anything like that from you.
Instead you just ignore the requests, or deflect with some other ridiculous picture rather than what we asked for.
On the subject of diagrams, I have repeatedly asked you to show what you think it would look like for a RE.
But it seems you cannot provide that. Instead you just repeatedly dismiss what is provided to you with no justification at all.
So I'll ask again, just what do you think a 180 degree vertical FOV level view on a RE would look like?
i.e. if an observer/camera is standing on a RE, looking out level, with a 180 degree vertical FOV (i.e. their FOV extends from looking straight down (seeing ground), through looking straight out level, to looking straight up (seeing sky)) then what do they see?
Can you draw this?
I even provided you a template to start:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
The ground is there at the bottom and the sky is there at the top.
All you needed to do was fill in the middle.
Likewise, I asked you to provide a substitute for this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
And this one which is related to it:
(https://i.imgur.com/MTFIhax.png)
As you seem to reject them accurately showing what would be expected on a RE.
Just where do you think you have provided a diagram that people have asked for?
And then there are the non-diagram based things, like the argument I have repeatedly provided and asked you to either accept it and accept that you are wrong and that the RE would have a horizon and that it could easily be seen through a level scope depending on the circumstances (i.e. height of observer, FOV of scope), or actually clearly explain which step you think is wrong and why:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.
-
Sceptimatic, if you were to graffiti your favourite public wall with two colors and used those colors to create a gradient between the two, there is no line. There is no line in a gradient. There isn't even a theoretical line. It's a gradient of colour.
With the horizon out to sea, it isn't a gradient. It's a clear cut line. You can take out your Nikon coolpix P900 camera with 83x zoom, zoom in on that horizon and get in close and personal with that line. You can examine the edge of that clear cut horizon line. You could cut your fairy bread sandwiches with that line it's that sharp and crisp.
It's no different to the same line created by the tops of mountains when viewed from a distance, with the sky behind. The horizon out to sea is a horizontal line of the height of sea water with sky "behind" it. The water is in the foreground and the sky in the background.
The horizon line is thus, not a gradient between two colors as it is on the last wall you graffitied with your earth flat tag.
-
Sceptimatic, do you remember your comment about copying and pasting( #1492)? Just to refresh your memory:
Strengthen them up by actually typing something instead of copy and paste all the time.
Now look at your reply #1591 as your 'answer' to my question where I asked you for your definition of the word horizon. In bold type you said:
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.
Now take a look at the Wikipedia page about what the horizon is. To quote the first paragraph:
The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky, the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface. At many locations, this line is obscured by land, trees, buildings, mountains, etc., and the resulting intersection of earth and sky is called the visible horizon. When looking at a sea from a shore, the part of the sea closest to the horizon is called the offing.[1]
Look at the second sentence. I have highlighted it in red.That is a word for word match for what you have said is it not? It is almost as if you copied and pasted it as 'your' definition. So you don't like others copying and pasting text but its OK for you to do it. Right? What the Wiki page makes clear but you don't is what it means by 'theoretical' horizon. The theoretical horizon is one created by the presence of a building, hill or other ground based feature which restricts our view of the true or natural horizon. That makes perfect sense. You failed to mention that but started talking about gradients instead.
If we take the first sentence (the one before the sentence you copied and pasted) it says this:
The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky,
Notice the use of the word line twice in that sentence and the lack of the word gradient. Yet you insist:
You do not see any line.
The Wikipedia page seems to say we do. Othewise why would it use the word 'line' not once but twice?!?
Taking the Wikipedia page as a whole the word gradient is mentioned only once and in the context of a temperature gradient. Not a gradient between two different colours as you are harking on about.
-
Oh, this is unbelievable! Unbelievable I say, preposterous even, and utterly unacceptable! >:(
Sceptimatic, would you like some lessons in quoting and referencing? Plagiarism will not be tolerated in this serious debate. :o
In future, could you at least mix a couple of words around, so people like solarflatulence can't catch you out so easily?? ^-^
-
solarflatulence
There is certainly a nasty smell coming from somewhere, but it ain't me!
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
-
The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line
How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it? Theoretical means to hypothesize. We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.
You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.
If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.
If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.
This is amazing!
This is exactly what people see when they look out to sea.
Saw?
Yep...and it's not on any globe that you adhere to.
-
All this bravado from you. What is your main agenda here? Trying to convince us to accept your opinions about the shape of the Earth or just to try and keep outwitting everyone else who doesn't accept your opinions by throwing repeated derogatory comments at us in order to sustain your self-manufactured and over-inflated ego? Either way it ain't working up to now.
My agenda is simple. I'm looking for the truth and reading other people's alternate thoughts. As simple as that. You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking and I'm ok with that.
Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.
-
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
I would say it is a line.
It exists in reality. It is made by the boundary between then 2 colours.
It appears to be a line from distance but is not a line. It's a theoretical line.
-
And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.
The flat sea to curved sky is easy to gain your horizon. It's simply reflected light onto the sea and against the sky to meet two converged contrasting colours of light back to our eyes.
You couldn't have any of this on your globe for two main reasons.
1. The curve down and away from your horizontally level view means there would be no mixing or reflection of sea to sky.
2. No matter how much the magic is cast out...you just aren't getting water to curve around your supposed big ball, unless you rely on story told, magical mysteries...which is what you do rely on.
-
Sceptimatic, if you were to graffiti your favourite public wall with two colors and used those colors to create a gradient between the two, there is no line. There is no line in a gradient. There isn't even a theoretical line. It's a gradient of colour.
With the horizon out to sea, it isn't a gradient. It's a clear cut line. You can take out your Nikon coolpix P900 camera with 83x zoom, zoom in on that horizon and get in close and personal with that line. You can examine the edge of that clear cut horizon line. You could cut your fairy bread sandwiches with that line it's that sharp and crisp.
It's no different to the same line created by the tops of mountains when viewed from a distance, with the sky behind. The horizon out to sea is a horizontal line of the height of sea water with sky "behind" it. The water is in the foreground and the sky in the background.
The horizon line is thus, not a gradient between two colors as it is on the last wall you graffitied with your earth flat tag.
The line is theoretical....always.
-
My agenda is simple. I'm looking for the truth and reading other people's alternate thoughts. As simple as that. You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking and I'm ok with that.
Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.
You go on about looking for the truth. Exactly what truth is that because you dismiss everything that we try to drum into you and you cannot prove that anything you believe to be the truth is actually true. So I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to achieve here.
I'm not digging at anything. I have simply pointed out a reality about you that you obviously are going to deny. The truth is you didn't expect to get caught out. Wrong again.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
Well, your explanation is critically flawed, because you haven't studied sphere shapes. You can have a horizon on any sphere. Do you need a horizon photo from a basketball or beach ball to make you realise how foolish your statement above is?
A horizon is just a horizontal line, sceptimatic. Not a theoretical line inside a gradient. An actual line.
I've already explained to you that if the earth were flat, the horizon line would be physically higher on the landscape, and in line with your eyeline. On a flat earth, the horizon would likely be a blurry strip of gradient, but it isn't.
How did you get so indoctrinated, that you refuse to accept what your own eyes see? It's remarkable, really. Someone should do a study on you. An actual study, not a theoretical one.
-
My agenda is simple. I'm looking for the truth and reading other people's alternate thoughts. As simple as that. You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking and I'm ok with that.
Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.
You go on about looking for the truth. Exactly what truth is that because you dismiss everything that we try to drum into you and you cannot prove that anything you believe to be the truth is actually true.
I'm looking for the truth. I'm trying to decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies and science from pseudo-science.
I don't have many facts but I do have many hypotheses/musings, alternate to what others have. That's as simple as it gets.
So I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to achieve here.
It doesn't matter what I achieve here. I'm giving out my thoughts and people are trying to fathom them out and getting frustrated when I won't follow their path of thought.
My real achievement would be to have ordinary people think for themselves, without bullying and peer pressure by people like yourself...so they can freely explain their thoughts without being attacked by on the platter so called scientists.
I'm not digging at anything. I have simply pointed out a reality about you that you obviously are going to deny. The truth is you didn't expect to get caught out. Wrong again.
Caught out about what?
All I see are people like yourself struggling like hell and getting frustrated then spending a few posts trying to ridicule before realising, once again, it has zero effect.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
Well, your explanation is critically flawed, because you haven't studied sphere shapes. You can have a horizon on any sphere. Do you need a horizon photo from a basketball or beach ball to make you realise how foolish your statement above is?
When you stand on the basketball and look horizontally level, get back to me and we'll discuss your findings.
Try not to keep referring to a basketball on a table or something whilst you stand back from it, as if you were in your fictional space.
A horizon is just a horizontal line, sceptimatic. Not a theoretical line inside a gradient. An actual line.
It's a theoretical horizontal line. It's a convergence of light to darker, or shades, by reflection back to your eyes..
I've already explained to you that if the earth were flat, the horizon line would be physically higher on the landscape, and in line with your eyeline. On a flat earth, the horizon would likely be a blurry strip of gradient, but it isn't.
Read through this again. It makes no sense.
How did you get so indoctrinated, unindoctrinated, that you refuse to accept what your own eyes see? It's remarkable, really. Someone should do a study on you. An actual study, not a theoretical one.
I simply started to question what was being indoctrinated into me and using my very own logic to find better fits.
What keeps you so naive?
-
Can we be sure it is not like this? Maybe this is what troubles sceptimatic.
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/181378f003e891bebb96fba61003574dedf4f6df.jpeg)
-
The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
No you haven't.
You have repeated the same false assertion many times, the same blatant lie which has already been refuted.
You have never provided any justification for why the RE cannot have a horizon.
Meanwhile, you have been provided with plenty of arguments that show beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon, arguments you refuse to even attempt to refute. Instead you either ignore them entirely or just find some pathetic excuse you can use to try to dismiss them, with that excuse typically being yet another lie.
Here is the same argument that you are yet to show any problem with:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
This argument shows beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon.
Every time you claim it doesn't you are blatantly lying to everyone.
If you want to claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon, while having any sense of integrity, you need to explain just what you think is wrong with this argument.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
You mean we did put forward a clear diagram showing a level view, showing beyond any doubt that the RE does have a horizon. But as you were unable to find any fault with that, so instead you just lie and say it wasn't showing a level view.
And more importantly IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER!
It being a level view or not has no relevance on if it has a horizon.
Having to look down to see a horizon doesn't mean the horizon doesn't exist.
I'm looking for the truth
Stop lying, you have no interest in the truth.
If you did, you would have admitted that the RE does have a horizon, or you would have done the impossible and shown the problem with the argument, and provided a picture showing what you would expect instead of the horizon.
The fact you continually ignore the argument and refuse to provide any diagrams shows quite clearly that you have no interest in the truth.
You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking
Yes, we are the opposition to thinking that is alternate to the truth, that is because we actually care about the truth.
Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.
Really?
It sure seems like you are the one struggling.
Again, the fact you continually ignore all the arguments that show you are wrong shows that.
If you weren't the one struggling you would have provided the "correct" diagrams and pointed out the problem with the arguments we have provided.
It appears to be a line from distance but is not a line.
No, it is a line, a division between 2 points.
A line does not require it to be a single physical object.
And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.
The flat sea to curved sky is easy to gain your horizon. It's simply reflected light onto the sea and against the sky to meet two converged contrasting colours of light back to our eyes.
So your answer is convergence, i.e. normal perspective, which was already addressed?
1. The curve down and away from your horizontally level view means there would be no mixing or reflection of sea to sky.
Why?
This is just a baseless assertion.
Why does it curving down magically prevent it?
2. No matter how much the magic is cast out...you just aren't getting water to curve around your supposed big ball
This doesn't help your baseless claim, it just makes yet another argument.
I'm looking for the truth. I'm trying to decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies and science from pseudo-science.
And then trying to bury the truth and promote pure nonsense instead?
Because again, if you were genuinely interested in the truth you would deal with the argument presented, accepting the FACT that the RE DOES have a horizon.
-
When you stand on the basketball and look horizontally level, get back to me and we'll discuss your findings.
Try not to keep referring to a basketball on a table or something whilst you stand back from it, as if you were in your fictional space.
Again, why should it change anything?
The important part is your line of sight, and how that goes near the ball.
To simulate standing 2 m on a RE with a basketball that is 24 cm wide, you need to have your line of sight pass within ~75 nm of the surface.
If instead you stand 2 m on the basketball, that would be equivalent to standing 53 000 km above Earth. That is above geostationary satellites.
So no, standing on it is in no way comparable. Try again.
I've already explained to you that if the earth were flat, the horizon line would be physically higher on the landscape, and in line with your eyeline. On a flat earth, the horizon would likely be a blurry strip of gradient, but it isn't.
Read through this again. It makes no sense.
Why doesn't it make sense?
If Earth was flat the horizon would be due to convergence/limited resolution.
This means it would be blurry, and no matter how much you zoomed it, it would remain blurry.
And because of this it would always be at eye level, no matter how high you get.
Neither of those match reality.
using my very own logic
Well there is your problem. Try using actual logic, instead of pure nonsense you call your logic.
What keeps you so naive?
Projecting again I see.
Accepting the truth does not make one naive.
Accepting what all the available evidence shows does not make one naive.
Being able to provide rational arguments and evidence to defend one's position does not make one naive.
Even if all that truth is provided to young children, accepting it doesn't make one naive.
Us REers aren't the naive ones.
-
I'm looking for the truth. I'm trying to decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies and science from pseudo-science.
I disagree to an extent with JB. I don't think you are a liar particularly. But I do think you are a denialist. You are trying to convince yourself (I'm looking for the truth) that a 'truth' which you obviously passionately believe in and exists in your mind is the same as the truth as it actually is. And that will never happen because it isn't and never will be.
I would love to make an alternative and major discovery in science which changes the world. But I am a realist and appreciate that is never going to happen. That doesn't stop me loving science as it is though because there is so much we don't know and so much to learn.
I get it that you don't like the idea that the Earth is really a globe because it goes against your instincts, beliefs and all that stuff. But trying to pretend or make out something is true that actually isn't is never going to work for you. That's what we have been trying to make you realise but you are too much in denial to accept it.
-
Sceptimatic, I stood on the basketball and looked straight ahead, horizontally level. Guess what? I could still see Earth's horizon line. To make things more challenging, I repeated your experiment, standing on a marble. Same deal! I'm banking I will get the same result, standing on a frozen pea.
Then i repeated the experiment getting my eyeball as close to the top of the basketball as possible, mimicking what happens when we look at the earth horizon, and looked across horizontally. There it was - the basketball horizon, just lower than my eye level, as expected on an inflated basketball.
That paragraph I wrote which you say doesn't make sense - it makes perfect sense - read it again out aloud, slowly.
Of all the things to question being indoctrinated to you, sceptimatic, why did you choose the shape of this planet???? You could have chosen your gender, your religion, your profession, your birth parents, your partner in life, the moon landing, bigfoot, ghosts, esp, etc. But you choose to be sceptical about the shape of this planet, with absolutely nothing about a flat earth that fits better. Incredible.
I'm surrounded by the smartest domesticated animals on the planet in my workplace, which is probably why my naivety is so low.
-
I'm surrounded by the smartest domesticated animals on the planet in my workplace, which is probably why my naivety is so low.
You work with pigs?!
-
I'm giving out my thoughts and people are trying to fathom them out and getting frustrated when I won't follow their path of thought.
Just what is your path of thought? In my case it is not because I won't follow along your path. It's because I can't. So yes I am trying to fathom out what exactly it is that you think because you are not exactly making it very clear.
O and if you are going to pull others up for 'copying and pasting' then best not do it yourself. By that I mean when I ask you for your definition of something I don't mean just copy and paste something out of mainstream Wikipedia. I'm used to teenagers doing that as part of their 'homework' but that's because they can't figure out the answers for themselves or explain things in their own words.
I simply started to question what was being indoctrinated into me and using my very own logic to find better fits.
You love that word don't you. Like you I am not a 'yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir' kind of person. I have spent most of the part of my life asking questions about the world and Universe that I live on and in. I am most definitely not a 'just accept it' sort of person so the term indoctrination which you love so dearly does not apply to me.
So if my understanding of you is correct then you take the view that we should not accept anything as true unless we can prove it as such to ourselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong there but if it is true then I guess you have never taken part in any sort of course because you wouldn't trust that the teacher was telling you the truth.
One thing I do enjoy doing for myself though is looking through my telescope at the planets for example and discovering for myself the rings of Saturn or the satellites of Jupiter for example. Thereby repeating those pioneering observations from the past by the likes of Galileo, Cassini and Huygens. And of course showing others the same as well.
-
I'm surrounded by the smartest domesticated animals on the planet in my workplace, which is probably why my naivety is so low.
You work with pigs?!
Not really, but in a sense, yes. ;)
I'd pay money to know what sceptimatic's workplace is. I was leaning towards head chef of the Pancake Palace, but now I'm thinking he likely works for Pizza Planet - as a delivery boy ofcourse.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
-
Sceptimatic, I stood on the basketball and looked straight ahead, horizontally level. Guess what? I could still see Earth's horizon line. To make things more challenging, I repeated your experiment, standing on a marble. Same deal! I'm banking I will get the same result, standing on a frozen pea.
Then i repeated the experiment getting my eyeball as close to the top of the basketball as possible, mimicking what happens when we look at the earth horizon, and looked across horizontally. There it was - the basketball horizon, just lower than my eye level, as expected on an inflated basketball.
That paragraph I wrote which you say doesn't make sense - it makes perfect sense - read it again out aloud, slowly.
Like I said before; standing on a basketball would be standing on your Earth. The basketball (assuming it holds your weight to stay spherical) would curve down from under your vision, whether you're 6 feet above it or 6 inches and looking horizontally level.
This means you get no edge and you get no horizon.
If you're trying to say you can see your horizon by standing on a basketball or a marble or a frozen pea, whilst looking out to sea, then you're not dealing with the issue, are you?
Of all the things to question being indoctrinated to you, sceptimatic, why did you choose the shape of this planet????
I didn't just choose the shape of the Earth. It's one of many things I question but it's the biggest thing to question when it relates to everything about our lives.
You could have chosen your gender
I am what I am. I have no need to.
your religion,
I do not follow a religion.
your profession
I did and do what I do. I sometimes have questioned it but then again, most likely all of us have at some low point.
your birth parents
They were who they were. I have never felt the need to question it.
your partner in life
Same again, as above.
the moon landing
I massively question it. I do not believe it ever happened for reasons I've given over time...including my Earth, if you use your loaf.
bigfoot
Never felt the need to question it. It doesn't interest me.
ghosts
I massively question ghosts as we're told. I do not believe in ghosts.
esp etc. But you choose to be sceptical about the shape of this planet, with absolutely nothing about a flat earth that fits better. Incredible.
Never felt the need to question this. Maybe our brains can pick up better frequencies, depending. I've never looked into it enough to question it.
I'm surrounded by the smartest domesticated animals on the planet in my workplace, which is probably why my naivety is so low.
Naivety isn't something you can gauge for yourself in a true overall sense. Only hindsight can gauge each piece of naivety or not.
The best people to gauge naivety are those looking from the outside, in and seeing it first hand, unbeknown to the person who is being judged on it....but this can only happen if the judges have the facts that prove a naivety and assuming they aren't being naive, themselves.
-
I'm giving out my thoughts and people are trying to fathom them out and getting frustrated when I won't follow their path of thought.
Just what is your path of thought? In my case it is not because I won't follow along your path. It's because I can't. So yes I am trying to fathom out what exactly it is that you think because you are not exactly making it very clear.
If you don't think it's clear then find a way to help yourself by asking the questions that may make it more clear.
A hint: Don't follow anyone (especially Jackblack) because you'll end up down your own rabbit hole and get more confused.
If you're genuine then put the effort in, for you...without forum peer pressure to do otherwise.
I simply started to question what was being indoctrinated into me and using my very own logic to find better fits.
You love that word don't you. Like you I am not a 'yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir' kind of person. I have spent most of the part of my life asking questions about the world and Universe that I live on and in. I am most definitely not a 'just accept it' sort of person so the term indoctrination which you love so dearly does not apply to me.
You may ask questions. That's fine as far as I'm concerned. I just simply believe you are following a route set out for you in many cases.
You claim to be a teacher. To be a teacher you have to follow the curriculum. It is indoctrination and you trained to carry that on.
Think about that.
I'm not saying it's all bad but schooling should be clear enough in terms of stating facts, fictions or theories.
The problem is some things cannot be questioned. You know this.
So if my understanding of you is correct then you take the view that we should not accept anything as true unless we can prove it as such to ourselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong there but if it is true then I guess you have never taken part in any sort of course because you wouldn't trust that the teacher was telling you the truth.
You need to understand where I come from on this.
I accept a lot of things in life, without knowing whether they are true or not. I accept them because life goes on and they are lower down on any list to question the validity of.
Accepting of anything does not mean believing just, anything. It also does not mean disbelief. It's a middle ground of acceptance in order to go about life.
One thing I do enjoy doing for myself though is looking through my telescope at the planets for example and discovering for myself the rings of Saturn or the satellites of Jupiter for example. Thereby repeating those pioneering observations from the past by the likes of Galileo, Cassini and Huygens. And of course showing others the same as well.
I have no issue with what you view. It's a sky full of variations of light, whether you believe they're planets or suns or whatever, in a physical form.
I can sit in what I'm told is a, planetarium and gaze at all the similar things you view through your telescope.
Mine is projected onto a ceiling/dome.....maybe yours is, on a bigger scale.
However, you believe otherwise and that's absolutely fine by me.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
If I had to show you then I'd draw a ball and a line on the ball that would be horizontally level.
That line would see the ball curve under it.
It would leave you viewing sky, if it were possible to live on a Earth ball, which it is certainly not possible.
-
If you are so sure about your dome beliefs, then explain to me just this. If that is correct then how come there are two clear and distinct point in the sky, situated 180 degrees apart around which the stars rotate. In the north rotating anti-clockwise and in the south, clockwise.
-
Like I said before; standing on a basketball would be standing on your Earth.
And like so many things you say, that is an outright lie.
Standing on a basketball, is vastly different to standing on Earth due to the scale involved.
Standing on Earth, 2 m high, you stand only a fraction of the radius above Earth.
But standing on a basketball 2 m high, you stand many times the radius.
Standing on a basketball is like standing 53 000 km above Earth.
The basketball (assuming it holds your weight to stay spherical) would curve down from under your vision, whether you're 6 feet above it or 6 inches and looking horizontally level.
No, it doesn't.
It highly depends upon your height above it.
This means when close enough you do get an edge and do get a horizon.
Again, if you disagree then tell us where this edge would be.
Forget looking out level, start looking down and lift your head up until you reach the edge. Where would it be?
this can only happen if the judges have the facts that prove a naivety and assuming they aren't being naive, themselves.
Which makes you useless as a judge.
If you don't think it's clear then find a way to help yourself by asking the questions that may make it more clear.
For you to just ignore those questions because they show your claims are pure garbage?
I have asked plenty of questions to "make it more clear" as have plenty of others.
But when an honest answer to these questions would require you to admit you are wrong, you just ignore it or find some pathetic excuse to dismiss it.
I'm not saying it's all bad but schooling should be clear enough in terms of stating facts, fictions or theories.
Do you mean facts like Earth is round, as opposed to your blatant lies?
The problem is some things cannot be questioned. You know this.
That would be religion. With science, anything can be questioned, but questioned isn't the same as discarded.
The problem for you is that no FEers can provide any problems for the RE that the FE can solve.
Instead all they have are the same pathetic lies and strawmen.
If I had to show you then I'd draw
Don't tell us what you would draw, actually draw it.
Again, here is a template to get you started:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
It is for a 180 degree vertical FOV.
It already has the ground (in green) and the sky (in light blue).
As for the rest of that nonsense, once more ignoring the effect of perspective doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.
It still does, and ignoring it to pretend a RE can't have a horizon would be just as dishonest as ignoring the curve.
You need to consider both effects.
At short range, perspective wins and Earth appears higher in your FOV. At long range, the curve wins.
The horizon is at the crossover point.
Again, the simple argument, which you have continually ignored, shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
The Earth is curving down, away from the line of sight, yet perspective still allows it to appear in your FOV.
The only way you can pretend to have an argument against the RE is if you claim perspective cannot makes things appear higher, but then it is also an argument against the FE.
-
If you are so sure about your dome beliefs, then explain to me just this. If that is correct then how come there are two clear and distinct point in the sky, situated 180 degrees apart around which the stars rotate. In the north rotating anti-clockwise and in the south, clockwise.
The dome creates a mirror image.
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
If the telescope has a FOV of 90 degrees, and they are standing quite high above the Earth, it is exactly that.
Again, instead of just repeatedly dismissing this, do you have an actual objection?
Can you point out anything actually wrong with it?
Again, it is a 90 degree FOV, this is centred on looking straight out level.
But again, before you can move on to a level view, you need to either show that RE wouldn't have a horizon/edge at all, or admit that it does.
If you show it doesn't work at all, then that is the end of the discussion, no need to bring a level view into it.
But if you instead choose to accept reality and accept that the RE does have a horizon, then we can start discussing where it would appear in your vision, and thus how large a FOV you need when looking out level to see it.
Stop looking for pathetic excuses to dismiss it and instead deal with the issues raised.
And most importantly, we can see that even though they cannot see the ground directly below them, the way vision/perspective works means that the ground has a smaller angle of dip the further away it is and so it moves up and into view, until eventually at a much greater distance the downwards curve becomes dominant.
And again, address the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
If you are so sure about your dome beliefs, then explain to me just this. If that is correct then how come there are two clear and distinct point in the sky, situated 180 degrees apart around which the stars rotate. In the north rotating anti-clockwise and in the south, clockwise.
The dome creates a mirror image.
That would require the south celestial hemisphere to be a mirror image of the north, but it isn't.
Care to try again?
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
If I had to show you then I'd draw a ball and a line on the ball that would be horizontally level.
That line would see the ball curve under it.
It would leave you viewing sky, if it were possible to live on a Earth ball, which it is certainly not possible.
So you admit you would see what we actuallyall see and there is no issue with the 3d simulation video because it matches real life photographs?
Great - then what are we debating since youve admited several times what a horizon SHOULD look loke on a ball and compared it to what it DOES look like and boomyakaa - they are the same.
So.
What are you on about then?
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
Youve tricked jackB.
But you and i know that the 3d simulation video shows this and it shows matches real photographs.
Quit dodging.
Address the video.
-
The dome creates a mirror image.
Not bad for a wild guess and I would accept that if the star patterns around the NCP and the SCP were the same but they are not. Totally different in fact so its definitely not a reflected image.
-
Quit possibly sceppy is having issue with "looking out horizontally" (if we all remeber the ibm vertical stops dead statement).
Does sceppy believe looking plumb level horizontally that the persons point of view would not be looking down at the ground?
Please confirm.
Possibly sceppy didnt understand jackB fov = field of view?
Please confirm.
-
The dome creates a mirror image.
Not bad for a wild guess and I would accept that if the star patterns around the NCP and the SCP were the same but they are not. Totally different in fact so its definitely not a reflected image.
Dont distract.
Working on his undedstanding of horizon.
This will bring new disucssion ppoints and we lose his train of thought!
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
If I had to show you then I'd draw a ball and a line on the ball that would be horizontally level.
That line would see the ball curve under it.
It would leave you viewing sky, if it were possible to live on a Earth ball, which it is certainly not possible.
Again, I'm asking you to draw it, not describe it. What you are saying makes no sense.
Show us a picture or a drawing of what you think it would look like to stand on a sphere.
You keep deflecting and refusing to do such a simple thing.
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
If the telescope has a FOV of 90 degrees, and they are standing quite high above the Earth, it is exactly that.
Forget your side angle lens and show me one if you were looking through a simple level tube, like I mentioned.
Let's see what you come up with.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
If I had to show you then I'd draw a ball and a line on the ball that would be horizontally level.
That line would see the ball curve under it.
It would leave you viewing sky, if it were possible to live on a Earth ball, which it is certainly not possible.
So you admit you would see what we actuallyall see and there is no issue with the 3d simulation video because it matches real life photographs?
Great - then what are we debating since youve admited several times what a horizon SHOULD look loke on a ball and compared it to what it DOES look like and boomyakaa - they are the same.
So.
What are you on about then?
Pay attention.
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
Youve tricked jackB.
But you and i know that the 3d simulation video shows this and it shows matches real photographs.
Quit dodging.
Address the video.
The video can't be addressed because it does not show anything level.
Show me level.
-
The dome creates a mirror image.
Not bad for a wild guess and I would accept that if the star patterns around the NCP and the SCP were the same but they are not. Totally different in fact so its definitely not a reflected image.
Your moon should tell you enough about which way you're looking.
-
Quit possibly sceppy is having issue with "looking out horizontally" (if we all remeber the ibm vertical stops dead statement).
Does sceppy believe looking plumb level horizontally that the persons point of view would not be looking down at the ground?
Please confirm.
Possibly sceppy didnt understand jackB fov = field of view?
Please confirm.
Looking through a simple tube would mean your FOV ends at the circle of that tube. The tube does not suddenly flute out, so let's deal with that.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
If I had to show you then I'd draw a ball and a line on the ball that would be horizontally level.
That line would see the ball curve under it.
It would leave you viewing sky, if it were possible to live on a Earth ball, which it is certainly not possible.
Again, I'm asking you to draw it, not describe it. What you are saying makes no sense.
Show us a picture or a drawing of what you think it would look like to stand on a sphere.
You keep deflecting and refusing to do such a simple thing.
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
-
How has the Moon got anything to do with what stars are visible around the NCP and SCP?
If the SCP is a mirror image of the NCP as you seem to be claiming then where is the reflected image of Polaris at the SCP?
Sorry Mighty but I think Scepti is capable of multi-tasking so my asking him about the celestial poles shouldnt distract from the ongoing issue about the horizon.
-
How has the Moon got anything to do with what stars are visible around the NCP and SCP?
If the SCP is a mirror image of the NCP as you seem to be claiming then where is the reflected image of Polaris at the SCP?
Remember, the moon in his world is just a holographic reflection of the sun (which is itself just a holographic image of the giant bug zapper which has been projected through some magic crystal at the magic tower of the north pole). If the sun can be reflected in a way that defies geometry, optics, and physics in general, then surely the stars can too?
-
Sceptimatic, I resisted the urge to quote your last response to me, in the interest of reducing boredom and space.
If you were to shrink me down to the size of an ant's foot or preferably another 20 times smaller, then place me on the basketball, then we might have an experiment on our hands relevant to earth's horizon. As it stands, it's no good, so getting my eyeball down as close as possible, will have to suffice.
I won't insult your intelligence to explain why, except to say that me standing on my basketball would be like me being about a third of the distance to the moon, looking back at planet earth from space, with my feet in the way of the view. (If a basketball represents the size of earth and a tennis ball the size of the moon, the tennis ball would be 24 feet from the basketball. I'm 6 feet tall)
If it makes you feel any better, sceptimatic, I questioned the fall of the twin towers during 9/11, and considered the conspiracy theories. The visual of what I saw on tv, didn't compute in my mind with the official explanation. For a long time, I just couldn't comprehend it, couldn't grasp the physics and the mechanics, but slowly I came good.
I've researched bigfoot. I couldn't comprehend why so many witnesses would be hallucinating or make up stories and lie. The human experience of a bigfoot sighting interested me greatly.
I've lived in a couple of houses that would pass the haunted tag. In one house, the owner told me she would often come home and find all the cupboard doors in the kitchen mysteriously open. I never paid too much attention, until one day I was sitting with her at the kitchen table and as we talked, one by one, I watched each of the cupboard doors open.
My point is, I do have a questioning mind, and I do carry a measure of scepticism, not unlike yourself.
I joined this forum for two reasons. Firstly, because I was fascinated by the psychology behind people who believe the earth is flat. Afterall, in any localised area earth is flattish, but on a world wide scale, that's a ball game. Secondly, I received a psychological injury at work with instant PTSD, and I needed a distraction - something that I could apply my investigative skills, but still escape work.
Here I am.
-
Well if Scepti thinks the Moon is just a reflection of the Sun then perhaps he try and account for how sunspots on the Sun keep changing and moving across the visible disk of the Sun while the patterns and positions of lunar craters always remains the same.
If you look at a map of the circumpolar stars around the NCP and SCP and compare them you will see they are totally different. Which rather discounts the possibility those in the south are simply looking at a reflection of the NCP region does it not?
Any amateur astronomer in the southern hemisphere will explain how much harder it is to achieve accurate polar alignment because of the lack of a decent bright star within 2 degrees of the SCP. In the north Polaris lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) from NCP.
-
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.
You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.
It's a very simple request.
It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.
No, it's an extremely simple request. Just show us what it looks like.
You have tried and failed to explain many times, which is why we are asking you for a simple picture. A drawing. Anything.
Show us what you imagine standing on a sphere would look like. If you can't, then you don't REALLY know, do you?
If I had to show you then I'd draw a ball and a line on the ball that would be horizontally level.
That line would see the ball curve under it.
It would leave you viewing sky, if it were possible to live on a Earth ball, which it is certainly not possible.
Again, I'm asking you to draw it, not describe it. What you are saying makes no sense.
Show us a picture or a drawing of what you think it would look like to stand on a sphere.
You keep deflecting and refusing to do such a simple thing.
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
Youve tricked jackB.
But you and i know that the 3d simulation video shows this and it shows matches real photographs.
Quit dodging.
Address the video.
The video can't be addressed because it does not show anything level.
Show me level.
It does
He even adds a red line.
-
Quit possibly sceppy is having issue with "looking out horizontally" (if we all remeber the ibm vertical stops dead statement).
Does sceppy believe looking plumb level horizontally that the persons point of view would not be looking down at the ground?
Please confirm.
Possibly sceppy didnt understand jackB fov = field of view?
Please confirm.
Looking through a simple tube would mean your FOV ends at the circle of that tube. The tube does not suddenly flute out, so let's deal with that.
Correct
Someone already told you the tube experiment.
You still lose and bever dealt with it
Soo.... whats YOUR point?
-
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
Whats your issue sceppy?
Do you think people only see in 1 dimension?
When you look forward, do you only see directly forward or do you also see peripherally to the left right top bottom?
-
Heres another simulation.
Let us know whats wrong.
-
Sceptimatic, I resisted the urge to quote your last response to me, in the interest of reducing boredom and space.
If you were to shrink me down to the size of an ant's foot or preferably another 20 times smaller, then place me on the basketball, then we might have an experiment on our hands relevant to earth's horizon. As it stands, it's no good, so getting my eyeball down as close as possible, will have to suffice.
I won't insult your intelligence to explain why, except to say that me standing on my basketball would be like me being about a third of the distance to the moon, looking back at planet earth from space, with my feet in the way of the view. (If a basketball represents the size of earth and a tennis ball the size of the moon, the tennis ball would be 24 feet from the basketball. I'm 6 feet tall)
6 feet tall and looking out over any downward gradient from that level point, by using nothing more than a tube, will show you no part of the gradient you are on, just like a ball Earth would not offer you any of it, other than sky.
If it makes you feel any better, sceptimatic, I questioned the fall of the twin towers during 9/11, and considered the conspiracy theories. The visual of what I saw on tv, didn't compute in my mind with the official explanation. For a long time, I just couldn't comprehend it, couldn't grasp the physics and the mechanics, but slowly I came good.
Came good, as in, how?
You figured it all out by yourself or were you coaxed into following the official narrative?
Let's have some honesty.
I've researched bigfoot. I couldn't comprehend why so many witnesses would be hallucinating or make up stories and lie. The human experience of a bigfoot sighting interested me greatly.
Why does anyone have to be hallucinating
People see the lock ness monster on a regular basis but it's never found.
People see UFO's on a regular basis. Unidentified flying objects. The mere letters spell, alien craft from outer space, to some.
The mind of a person can easily be manipulated into accepting or believing something that may not be as it seems.
We're all guilty of it.
I've lived in a couple of houses that would pass the haunted tag. In one house, the owner told me she would often come home and find all the cupboard doors in the kitchen mysteriously open. I never paid too much attention, until one day I was sitting with her at the kitchen table and as we talked, one by one, I watched each of the cupboard doors open.
I've seen many weird things happen but I do not put it down to the dead managing to come back in ghostly form.
I do however hold my thoughts to frequencies and vibrations left behind by people which may be trapped in walls and such, just as noises and stuff are recorded on magnetic tape.
My point is, I do have a questioning mind, and I do carry a measure of scepticism, not unlike yourself.
But you seem to lose it very quickly. It's maybe a weakness in you that peer pressure ensures you cease questioning and follow protocol, kind of thing.
Most people are like that.
I joined this forum for two reasons. Firstly, because I was fascinated by the psychology behind people who believe the earth is flat.
And, are you still fascinated? And is the fascination just a forum version of you looking through the fairground glass cage at the weird people or is your fascination borne from your questioning mind on what you were indoctrinated into with your globe.....etc?
Afterall, in any localised area earth is flattish, but on a world wide scale, that's a ball game.
There you go. You see, you see it on a worldwide scale. A scale that you have no direct proof of but plenty of adherence to mainstream so called authority as to what it supposedly is.
I used to believe in a spinning globe. Just thinking of it fascinated me. I just wondered at the complexity of the universe. I never had the inclination all those years ago to sit back and say " hang on a minute...let's get a bit logical."
That was then and this is now...and I see lots of dodgy stuff about it, regardless of the abuse.
Secondly, I received a psychological injury at work with instant PTSD, and I needed a distraction - something that I could apply my investigative skills, but still escape work.
Here I am.
Soooo, what are you investigating and how are you getting on?
Because, to me, it seems that you have a mighty big shield up with your investigative mind.
My advice to you is simple. If you're going to spend your time on here then spend it by thinking outside of the box a little bit and see where it takes you, because playing the bully and the ridiculer is a waste of your time, not the time of those who are in the path of it.
-
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
You want to know so get drawing.
-
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
Youve tricked jackB.
But you and i know that the 3d simulation video shows this and it shows matches real photographs.
Quit dodging.
Address the video.
The video can't be addressed because it does not show anything level.
Show me level.
It does
He even adds a red line.
Show me a level.
-
Quit possibly sceppy is having issue with "looking out horizontally" (if we all remeber the ibm vertical stops dead statement).
Does sceppy believe looking plumb level horizontally that the persons point of view would not be looking down at the ground?
Please confirm.
Possibly sceppy didnt understand jackB fov = field of view?
Please confirm.
Looking through a simple tube would mean your FOV ends at the circle of that tube. The tube does not suddenly flute out, so let's deal with that.
Correct
Someone already told you the tube experiment.
You still lose and bever dealt with it
Soo.... whats YOUR point?
Someone did show me but you just don't get it, do you?
Someone tried to show me horizon below eye level by using a tube and a view into it, with no proof of level except a side view as if they were the same....but...you know what?
Even that dupe still showed the horizon line even if it was angled.
You still would not see that on your globe, so it's a dupe that was wasted.
-
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
Whats your issue sceppy?
Do you think people only see in 1 dimension?
When you look forward, do you only see directly forward or do you also see peripherally to the left right top bottom?
If you looked through a simple straight tube that was levelled, how much would you see outside of that circle of light to that tube?
Could you see your feet if you were stood upright and looking through it?
What about a few feet in front of you?
How far do you get to before you actually do see anything?
If you can't see a few feet in front of you on a level with the tube and your Earth always curves away as you keep on saying, then how is it that you can see anything of the Earth?
It's absolute nonsense to think you could.
-
Heres another simulation.
Let us know whats wrong.
What does it supposedly show?
-
The video, like the previous video, shows "eye level" as a line slightly above the ever dropping away horizon.
Its very obvious what it is.
Quit trolling and address it.
Or continue to play "stupid".
When looking through a long tube, the tube blocks peripheral - so whats your point?
You havent made a point about it except claiming somehow that prevents you from seeing the ground many km away.... whcih is wrong - make a circle with your index and thumb.
Close one eye.
How much of a far away thing can you see?
What is your point about level????
-
Even that dupe still showed the horizon line even if it was angled.
You still would not see that on your globe, so it's a dupe that was wasted.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
You have absolutely no basis for your claim that the RE would not produce a horizon.
You have been presented with plenty of arguments which show beyond any doubt that the RE would have a horizon.
Now stop with the blatant lying, and start dealing with those arguments.
Again, can you point out any issue with this at all, if not, a RE DOES have a horizon, and all your lying will not change that:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Once more, this shows beyond any doubt that a RE DOES have a horizon.
Unless you can actually refute that argument, by explicitly identifying one of the points you think is wrong and explaining exactly why you think it is wrong and what it should be, you cannot honestly claim that the RE would not have a horizon.
And there is also the diagram, repeatedly provided, and plenty of other simple arguments.
Deal with the mere existence of the horizon before confusing yourself more with a "level view"
Likewise, this simple image shows that you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Draw a diagram on your globe, of someone with a telescope looking horizontally level and show it to be that, instead of this diagram that shows nothing of the sort.
If the telescope has a FOV of 90 degrees, and they are standing quite high above the Earth, it is exactly that.
Forget your side angle lens and show me one if you were looking through a simple level tube, like I mentioned.
Let's see what you come up with.
I already provided that remember:
(https://i.imgur.com/MTFIhax.png)
That is what the person looking through that 90 degree scope would see.
Again, if you think it should be different, stop just dismissing it and provide your own.
Provide one for a 180 degree FOV, making sure you have a region of ground at the bottom and sky at the top.
And again, until you ether prove that the RE doesn't have a horizon at all, or you admit it does have one, we are not just focusing on a level scope.
The dome creates a mirror image.
Not bad for a wild guess and I would accept that if the star patterns around the NCP and the SCP were the same but they are not. Totally different in fact so its definitely not a reflected image.
Your moon should tell you enough about which way you're looking.
You are right that the moon does give important detail.
The fact that it isn't reflected further shows the south celestial hemisphere is not a mirror image.
So looks like you fail again.
Looking through a simple tube would mean your FOV ends at the circle of that tube. The tube does not suddenly flute out, so let's deal with that.
No it doesn't.
Do you understand how vision works at all?
You can still see past the end of the tube just fine, and this will produce a cone of vision (assuming the tube is a cylinder).
Your FOV would be something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
Notice how you can still see into the regions above and below the tube?
But no. Lets not deal with that.
As you haven't even admitted the RE has a horizon, nor have you been able to show it doesn't, lets just deal with that.
Completely forget about a small FOV centred on level.
Instead just deal with if the RE has a horizon.
Once you can admit that it does, we can then deal with where it is visually located.
6 feet tall and looking out over any downward gradient from that level point, by using nothing more than a tube, will show you no part of the gradient you are on, just like a ball Earth would not offer you any of it, other than sky.
And more pure BS.
Again, if it was this simple, then standing 6 ft above a perfectly flat surface, looking out level, would not show you any part of that surface.
We know that is BS.
We know why that is BS.
Perspective makes objects below you appear higher the further away they are.
This means you have 2 competing effects, one makes things appear lower, the other makes it appear higher.
You need to determine which is more significant.
If you just completely ignore one because you want to pretend there is a problem, you just show that you don't give a damn about the truth.
Unlike for a RE, where the gradient changes, in this case it is simply a question of what that gradient is compared to your FOV.
If the gradient is less than half your FOV, you will see it.
Again, this is quite easy to see:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Once more, the brown lines show the region inside the persons FOV.
The purple line is one possible gradient. As this is at an angle that is less than half the FOV, it goes into the region the person can see.
The black line is exactly equal to half the FOV< and thus never gets any closer to it and thus never enters the region the person can see.
The blue line is at a greater slope and thus moves away.
See how there is more than just simple "It goes down, can't see"?
-
My point is, I do have a questioning mind, and I do carry a measure of scepticism, not unlike yourself.
But you seem to lose it very quickly.
No, you just don't seem to understand what scepticism is.
It isn't outright rejecting things and refusing to engage in rational arguments that support the position.
Instead it is investigating to see if the position is substantiated by evidence and logical reasoning.
So if you were actually sceptical of the RE, you would be engaging with the arguments which show you are wrong, rather than just looking for whatever pathetic excuse you can come up with to dismiss them.
I never had the inclination all those years ago to sit back and say " hang on a minute...let's get a bit logical."
And you still don't.
Instead you just throw logic out the window, spout all sorts of dodgy BS, and refuse to engage in any form of honest, rational discussion.
You want to know so get drawing.
You have been provided with drawings which show you are wrong. So now it is on you to provide a diagram which shows what you think it should be like.
Stop deflecting and provide one.
If not, those diagrams already provided are enough, and they show you are wrong.
If you looked through a simple straight tube that was levelled, how much would you see outside of that circle of light to that tube?
Could you see your feet if you were stood upright and looking through it?
What about a few feet in front of you?
How far do you get to before you actually do see anything?
Again, NOTHING IN THAT NONSENSE RELIES UPON EARTH BEING ROUND!
If you truly believed that nonsense, you wouldn't just be attacking seeing the horizon on a RE, you would be attacking seeing it anywhere.
Again, as soon as you acknowledge that on a FE, perspective causes objects below you to appear higher in your FOV, and thus allow you to see the ground, even though it is below you, you need to address that and address if it would allow you to see the ground in front of you.
If you can't see a few feet in front of you on a level with the tube and your Earth always curves away as you keep on saying, then how is it that you can see anything of the Earth?
The exact same reason you would be able to see the ground on a FE, PERSPECTIVE!
Do you understand that?
Even with this appeal to downwards curve, there is still no appeal to the magnitude, so it should also work on an Earth with a radius of 1 Ym, where the drop is less than the size of an atom. If that was enough to hide it, then you would not see the ground on a FE either.
Once more, this is what you get:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
Once more, the solid line is the physical distance below the observer's line of sight. The dashed line is the angular position.
The red lines are for a FE, the green lines are for a RE.
With a RE, when close to you, the effect of curvature is negligible and the angular position of the ground is pretty much identical to a hypothetical FE. This means the angular position gets higher, and the ground appears to approach eye level.
But as it gets further away, the curvature becomes more significant.
Eventually, at roughly 5 km for an observer height of 2 m, the effect of curvature equals the effect of perspective. This is the point where the horizon is.
When you get further away the effect of curvature is greater than the effect of perspective and thus the angular position gets lower, and the ground is obscured by the horizon and the ground closer to you.
It's absolute nonsense to think you could.
No, it is absolute nonsense to think that perspective magically stops working on a RE.
It is extremely dishonest to completely ignore it to pretend you can't see the ground on a RE.
Why do you think it magically stops working?
Why do you continually ignore it rather than discuss the magnitude of each and see where the horizon should be?
-
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
You want to know so get drawing.
How am I supposed to draw something that only exists in your mind?
Well, I'll take this as your refusal to show us a picture of what you think the edge of a ball looks like. ::)
I can only assume it's because you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about here. Otherwise, how hard is it to draw a simple diagram?
Come back when you can actually draw a simple image, or find a picture of a ball that shows this mysterious non-horizon or whatever it is you imagine it looks like.
-
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
Whats your issue sceppy?
Do you think people only see in 1 dimension?
When you look forward, do you only see directly forward or do you also see peripherally to the left right top bottom?
If you looked through a simple straight tube that was levelled, how much would you see outside of that circle of light to that tube?
Could you see your feet if you were stood upright and looking through it?
What about a few feet in front of you?
How far do you get to before you actually do see anything?
That depends on the size of the tube, how high it is above the ground and how far your eye is behind it.
This is all extremely simple to answer, it's basic geometry, just a few lines and angles. Stuff grade schoolers learn and understand.
I'm not surprised you are unable to grasp the concept of drawing lines and measuring them.
-
Sceptimatic, I always look outside the box. You've made it clear you have a thick skin, so if I ridicule your ideas, I'm sure you will handle it. For the record, I think you need to review the definition of "bully".
Out of curiosity, what social or financial benefits has being a flat earther availed you?
I'm still fascinated by the psychology of the flat earth mindset. I'm allowed to be.
I've already stated in previous threads that most people live their lives as if earth were flat, with it being a globe always tucked away in the back of their mind. A two dimensional map is all you need to navigate your way around most parts of the world in localised areas. But if you were an international pilot, where your travelling scale is world-wide, you would have to default to the globe.
Do two things for me, sceptimatic, if nothing else. First, explain why earth's horizon line sits lower than it would if Earth were flat? Second, cough up your best personal photo of the edge of the earth, or rim, or whatever you call it.
Oh, and my psychological injury healed. Thanks for asking.
-
The video, like the previous video, shows "eye level" as a line slightly above the ever dropping away horizon.
Its very obvious what it is.
Quit trolling and address it.
Or continue to play "stupid".
When looking through a long tube, the tube blocks peripheral - so whats your point?
That is the point. It takes away the FOV argument for you globers.
It means you stand with it on a level and you cannot see a few feet under it, meaning you would never see anything under it to meet any horizon on your globe...only sky.
You havent made a point about it except claiming somehow that prevents you from seeing the ground many km away.... whcih is wrong - make a circle with your index and thumb.
Close one eye.
How much of a far away thing can you see?
Like I said above.
What is your point about level????
This video is not helping you.
-
Again, this is quite easy to see:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Once more, the brown lines show the region inside the persons FOV.
The purple line is one possible gradient. As this is at an angle that is less than half the FOV, it goes into the region the person can see.
The black line is exactly equal to half the FOV< and thus never gets any closer to it and thus never enters the region the person can see.
The blue line is at a greater slope and thus moves away.
See how there is more than just simple "It goes down, can't see"?
Put a level line on your globe. You won't do it because it kills your argument.
-
The video, like the previous video, shows "eye level" as a line slightly above the ever dropping away horizon.
Its very obvious what it is.
Quit trolling and address it.
Or continue to play "stupid".
When looking through a long tube, the tube blocks peripheral - so whats your point?
That is the point. It takes away the FOV argument for you globers.
It means you stand with it on a level and you cannot see a few feet under it, meaning you would never see anything under it to meet any horizon on your globe...only sky.
Right
And thats what we re saying you should see.
And it is
And it matches modeling.
And it matches math.
So once again we see what is expected to see of a ball earth and you agree to it.
So what then are you on about?
Taking away the field of view doesnt add anything to your argument that we re wrong.
-
My point is, I do have a questioning mind, and I do carry a measure of scepticism, not unlike yourself.
But you seem to lose it very quickly.
No, you just don't seem to understand what scepticism is.
I understand it well enough to know you do not possess any of it against any mainstream ideals.
-
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
You want to know so get drawing.
How am I supposed to draw something that only exists in your mind?
Well, I'll take this as your refusal to show us a picture of what you think the edge of a ball looks like. ::)
I can only assume it's because you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about here. Otherwise, how hard is it to draw a simple diagram?
Come back when you can actually draw a simple image, or find a picture of a ball that shows this mysterious non-horizon or whatever it is you imagine it looks like.
Stand atop looking level over any downward gradient. You will never see any horizon or even gradient edge that you'd love to call, a line.
You know this because you know the gradient will always curve away and down from your level sight.
It's so simple and logical but maybe too logical for the mess that indoctrinated pseudo-scientific schooling has left people in.
-
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
Whats your issue sceppy?
Do you think people only see in 1 dimension?
When you look forward, do you only see directly forward or do you also see peripherally to the left right top bottom?
If you looked through a simple straight tube that was levelled, how much would you see outside of that circle of light to that tube?
Could you see your feet if you were stood upright and looking through it?
What about a few feet in front of you?
How far do you get to before you actually do see anything?
That depends on the size of the tube, how high it is above the ground and how far your eye is behind it.
This is all extremely simple to answer, it's basic geometry, just a few lines and angles. Stuff grade schoolers learn and understand.
I'm not surprised you are unable to grasp the concept of drawing lines and measuring them.
You can't answer it because you know what I'm saying, is correct.
-
Sceptimatic, I always look outside the box. You've made it clear you have a thick skin, so if I ridicule your ideas, I'm sure you will handle it. For the record, I think you need to review the definition of "bully".
Ridicule all you want. I'm merely stating that you waste your time on me....but, do as you wish.
As for being a bully. You tried it and realised it was worthless so you calmed it and used your common sense.
Out of curiosity, what social or financial benefits has being a flat earther availed you?
I'm not after any social or financial benefits. I do what I do because I'm inquisitive and also very untrusting of a lot of people.
It's very hard for me to trust someone but someone can gain my trust by telling the truth when serious matters require discussion.
I'm always trying to figure out fact from fiction. It's not easy and I may never manage it for most part....but....I can do my own stuff and come to my own hypotheses/musings/theories and facts, as and when they present themselves.
That's all I need.
I'm still fascinated by the psychology of the flat earth mindset. I'm allowed to be.
Feel free but wasting all your time on here and not bothering to figure anything out makes you look desperate to be part of the yes brigade. I may be wrong.
You seem like you might get something out of this forum is you're legitimately sceptical and have a strong enough mind not to be easily swayed away by so called official explanations that clearly do not make sense, as you have been.
I've already stated in previous threads that most people live their lives as if earth were flat, with it being a globe always tucked away in the back of their mind.
The globe is only tucked away because the schooling has been severe in the young life. It's the same with religion.
Many people dismiss the god that was bullied into them at a young age, once they grow older...just like santa claus. However, it's still in the back of their minds. They still think of santa at christmas and even their god.
Indoctrinated beliefs at a young age are hard to diminish to the point of full rejection, in older age.
A two dimensional map is all you need to navigate your way around most parts of the world in localised areas.
Yep.
But if you were an international pilot, where your travelling scale is world-wide, you would have to default to the globe.
You're basically handed coordinates and told to go from point to point.
In a tin can in the sky, above clouds and skimming the air like an air speed boat.
There's no global navigation.
Do two things for me, sceptimatic, if nothing else. First, explain why earth's horizon line sits lower than it would if Earth were flat?
I don't even know what you're saying with this.
Second, cough up your best personal photo of the edge of the earth, or rim, or whatever you call it.
There's isn't any edge.
Oh, and my psychological injury healed. Thanks for asking.
I don't recall asking.
-
The video, like the previous video, shows "eye level" as a line slightly above the ever dropping away horizon.
Its very obvious what it is.
Quit trolling and address it.
Or continue to play "stupid".
When looking through a long tube, the tube blocks peripheral - so whats your point?
That is the point. It takes away the FOV argument for you globers.
It means you stand with it on a level and you cannot see a few feet under it, meaning you would never see anything under it to meet any horizon on your globe...only sky.
Right
And thats what we re saying you should see.
And it is
And it matches modeling.
And it matches math.
So once again we see what is expected to see of a ball earth and you agree to it.
So what then are you on about?
Taking away the field of view doesnt add anything to your argument that we re wrong.
When you get to grips with convergence point, or theoretical line over distance whilst also realising that you're looking through a level tube/scope that does not allow you to see a few feet away from your upright position below that scope, you'll understand that your globe would always be dipping. Curving away and down.
Your horizon would be non existent, yet you clearly see your horizon convergence when you should only see sky.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, you simply would not see any horizon on your globe.
-
Ok
You keep insisting it without saying anything more.
Yet everytime you describe qhat should be seen... well it is what is seen.
So theres a contradiction.
How are we to understand what youre saying if you never elaborate?
From what we gather, the field of view in your opinion should not result in being able to see a gently curving away ground when looking "level".
However
Tkaing into account peoples field of view is wide, you WILL see ground.
You even admit to this amd try and incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix.
The video of the snipers scope just shows how mich ground and sky is still.visible while looking through a genrically sized tube.
So... what was your point?
Why are you insistent so on broken recordding this "point" of yours?
-
Sceptimatic, I never bullied you. A bully is a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.
How the hell have I harmed or intimidated, or threatened you, and why the hell would I perceive you as vulnerable, or weaker? I may have insulted you, but how many people here have you insulted their intelligence? If I'm wrong, quote where I have bullied you, and report me to the moderators, so that I may be punished.
If anything, each person in this discussion is speaking their own truth. You can choose to listen, and raise your awareness and consciousness, or dig your heels in and stay where you are.
I learn things from these debates about our world that I'd never considered before. Every person here contributes, even you.
How can you say your belief comes with no edge to the world when you don't believe in infinite earth?
Trust is something that has to be earned, sceptimatic, and it's a two way street reached by being truthful. I've been one hundred percent honest with you, and I expect the same in return.
-
Mighty Kabbol : Skeptic said If the pipe was level and looking straight (on page 50) and you could see the sea , then there is a problem. And you said ha ha, oh man, its beacuse you're looking down?
pls clarify...
-
That is the point. It takes away the FOV argument for you globers.
Except it doesn't, as has been repeatedly explained to you.
Once more, even when looking through a tube, you still have a FOV.
Here is the diagram again:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
Notice how your eye has 2 lines extending outwards which are diverging, getting further and further apart?
That means you have a FOV.
That means an object below your line of sight can appear in that FOV.
The only way to remove FOV from the equation is to make your FOV 0, at which point you can't see anything.
It means you stand with it on a level and you cannot see a few feet under it, meaning you would never see anything under it to meet any horizon on your globe...only sky.
Again, that argument works equally well on a flat Earth.
Unless you appeal to the radius of Earth and thus how much it drops, and actually do the math on that, it works equally well on any radius including the limit as the radius approaches infinite, which is a flat Earth.
Again, this is quite easy to see:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Once more, the brown lines show the region inside the persons FOV.
The purple line is one possible gradient. As this is at an angle that is less than half the FOV, it goes into the region the person can see.
The black line is exactly equal to half the FOV< and thus never gets any closer to it and thus never enters the region the person can see.
The blue line is at a greater slope and thus moves away.
See how there is more than just simple "It goes down, can't see"?
Put a level line on your globe. You won't do it because it kills your argument.
Why?
We don't have a FOV of 0.
So instead of doing something stupid like just sticking on a level line (which also doesn't work for a FE), I did something intelligent, putting in an actual FOV. Here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
If you think it is wrong, then draw your own. I'm pretty sure you wont (just like you wont draw any meaningful diagram), because doing so would completely kill your argument.
And of course, yet again, rather than address the issue which so clearly shows you are completely wrong and are blatantly lying to everyone; you just look for whatever pathetic BS you can use to ignore it all.
That diagrams shows quite clearly that your ability to see a downwards slope is dependent upon the FOV vs the angle of that slope.
But hey, here is another diagram for you, as a bonus considering how much you love to complain about level lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/8y9be6y.png)
This is for your fantasy flat Earth, with a FOV of 0.
Notice how the line of sight remains above Earth, never getting any closer to it?
I guess that means no horizon on a FE either.
Instead, by your complete absence of reason, the ground needs to curve or slope up in order to hit your FOV of 0. Something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/b4z3b6a.png)
So I guess by your absence of reason, the fact that Earth has a horizon means it cannot possibly be flat and instead we must be living on the inside of a sphere, or something like that.
And of course, you still ignore the diagram I presented, which you are yet to explain any problem with, and completely ignore the argument that shows you are wrong beyond any doubt. Here they are again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Once more, through a 90 degree level FOV, we can clearly see that the ground is in view and that there is a horizon, where objects more distant have the section below the purple line hidden.
My point is, I do have a questioning mind, and I do carry a measure of scepticism, not unlike yourself.
But you seem to lose it very quickly.
No, you just don't seem to understand what scepticism is.
I understand it well enough to know you do not possess any of it against any mainstream ideals.
No, you don't. That is the problem.
You seem to think scepticism is completely irrational rejection at all costs.
It is nothing of the sort.
I am sceptical of lots of ideas, including those from the mainstream.
The big difference between me and you is that I care about the truth and thus will accept the evidence and logical arguments which support the mainstream rather than just continually reject them or ignore them, looking for whatever pathetic excuse you can use to pretend they don't matter.
You are not sceptical. You are in denial.
Again, if you were sceptical you would actually engage with the arguments presented rather than continually dismissing them with whatever pathetic BS you can think of or just outright ignoring them and pretending they're not real.
Stand atop looking level over any downward gradient. You will never see any horizon or even gradient edge that you'd love to call, a line.
You know this because you know the gradient will always curve away and down from your level sight.
Why just repeat the same blatant lies?
That was already refuted. Go and look at the post refuting it.
Your ability to see the ground is dependent upon the slope and the FOV.
This is extremely simple and logical, yet you continually reject it with no justification at all and instead by just repeating the same pathetic blatant lie.
Can you show anything wrong with what has been said?
And again, ignoring FOV doesn't help your case.
This is an image of what it would look like if you have a FOV of 0 (i.e. the only time you can try to claim the FOV doesn't matter):
-
I'm always trying to figure out fact from fiction. It's not easy and I may never manage it
Again, PURE BS!
If you were actually interested in the truth you would stop repeating the same blatant lies and start actually engaging with the arguments and refutations presented.
When you get to grips with convergence point
When you get to grips with what the convergence point actually is you will realise that the horizon CANNOT be the convergence point.
That is because the convergence point is a point infinitely far away where parallel lines meet.
But the horizon is only a finite distance away.
Your horizon would be non existent, yet you clearly see your horizon convergence when you should only see sky.
Again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.
We don't see convergence. We see the horizon below the convergence point, just like we should for a RE.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, you simply would not see any horizon on your globe.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same pathetic lie, it will still be a lie and we will still have a horizon on the very real round Earth.
You are yet to present a single honest, rational argument to explain why the FE magically should have a horizon while the RE magically shouldn't.
Nor have you been able to refute any of the plentiful arguments that show beyond any doubt that the RE would have a horizon.
Once more, as you clearly cannot comprehend FOV, there is no point in discussing a level view.
First just establish the mere existence or lack thereof of the horizon on a RE.
This means you can look down to see it.
Do you accept that it exists?
If not, deal with the arguments which clearly show it does.
Mighty Kabbol : Skeptic said If the pipe was level and looking straight (on page 50) and you could see the sea , then there is a problem. And you said ha ha, oh man, its beacuse you're looking down?
pls clarify...
Page numbers are quite useless, I'm only on page 34. Could you provide a link to the post? Or at least the reply number.
-
Ok
You keep insisting it without saying anything more.
Yet everytime you describe qhat should be seen... well it is what is seen.
So theres a contradiction.
How are we to understand what youre saying if you never elaborate?
From what we gather, the field of view in your opinion should not result in being able to see a gently curving away ground when looking "level".
However
Tkaing into account peoples field of view is wide, you WILL see ground.
You even admit to this amd try and incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix.
The video of the snipers scope just shows how mich ground and sky is still.visible while looking through a genrically sized tube.
So... what was your point?
Why are you insistent so on broken recordding this "point" of yours?
I incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix because it shows you best that you would not see anything converge on your ball.
You people using FOV like a wide/fish eye type lens effect, argue that it allows you to see floor to ceiling and left to right like a torch beam....so I've made it much simpler and used the tube, tunnel vision to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe.....meaning, your globe is fiction in how you're told.
-
I learn things from these debates about our world that I'd never considered before. Every person here contributes, even you.
Good. There's nothing wrong with that.
How can you say your belief comes with no edge to the world when you don't believe in infinite earth?
Because, if you understand my model as a cell, you'd clearly know it has no edge.
Trust is something that has to be earned, sceptimatic, and it's a two way street reached by being truthful.
Agreed.
I've been one hundred percent honest with you, and I expect the same in return.
I try my best to be honest with this stuff.
I'll play anyone who plays me.
You seemed to have calmed down so let's start off on a level (pardon the pun) footing.
My advice to you would be to try and question your indoctrinated (and we're all part of it) belief system and try and look at alternatives, even if you do it as a change up. That way your presence here will be more meaningful rather than being like a Jackblack who sets out to simply batter people into submission in order for them to follow protocol...it seems.
-
That diagrams shows quite clearly that your ability to see a downwards slope is dependent upon the FOV vs the angle of that slope.
But hey, here is another diagram for you, as a bonus considering how much you love to complain about level lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/8y9be6y.png)
This is for your fantasy flat Earth, with a FOV of 0.
Notice how the line of sight remains above Earth, never getting any closer to it?
I guess that means no horizon on a FE either.
At least you managed a horizontally level line of sight.
Your issue now is, you've used a flat terrain and a flat sky
Instead, by your complete absence of reason, the ground needs to curve or slope up in order to hit your FOV of 0. Something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/b4z3b6a.png)
So I guess by your absence of reason, the fact that Earth has a horizon means it cannot possibly be flat and instead we must be living on the inside of a sphere, or something like that.
Actually the sea is in a bowl...but, this isn't what we're dealing with. We are dealing with light differences. Shades. Vision over distance through ever thickening atmosphere....so curving your Earth up may be correct to keep in water but it is not going to solve the vision issue of sky meeting reflected sea, which is what my Earth is all about in terms of theoretical horizon line, which is convergence of shades.
I noticed you didn't attempt to use this same level in a convex shape. I wonder why?
-
... to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe......
I actually like your cell world, with its strange sloshing stacked atmosphere, the magic breathing ice dome, and the wonderous super crystal that holographically projects the sun, moon, and stars from the north pole. It is silly, and fanciful, and kind of fun to imagine.
What you write above is just stupid though. So mindlessly stupid and wrong.
That you think you are making some valid point with it does not speak well for your reasoning ability at all. It is the conceptualization of an incredibly limited mind, not the workings of someone capable of figuring out the nature of the universe around us, like you claim to.
Do better, I know you can.
-
Sceptimatic, I'm not going to attempt to beat you into submission, like Jack or Solar.
Just be aware, I'm about to embark on a week of night work on the beat, and my posts for the next week may be a bit bizarre. Don't take it personally - high stress and sleep deprivation.
Now, I'm hoping you live near a beach, sceptimatic? If you do, I have an experiment for you to conduct. Take a table down to the beach and a level. Place the table on the sand and place the level on top of the table. Gently tap each leg to get the top of the table as level as possible. Now, with the horizon out at sea in front of you and the table directly in front of you, lower yourself until the top edge of the table closest to you, lines up with the edge of the table farthest from you. Now, glance to the left or right, and see if the horizon out to sea perfectly matches the lined up edges of your table, or is higher or lower. It's a simple experiment to conduct.
So, if earth were a cell, why is the sky not dirt brown? If earth is not a globe, then there must be an edge where sky meets ground. Where is that edge?
Have you ever seen close ups of cells under microscopes where half is one color and the other a different color? A cell always has a central nucleus. Where is the nucleus in a flat earth membrane enclosed cell world?
I like that you're thinking of earth in terms of a pattern, in this case a cell. I agree the universe is patterned.
As far as patterns are concerned, maybe atoms and electrons are closer to the earth sun system, than cells? Maybe earth itself shares more in common with our human bodies as a living entity as to itself? If that were the case, couldn't each of us humans be like cells of the earth - each with our specific purpose and programming?
Something outside the box to think about...
-
Ok
You keep insisting it without saying anything more.
Yet everytime you describe qhat should be seen... well it is what is seen.
So theres a contradiction.
How are we to understand what youre saying if you never elaborate?
From what we gather, the field of view in your opinion should not result in being able to see a gently curving away ground when looking "level".
However
Tkaing into account peoples field of view is wide, you WILL see ground.
You even admit to this amd try and incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix.
The video of the snipers scope just shows how mich ground and sky is still.visible while looking through a genrically sized tube.
So... what was your point?
Why are you insistent so on broken recordding this "point" of yours?
I incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix because it shows you best that you would not see anything converge on your ball.
You people using FOV like a wide/fish eye type lens effect, argue that it allows you to see floor to ceiling and left to right like a torch beam....so I've made it much simpler and used the tube, tunnel vision to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe.....meaning, your globe is fiction in how you're told.
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
-
... to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe......
I actually like your cell world, with its strange sloshing stacked atmosphere, the magic breathing ice dome, and the wonderous super crystal that holographically projects the sun, moon, and stars from the north pole. It is silly, and fanciful, and kind of fun to imagine.
What you write above is just stupid though. So mindlessly stupid and wrong.
That you think you are making some valid point with it does not speak well for your reasoning ability at all. It is the conceptualization of an incredibly limited mind, not the workings of someone capable of figuring out the nature of the universe around us, like you claim to.
Do better, I know you can.
Maybe engage your mind much better. It make help you and I would guess that you must be capable of much better.
-
Sceptimatic, I'm not going to attempt to beat you into submission, like Jack or Solar.
Just be aware, I'm about to embark on a week of night work on the beat, and my posts for the next week may be a bit bizarre. Don't take it personally - high stress and sleep deprivation.
Now, I'm hoping you live near a beach, sceptimatic? If you do, I have an experiment for you to conduct. Take a table down to the beach and a level. Place the table on the sand and place the level on top of the table. Gently tap each leg to get the top of the table as level as possible. Now, with the horizon out at sea in front of you and the table directly in front of you, lower yourself until the top edge of the table closest to you, lines up with the edge of the table farthest from you. Now, glance to the left or right, and see if the horizon out to sea perfectly matches the lined up edges of your table, or is higher or lower. It's a simple experiment to conduct.
You kill off your horizon by doing this. You replace it with the table edge.
So, if earth were a cell, why is the sky not dirt brown? If earth is not a globe, then there must be an edge where sky meets ground. Where is that edge?
Why would it need to be brown?
Is the sea brown?
Is the sky brown?
Everything freezes under lessening pressures and/or lack of vibration due to the sun reflection not being able to transfer energy to the farthest parts of the cell...meaning a skin formation of ice from more to less dense as it moves up to build the dome from the foundation of sea/land and sky.
Have you ever seen close ups of cells under microscopes where half is one color and the other a different color? A cell always has a central nucleus. Where is the nucleus in a flat earth membrane enclosed cell world?
Earth likely has that central nucleus. It's called the energy we see as, the sun inside crystal, by my musing.
I like that you're thinking of earth in terms of a pattern, in this case a cell. I agree the universe is patterned.
It depends on what you regard as the universe. Your universe is different and cannot really exist in how you are told....but, that's up to you to applly that out of the box thinking.
As far as patterns are concerned, maybe atoms and electrons are closer to the earth sun system, than cells? Maybe earth itself shares more in common with our human bodies as a living entity as to itself? If that were the case, couldn't each of us humans be like cells of the earth - each with our specific purpose and programming?
I've pondered it all. I believe it's all cells. I believe we are just bacteria in out cell, among bacteria.
I believe our cells are like Earth's to whatever exists within our body cells.
However, this goes way way farther down the rabbit hole and people are struggling with this part I'm putting out.
Something outside the box to think about...
Already do.
You should try it more often and you just might surprise yourself with a different take as you go along.
Having said that...like I said....it's up to you......but.......it surely must be more interesting than simply arguing for something that has been put on a silver platter for you, by people who you seem to trust....yet....they have no real proof to actually show you....and nor can you physically verify what's been said.
-
Ok
You keep insisting it without saying anything more.
Yet everytime you describe qhat should be seen... well it is what is seen.
So theres a contradiction.
How are we to understand what youre saying if you never elaborate?
From what we gather, the field of view in your opinion should not result in being able to see a gently curving away ground when looking "level".
However
Tkaing into account peoples field of view is wide, you WILL see ground.
You even admit to this amd try and incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix.
The video of the snipers scope just shows how mich ground and sky is still.visible while looking through a genrically sized tube.
So... what was your point?
Why are you insistent so on broken recordding this "point" of yours?
I incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix because it shows you best that you would not see anything converge on your ball.
You people using FOV like a wide/fish eye type lens effect, argue that it allows you to see floor to ceiling and left to right like a torch beam....so I've made it much simpler and used the tube, tunnel vision to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe.....meaning, your globe is fiction in how you're told.
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
On top of this.
You were shown converging perspective of railway tracks.
You were shown it flipped on its side to show perspective is in 2dimensions updown-leftright.
Take any art class and theybcan teach you about it.
So
Your claim people see in 1dimension and field of view is not a thing
And
That you would not see the sea line converge to the sky line is ludicrous and easy EASILY reproducable and observed.
Faded.
Sceppy is attempting to make a ppint but has purposefully misuing language in the past qe can never truly know what this guy is on about.
You are being disengenuous in giving him any credit to his NON POINT as it, in its general langauge is A NON POINT.
Unless sceppy means somehing else, whih is what im trying to flush out.
-
Ok
You keep insisting it without saying anything more.
Yet everytime you describe qhat should be seen... well it is what is seen.
So theres a contradiction.
How are we to understand what youre saying if you never elaborate?
From what we gather, the field of view in your opinion should not result in being able to see a gently curving away ground when looking "level".
However
Tkaing into account peoples field of view is wide, you WILL see ground.
You even admit to this amd try and incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix.
The video of the snipers scope just shows how mich ground and sky is still.visible while looking through a genrically sized tube.
So... what was your point?
Why are you insistent so on broken recordding this "point" of yours?
I incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix because it shows you best that you would not see anything converge on your ball.
You people using FOV like a wide/fish eye type lens effect, argue that it allows you to see floor to ceiling and left to right like a torch beam....so I've made it much simpler and used the tube, tunnel vision to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe.....meaning, your globe is fiction in how you're told.
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
-
Ok
You keep insisting it without saying anything more.
Yet everytime you describe qhat should be seen... well it is what is seen.
So theres a contradiction.
How are we to understand what youre saying if you never elaborate?
From what we gather, the field of view in your opinion should not result in being able to see a gently curving away ground when looking "level".
However
Tkaing into account peoples field of view is wide, you WILL see ground.
You even admit to this amd try and incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix.
The video of the snipers scope just shows how mich ground and sky is still.visible while looking through a genrically sized tube.
So... what was your point?
Why are you insistent so on broken recordding this "point" of yours?
I incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix because it shows you best that you would not see anything converge on your ball.
You people using FOV like a wide/fish eye type lens effect, argue that it allows you to see floor to ceiling and left to right like a torch beam....so I've made it much simpler and used the tube, tunnel vision to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe.....meaning, your globe is fiction in how you're told.
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
On top of this.
You were shown converging perspective of railway tracks.
You were shown it flipped on its side to show perspective is in 2dimensions updown-leftright.
Take any art class and theybcan teach you about it.
So
Your claim people see in 1dimension and field of view is not a thing
And
That you would not see the sea line converge to the sky line is ludicrous and easy EASILY reproducable and observed.
Faded.
Sceppy is attempting to make a ppint but has purposefully misuing language in the past qe can never truly know what this guy is on about.
You are being disengenuous in giving him any credit to his NON POINT as it, in its general langauge is A NON POINT.
Unless sceppy means somehing else, whih is what im trying to flush out.
My meanings may not suit you but that's for you to grasp.
You've had more than enough goes and time, so why are you struggling?
-
... to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe......
I actually like your cell world, with its strange sloshing stacked atmosphere, the magic breathing ice dome, and the wonderous super crystal that holographically projects the sun, moon, and stars from the north pole. It is silly, and fanciful, and kind of fun to imagine.
What you write above is just stupid though. So mindlessly stupid and wrong.
That you think you are making some valid point with it does not speak well for your reasoning ability at all. It is the conceptualization of an incredibly limited mind, not the workings of someone capable of figuring out the nature of the universe around us, like you claim to.
Do better, I know you can.
Maybe engage your mind much better. It make help you ...
It make help me? lol.
You are directly saying you can not see an apparent edge when viewing a round object.
It has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
Dont get me wrong, its still entertaining, and it is totally a harmless belief so you are more than welcome to it.
It is just bizarrely stupid. If you can't see it I'm sorry for you.
-
... to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe......
I actually like your cell world, with its strange sloshing stacked atmosphere, the magic breathing ice dome, and the wonderous super crystal that holographically projects the sun, moon, and stars from the north pole. It is silly, and fanciful, and kind of fun to imagine.
What you write above is just stupid though. So mindlessly stupid and wrong.
That you think you are making some valid point with it does not speak well for your reasoning ability at all. It is the conceptualization of an incredibly limited mind, not the workings of someone capable of figuring out the nature of the universe around us, like you claim to.
Do better, I know you can.
Maybe engage your mind much better. It make help you ...
It make help me? lol.
You are directly saying you can not see an apparent edge when viewing a round object.
It has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
Dont get me wrong, its still entertaining, and it is totally a harmless belief so you are more than welcome to it.
It is just bizarrely stupid. If you can't see it I'm sorry for you.
The silly thing is, you think you can see an edge because you see your horizon on an Earth that was told to you as being, a globe.
You then think by looking at a basketball on a table, or something and seeing an edge, is somehow your horizon.
You've been brainwashed into that belief system, just as I was all those years ago...until I started to question it all.
This is where I'm at.
Feel free to laugh and whatever. You're entitled to that....but remember, you really have no clue as to what the truth is, you're just told it is a truth and you accept it because you're trained to accept official lines....especially so called scientific ones, just like most, if not all of us are.
Don't take that as a dig because I include myself. Just a bit of food for thought.
-
You've been brainwashed into that belief system, just as I was all those years ago...until I started to question it all.
This is where I'm at.
Feel free to laugh and whatever. You're entitled to that....but remember, you really have no clue as to what the truth is, you're just told it is a truth and you accept it because you're trained to accept official lines....especially so called scientific ones, just like most, if not all of us are.
Don't take that as a dig because I include myself. Just a bit of food for thought.
Psst, I'll let you in on something -
*lowers voice and whispers*
I am one of the people developing and feeding the official scientific lines of thought into people. And you are right on all counts. It is a total scam.
What you don't know though, is why, and I will let you know. We have actually used the atomspheric stacking system to push through the dome membrane, it turns out it is soft enough when the holographic projection of the sun is on it. We have a way into the next cell!!! Its great over there, but the problem is we are funneling the resources from this cell over there so we can all live like kings, and people will be pissed if they find out. So please, please, dont tell anyone else about this. If you instead toe the round earth line, I'll put in a good word for you and see if I can get you a pass.
-
You've been brainwashed into that belief system, just as I was all those years ago...until I started to question it all.
This is where I'm at.
Feel free to laugh and whatever. You're entitled to that....but remember, you really have no clue as to what the truth is, you're just told it is a truth and you accept it because you're trained to accept official lines....especially so called scientific ones, just like most, if not all of us are.
Don't take that as a dig because I include myself. Just a bit of food for thought.
Psst, I'll let you in on something -
*lowers voice and whispers*
I am one of the people developing and feeding the official scientific lines of thought into people. And you are right on all counts. It is a total scam.
What you don't know though, is why, and I will let you know. We have actually used the atomspheric stacking system to push through the dome membrane, it turns out it is soft enough when the holographic projection of the sun is on it. We have a way into the next cell!!! Its great over there, but the problem is we are funneling the resources from this cell over there so we can all live like kings, and people will be pissed if they find out. So please, please, dont tell anyone else about this. If you instead toe the round earth line, I'll put in a good word for you and see if I can get you a pass.
You carry on.
-
You've been brainwashed into that belief system, just as I was all those years ago...until I started to question it all.
This is where I'm at.
Feel free to laugh and whatever. You're entitled to that....but remember, you really have no clue as to what the truth is, you're just told it is a truth and you accept it because you're trained to accept official lines....especially so called scientific ones, just like most, if not all of us are.
Don't take that as a dig because I include myself. Just a bit of food for thought.
Psst, I'll let you in on something -
*lowers voice and whispers*
I am one of the people developing and feeding the official scientific lines of thought into people. And you are right on all counts. It is a total scam.
What you don't know though, is why, and I will let you know. We have actually used the atomspheric stacking system to push through the dome membrane, it turns out it is soft enough when the holographic projection of the sun is on it. We have a way into the next cell!!! Its great over there, but the problem is we are funneling the resources from this cell over there so we can all live like kings, and people will be pissed if they find out. So please, please, dont tell anyone else about this. If you instead toe the round earth line, I'll put in a good word for you and see if I can get you a pass.
You carry on.
The only reason you do not believe me is that you are indoctrinated into believing the membrane dome is impenetrable. Drop your preconceived notions and open you mind. It isn't. There is a way. Atmospheric super-stacking through unidirectional controlled expansion of the gobstopper molecules can punch right through if the membrane is softened sufficiently from the sun hologram. Its conceptually quite simple.
-
Where does this concept or belief in some form of dome come from anyway?
-
That diagrams shows quite clearly that your ability to see a downwards slope is dependent upon the FOV vs the angle of that slope.
But hey, here is another diagram for you, as a bonus considering how much you love to complain about level lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/8y9be6y.png)
This is for your fantasy flat Earth, with a FOV of 0.
Notice how the line of sight remains above Earth, never getting any closer to it?
I guess that means no horizon on a FE either.
At least you managed a horizontally level line of sight.
Your issue now is, you've used a flat terrain and a flat sky
No, I used a flat terrain, and a level line of sight.
That is what your argument would be for a FE.
If a diagram like this was produced for a RE, you would happily accept it and accept it that it shows that the horizon would not be visible on the RE.
So why not accept this diagram for a FE?
Once more, using your absence of reason, you wouldn't expect a horizon on a FE either.
It doesn't matter what the shape of the sky is. That won't magically bend the light.
If you don't like the diagram, make your own. Show us what it should look like.
Instead, by your complete absence of reason, the ground needs to curve or slope up in order to hit your FOV of 0. Something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/b4z3b6a.png)
So I guess by your absence of reason, the fact that Earth has a horizon means it cannot possibly be flat and instead we must be living on the inside of a sphere, or something like that.
Actually the sea is in a bowl...but, this isn't what we're dealing with
That's right, so why bring it up?
This (i.e. having the ground rise up) is the only way to have a level line of sight hit Earth. Any other option will have Earth remain below the line of sight, never intersecting with it.
So again, by your absence of reason, this is what you should be claiming Earth has to be, given that we can see the horizon.
We are dealing with light differences. Shades. Vision over distance through ever thickening atmosphere
No, we are dealing with the horizon, clearly established to be a result of Earth obstructing the view to more distant objects.
I noticed you didn't attempt to use this same level in a convex shape. I wonder why?
Because I was just using to demonstrate to you the illogical consequences of your absence of reason.
I'm not claiming you have a FOV of 0. That is only YOU!
YOU are the one pretending you can magically have a FOV of 0 and that even with that impossible FOV you would still magically see the horizon when with such a FOV you literally cannot see anything.
For the diagrams I have presented showing how vision actually works, I have used a FOV which is physically possible. This means it isn't just a straight line, but instead is a cone, or in 2D a triangle, a region bounded by 2 straight lines which are diverging, where you can see things inside that region (unless something else gets in the way)
This is also important considering the size of the RE.
Because guess what? If you draw a scale diagram like the one provided above, the curvature of Earth is insignificant.
The 2 m red line is 111 px.
That means from that red line to the edge of the diagram, which is 775 px, corresponds to ~14 m.
Over these 14 m, Earth drops by ~ 2 um.
That corresponds to roughly 0.0001 px, or a ten-thousandth of a pixel.
That means that that top diagram, provided for the FE is effectively a diagram for the RE as well.
This means to draw a diagram of the RE, where you can clearly see the curvature, the height of the observer will likely be significantly exaggerated and thus so will the FOV and how far below level the horizon appears.
Or you have it being a massive diagram, which most free image hosts won't host.
But I did provide a too scale diagram of the RE before as an svg. You didn't seem to have any objection to that.
And of course, you still ignore all the arguments showing you are wrong. Lets try once more (remember, if you actually cared about the truth and you were trying to find it and being honest you would actually engage with this argument, either accepting it as correct or explaining what is wrong with it):
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
And here is the diagram you are yet to point out any issues with:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Remember, this is showing a 90 degree, level FOV.
Showing clearly that the RE would produce a horizon and that if the FOV is large enough it would be visible.
Again, if you think there is a problem with it, explain what that problem is and draw a "correct" version.
And remember, if you want to appeal to the FOV being too large, you need to do so properly and honestly, rather than just pretending it will be a straight line, because if the FOV was smaller it just needs the observer to be closer to Earth.
-
I incorporate a tube tunnel vision into the mix because it shows you best that you would not see anything converge on your ball.
You mean so you can lie and pretend.
And again, the same argument would apply to a FE.
Until you actually appeal to the radius of Earth and thus where the horizon would be located visually, your argument applies just as well to a FE.
On a FE, the ground is still below you and thus can't appear in a 0 FOV.
You people using FOV like a wide/fish eye type lens effect
Nope.
When standing with your eyes 2 m above the surface, you just need 5.4 arc minutes. That is less than 1 degree.
so I've made it much simpler and used the tube, tunnel vision to illustrate that your horizon is still there when it should not be on your globe.....meaning, your globe is fiction in how you're told.
No, you have just repeated the same pathetic refuted lie.
You have not justified the claim in any way. Instead you just repeat the same pathetic assertion.
I try my best to be honest with this stuff.
No you don't.
You repeatedly lie.
You continually ignore refutations of your blatant lies and continually ignore arguments which clearly show you are wrong.
That is not being truthful at all.
Do you understand what being truthful means?
It means telling the truth, telling things how they are.
That would mean saying things like:
the RE does have a horizon,
the visual location of the horizon on a RE is dependent upon the radius of Earth and the height of the observer,
the ability to see the horizon on a RE when looking through a level scope is dependent upon the size of the FOV of that scope, the height of the observer and the radius of Earth.
Notice how these facts that a truthful person would say directly contradict the blatant lies you have been telling?
If you don't know what the truth is then the appropriate response is to say you have no idea.
So no, you are not being truthful at all.
rather than being like a Jackblack who sets out to simply batter people into submission in order for them to follow protocol...it seems.
Yes, it seems, to someone like you who chooses to continually spout pure BS and refuse to engage in any form of rational discussion.
It seems meaningless to you, because unlike you I care about the truth, not just listening to people preach.
Perhaps if you stopped spouting so much BS and instead tried to rationally engage with discussion then my presence would seem more meaningful to you and less like battering into submission.
I don't want you to simply submit. I want you to either rationally defend your position or stop spouting so many blatant lies which you refuse to defend.
Meanwhile, you have again projected your own inadequacies onto others. It seems all you are here to do is try to batter people into submission by repeating the same lies again and again and using whatever tactics you can to avoid the arguments which clearly show you are wrong.
The silly thing is, you think you can see an edge because you see your horizon on an Earth that was told to you as being, a globe.
No, we think we can see an edge when looking at a round object, like a basketball, because when we look at it, WE CAN!
It has nothing at all to do with Earth being round.
Do you accept that round objects like basket balls have an edge?
If so, why don't you accept a round object like the RE would?
Remember, this has nothing to do with level as level and FOV is far beyond your abilities.
This is just if it an edge, if the RE should have a horizon that is the edge between Earth and sky.
until I started to question it all.
You aren't questioning it. You are outright rejecting it with no reason at all.
You've been brainwashed...
remember, you really have no clue as to what the truth is, you're just told it is a truth and you accept it because you're trained to accept official lines...
Don't take that as a dig
Really?
Don't take an outright insult at being called brainwashed as a dig?
Don't take being told that we have no idea what the truth is and that we are just accepting whatever BS we are told as a dig?
Why shouldn't we?
It is quite obvious that you are just insulting us to dismiss our position because you have no rational justification for yours.
And no, you aren't including yourself.
You are saying you used to be like that, but now you are vastly superior to us all because you are no longer so stupid and idiotic and brainwashed.
It is a dig. It is an outright insult.
-
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
On top of this.
You were shown converging perspective of railway tracks.
You were shown it flipped on its side to show perspective is in 2dimensions updown-leftright.
Take any art class and theybcan teach you about it.
So
Your claim people see in 1dimension and field of view is not a thing
And
That you would not see the sea line converge to the sky line is ludicrous and easy EASILY reproducable and observed.
Faded.
Sceppy is attempting to make a ppint but has purposefully misuing language in the past qe can never truly know what this guy is on about.
You are being disengenuous in giving him any credit to his NON POINT as it, in its general langauge is A NON POINT.
Unless sceppy means somehing else, whih is what im trying to flush out.
My meanings may not suit you but that's for you to grasp.
You've had more than enough goes and time, so why are you struggling?
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
Aaah!!
New info?!
See , Faded?
Rewording helps sceppy from paroting like a broken record and we finally gain some insight into this "special" mind of his.
So now we have his issue of what the horizon is.
Its where the sky-dome curves down to physically meet the water?
Please confirm
-
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
You want to know so get drawing.
How am I supposed to draw something that only exists in your mind?
Well, I'll take this as your refusal to show us a picture of what you think the edge of a ball looks like. ::)
I can only assume it's because you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about here. Otherwise, how hard is it to draw a simple diagram?
Come back when you can actually draw a simple image, or find a picture of a ball that shows this mysterious non-horizon or whatever it is you imagine it looks like.
Stand atop looking level over any downward gradient. You will never see any horizon or even gradient edge that you'd love to call, a line.
You know this because you know the gradient will always curve away and down from your level sight.
It's so simple and logical but maybe too logical for the mess that indoctrinated pseudo-scientific schooling has left people in.
So you're saying you still can't draw or show a picture to try and explain your word-salad.
Nothing has changed then.
-
Draw yourself a circle and place a horizontal level on it and see where it points.
No, this is your theory, I'm not playing your game where I draw exactly what you describe and then you tell me how it's wrong.
Your theory. You draw it, and quit making excuses.
Or don't you know how?
Whats your issue sceppy?
Do you think people only see in 1 dimension?
When you look forward, do you only see directly forward or do you also see peripherally to the left right top bottom?
If you looked through a simple straight tube that was levelled, how much would you see outside of that circle of light to that tube?
Could you see your feet if you were stood upright and looking through it?
What about a few feet in front of you?
How far do you get to before you actually do see anything?
That depends on the size of the tube, how high it is above the ground and how far your eye is behind it.
This is all extremely simple to answer, it's basic geometry, just a few lines and angles. Stuff grade schoolers learn and understand.
I'm not surprised you are unable to grasp the concept of drawing lines and measuring them.
You can't answer it because you know what I'm saying, is correct.
You asked how far you can see without giving measurements for your setup.
If you don't ask a correct question you can't get an answer.
Try again with actual numbers, maybe even a diagram. If that's not beyond your abilities.
-
Sceptimatic, do you need a diagram of how the table on the beach experiment works? The table edge does not kill off the horizon, because you are comparing the table edge with the actual horizon seen to the side of the table. (Spoiler Alert - the actual horizon which will be lower than the table edge)
A skin formation of ice comes with ice temperature, sceptimatic, and ice is formed from water. Ice melts. Do you have a sample of this water from the Earth sky ice membrane, or are you rewriting our understanding of clouds being responsible for rain?
Cells have a central nucleus, sceptimatic. Your flat earth understanding of the sun has the sun doing circle work on a daily basis over a circular flat plane. Not exactly a central nucleus, is it?
Cells also have nutrients being fed them from outside. What are these nutrients with your earth cell model, where you seem to declare the sky membrane is impenetrable and nothing exists beyond it anyway? Without nutrients, all cells die, as any micro-biologist will tell you. So, why isn't the earth cell dead?
Sceptimatic, you seem to be happiest, forwarding this alternate reality idea, of earth being the cell of some universal sized living organism, while everybody else here is concerned with our physical reality. Afterall, that is what scientists get paid to research - our actual physical reality. That's why global warming is called "global" warming.
For you to be forwarding your speculation or conjecture, sceptimatic, leads me to think you're conjuring a reality for yourself to protect yourself from getting hurt. Your own little cocoon, by living inside a giant cell.
You've had your trust in people broken, and I'm very sorry to hear that, but no man is an island. You're going to have to learn to trust your fellow man again.
Like I said, you're on the right track with patterning, although humans always look for patterns also, which can be a trap.
Expand your understanding of what patterns are at play. If you had a better understanding of the energy processes behind your own body, you would have a better understanding of the energy processes of this planet.
The consciousness which is this planet is so aware, that not even a single blade of grass blowing in the wind, goes unnoticed.
-
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
On top of this.
You were shown converging perspective of railway tracks.
You were shown it flipped on its side to show perspective is in 2dimensions updown-leftright.
Take any art class and theybcan teach you about it.
So
Your claim people see in 1dimension and field of view is not a thing
And
That you would not see the sea line converge to the sky line is ludicrous and easy EASILY reproducable and observed.
Faded.
Sceppy is attempting to make a ppint but has purposefully misuing language in the past qe can never truly know what this guy is on about.
You are being disengenuous in giving him any credit to his NON POINT as it, in its general langauge is A NON POINT.
Unless sceppy means somehing else, whih is what im trying to flush out.
My meanings may not suit you but that's for you to grasp.
You've had more than enough goes and time, so why are you struggling?
By that very poor logic your flat earth would also be "unseen" by you and your tube
Because if you were 6ft off the ground, looking true level, the parallel earth/ sea below you, again by your logic, would be unseen.
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
Aaah!!
New info?!
See , Faded?
Rewording helps sceppy from paroting like a broken record and we finally gain some insight into this "special" mind of his.
So now we have his issue of what the horizon is.
Its where the sky-dome curves down to physically meet the water?
Please confirm
No.
It's where the sky reflected light hits off of the ocean/water and creates a shade difference back to your eyes. Lighter to darker.
-
Sceptimatic, do you need a diagram of how the table on the beach experiment works? The table edge does not kill off the horizon, because you are comparing the table edge with the actual horizon seen to the side of the table. (Spoiler Alert - the actual horizon which will be lower than the table edge)
Your table is not your horizon, so why use it?
A skin formation of ice comes with ice temperature, sceptimatic, and ice is formed from water. Ice melts. Do you have a sample of this water from the Earth sky ice membrane, or are you rewriting our understanding of clouds being responsible for rain?
Just remember that there is more than one make up of ice, depending on pressures.
Hydrogen, helium, nitrogen....etc.
Think on it.
Cells have a central nucleus, sceptimatic. Your flat earth understanding of the sun has the sun doing circle work on a daily basis over a circular flat plane. Not exactly a central nucleus, is it?
Earth will have a nucleus. The energy we see as the reflected sun.
Getting to it is a no go but living off of it, is what we're doing. In my opinion.
Cells also have nutrients being fed them from outside. What are these nutrients with your earth cell model, where you seem to declare the sky membrane is impenetrable and nothing exists beyond it anyway?
And so may we but like I said, I'm dealing with what's inside, for us, instead of going way farther down the rabbit hole.
Without nutrients, all cells die, as any micro-biologist will tell you. So, why isn't the earth cell dead?
It's likely dying. Decaying. It's just a case of, when does it become obsolete and replaced.
Sceptimatic, you seem to be happiest, forwarding this alternate reality idea, of earth being the cell of some universal sized living organism, while everybody else here is concerned with our physical reality.
And what is your physical reality?
Afterall, that is what scientists get paid to research - our actual physical reality. That's why global warming is called "global" warming.
And that is why you're told global warming is a thing. You have no clue about the reality of any of it.
For you to be forwarding your speculation or conjecture, sceptimatic, leads me to think you're conjuring a reality for yourself to protect yourself from getting hurt. Your own little cocoon, by living inside a giant cell.
Feel free to psychoanalyse me if that makes you feel better for your own mental state. I don't mind.
You've had your trust in people broken, and I'm very sorry to hear that, but no man is an island. You're going to have to learn to trust your fellow man again.
I think we've all had our trust in certain people, broken in all stages of our lives.
As for learning to trust. I can decide who to trust, as and when. I do not need to live on a must trust...I can happily live on a balance of acceptance without going full on trust to distrust, either side of that balance.
That way it allows me to evaluate without creating too much fuss.
Like I said, you're on the right track with patterning, although humans always look for patterns also, which can be a trap.
Expand your understanding of what patterns are at play. If you had a better understanding of the energy processes behind your own body, you would have a better understanding of the energy processes of this planet.
I don't accept it as a planet, so it's a pointless thought process and a waste of energy.
The consciousness which is this planet is so aware, that not even a single blade of grass blowing in the wind, goes unnoticed.
Like I said, the word, planet is not recognised by me.
-
Hummm
Sceptimatic
There is a particular time in which the horizon becomes most apparent that is at sunrise or sunset we will speak of sunset, as the sun sets it disappears Beyond the horizon, this line where things disappears is the horizon you may see clouds that are still illuminated above the horizon, with a clear night you will also see the stars disappear on the same line. Even the moon disappears Beyond this line.
Is this observation wrong?
What is your explanation of this observation?
Or can you describe a sunset?
-
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
It's where the sky reflected light hits off of the ocean/water and creates a shade difference back to your eyes. Lighter to darker.
The dome is what we re actually seeing?
-
Hummm
Sceptimatic
There is a particular time in which the horizon becomes most apparent that is at sunrise or sunset we will speak of sunset, as the sun sets it disappears Beyond the horizon, this line where things disappears is the horizon you may see clouds that are still illuminated above the horizon, with a clear night you will also see the stars disappear on the same line. Even the moon disappears Beyond this line.
Is this observation wrong?
What is your explanation of this observation?
Or can you describe a sunset?
You will always see light above your horizon. Always. It's the convergence of light to dark back to your eyes.
You never see anything go below your horizon, you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye. Only on and above it.
You have a theoretical line.
-
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
It's where the sky reflected light hits off of the ocean/water and creates a shade difference back to your eyes. Lighter to darker.
The dome is what we re actually seeing?
No.
-
Hummm
Sceptimatic
There is a particular time in which the horizon becomes most apparent that is at sunrise or sunset we will speak of sunset, as the sun sets it disappears Beyond the horizon, this line where things disappears is the horizon you may see clouds that are still illuminated above the horizon, with a clear night you will also see the stars disappear on the same line. Even the moon disappears Beyond this line.
Is this observation wrong?
What is your explanation of this observation?
Or can you describe a sunset?
You will always see light above your horizon. Always. It's the convergence of light to dark back to your eyes.
You never see anything go below your horizon, you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye. Only on and above it.
You have a theoretical line.
What do you mean by "you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye"? What causes it to fade? It cannot reflect back to my eye because I can't see the sun anymore. Are you saying there's some property about the eyes themselves that is preventing something or perhaps causing the fade? If so, what is that?
-
You never see anything go below your horizon
But we do, so often, with the bottom of objects quite clearly below the horizon.
There is no doubt about this to any sane person.
If it was simply the light fading, you would have a region of darkness, with part of the object obscured by this darkness, but the bottom still on or above the horizon.
This has all been explained to you before, so why do you choose to blatantly reject the truth and instead continue to lie?
And again, you still ignore the ignore the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are completely wrong. Here it is again, can you find anything wrong with it yet or will you finally be honest enough to admit you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
And again, here is a diagram that clearly shows you are wrong:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
Again, if you think it is wrong, then you draw your own to show what it should look like.
If you don't like the cone FOV and instead want a physically impossible FOV of 0, then here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/8y9be6y.png)
Explain how you see the horizon or any ground with this FOV of 0.
And again, if you think it is wrong, then you draw your own to show what it should look like.
-
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
It's where the sky reflected light hits off of the ocean/water and creates a shade difference back to your eyes. Lighter to darker.
The dome is what we re actually seeing?
Ok im lost again
Wtf are you talking about.
Mirrors are very simple.
Light hits them, they reflect at an angle.
Draw a picture.
-
Hummm
Sceptimatic
There is a particular time in which the horizon becomes most apparent that is at sunrise or sunset we will speak of sunset, as the sun sets it disappears Beyond the horizon, this line where things disappears is the horizon you may see clouds that are still illuminated above the horizon, with a clear night you will also see the stars disappear on the same line. Even the moon disappears Beyond this line.
Is this observation wrong?
What is your explanation of this observation?
Or can you describe a sunset?
You will always see light above your horizon. Always. It's the convergence of light to dark back to your eyes.
You never see anything go below your horizon, you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye. Only on and above it.
You have a theoretical line.
What do you mean by "you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye"? What causes it to fade? It cannot reflect back to my eye because I can't see the sun anymore. Are you saying there's some property about the eyes themselves that is preventing something or perhaps causing the fade? If so, what is that?
The sky curves down. It's concave.
The sea is flat....maybe wavy, ect but essentially, flat.
The light comes from reflection off of the dome and hits the water.
The shade between those is your horizon line. Lighter to darker.
-
You never see anything go below your horizon
But we do, so often, with the bottom of objects quite clearly below the horizon.
There is no doubt about this to any sane person.
No. They get lost in the shade against the upper light.
They do not literally sink under or behind any horizon.
You may lose some part of a boat in a swell, just as you can see a air floating boat with the right temperature, yet this is not sitting above the horizon, either..... but we are not dealing with waves and swells and air floating boats.
Start understanding your horizon line as being theoretical and you may get to understand that you do not live on a globe and then you'll realise why ships and such do not sail down a curve.
-
If everything was flat from floor to ceiling, I'd totally agree with you. But it's not.
The sky curves concavely against a level sea and the level sea reflects light from it to converge those reflected shades of olight back to your eyes...giving you your theoretical horizon line.
It's where the sky reflected light hits off of the ocean/water and creates a shade difference back to your eyes. Lighter to darker.
The dome is what we re actually seeing?
Ok im lost again
Wtf are you talking about.
Mirrors are very simple.
Light hits them, they reflect at an angle.
Draw a picture.
Denser layers below than above.
-
What!?
Are you now saying that we can see the light reflection from the edge of the dome?
And that this light is qhat causes a horizon?
-
Hummm
Sceptimatic
There is a particular time in which the horizon becomes most apparent that is at sunrise or sunset we will speak of sunset, as the sun sets it disappears Beyond the horizon, this line where things disappears is the horizon you may see clouds that are still illuminated above the horizon, with a clear night you will also see the stars disappear on the same line. Even the moon disappears Beyond this line.
Is this observation wrong?
What is your explanation of this observation?
Or can you describe a sunset?
You will always see light above your horizon. Always. It's the convergence of light to dark back to your eyes.
You never see anything go below your horizon, you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye. Only on and above it.
You have a theoretical line.
At night I do not see light from the sun, I can see stars I can see the moon and then thy go to the western Horizon and disappear.
The sun will reappear on the eastern horizon. How does the sun get from the western horizon, to the eastern horizon?
-
No. They get lost in the shade against the upper light.
No, they don't.
We clearly observe the top of the object and can clearly observe it all the way down to the horizon, at which point there is an abrupt change and we clearly see the ground/sea in front of the building.
If we place a scaled image of the building on it we can clearly see that the bottom of the building would be well below the horizon.
Once more, this is not a case of it just not being seen.
The Earth is getting in the way.
They do not literally sink under or behind any horizon.
No, they do not literally sink under the horizon. They are merely further along the curve of Earth, with the bottom obscured by that curve.
Just like shown in this image, which you are yet to point out any problem with:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
The bottom of the black object is obscured by the curve, just like you would expect on a RE.
Once more, this matches reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/SDqnSgs.gif)
The bottom is clearly observed to be BELOW the horizon.
But on a FE where it is merely light not reaching you, you would expect something more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
Notice how there is a region of darkness from where the light won't reach you? But if you put a scaled version of the object over the top, you see that the base is at the horizon (which would be effectively eye-level to within a pixel).
If it was lost in the shades, it would be a blur, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/OJ2dPxz.gif)
I know that this is quite poorly done, but hopefully it gets the point across, it would also depend on exactly how the gradient proceeds with your magic reflective sky, but the point is there.
There would not be a sharp horizon, it would be a blur.
The sea would blur into the sky, so even though you might pick a line as a horizon, as you can see sea there, the buildings blur into the region below that horizon.
Neither of these options for a FE match what is observed in reality.
The final option is just a lower resolution version of a more resolved image and doesn't match what is observed either.
The only model which actually explains what is observed in reality is the RE model.
You have no explanation for not only why the bottom is missing, but why the top is lower such that overlaying a scaled version of the building results in the base being lower than the horizon.
Start understanding your horizon line as being theoretical and you may get to understand that you do not live on a globe
You mean start completely discarding reality and throwing all logic, reason and evidence out the window; then I might start to foolishly believe that Earth is not a globe?
No thanks.
I think I will stick to logic and reason and using that to analyse the evidence to reach the most likely conclusion, and so far that all indicates Earth is round, and all I have to go against that are people like you, who outright lie about what is expected on the RE and who cannot address simple objections raised.
You can't even bring yourself to admit that the RE does have a horizon.
You cannot explain why the ground can be seen through a level scope on a FE, but it magically can't on a RE, regardless of the radius of that RE and the observer height, even though that would include a FE (a RE with an effectively infinite radius).
Again, here is a diagram for both, with a FOV of 0:
(https://i.imgur.com/8y9be6y.png)
Why does that magically work on a FE but not a RE?
You repeatedly contradict yourself and all you can do to attack the RE and support the FE is repeat the same pathetic lies again and again while ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
And once more, the argument that shows beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon, and that when close to it it will be observed to be imperceptibly different from eye level:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Have you thought of any rational objection to this argument yet? Or will you continue to pretend it doesn't exist so you can go on spouting the same refuted lies as if they are justified?
-
Sceptimatic, your belief is eccentric.
If you gathered together all the known facts about the earth and put them together as a puzzle, the end result is they all fit neatly together, with the big picture earth is a globe. Everything fits.
Something for you to ponder:
1. Can you think of any ways your chosen belief system about the world could be harmful to either yourself, or others?
-
What!?
Are you now saying that we can see the light reflection from the edge of the dome?
And that this light is qhat causes a horizon?
Nope.
You can try and put as many words into my mouth as you want. You can try and twist stuff as much as you want. You can also take one step forward and two back, whenever you want....which you do with regularity.
Let me know when you're serious about understanding.
-
Hummm
Sceptimatic
There is a particular time in which the horizon becomes most apparent that is at sunrise or sunset we will speak of sunset, as the sun sets it disappears Beyond the horizon, this line where things disappears is the horizon you may see clouds that are still illuminated above the horizon, with a clear night you will also see the stars disappear on the same line. Even the moon disappears Beyond this line.
Is this observation wrong?
What is your explanation of this observation?
Or can you describe a sunset?
You will always see light above your horizon. Always. It's the convergence of light to dark back to your eyes.
You never see anything go below your horizon, you see the light fade into it because it cannot reflect back to your eye. Only on and above it.
You have a theoretical line.
At night I do not see light from the sun, I can see stars I can see the moon and then thy go to the western Horizon and disappear.
The sun will reappear on the eastern horizon. How does the sun get from the western horizon, to the eastern horizon?
It moves around.
-
No. They get lost in the shade against the upper light.
No, they don't.
We clearly observe the top of the object and can clearly observe it all the way down to the horizon, at which point there is an abrupt change and we clearly see the ground/sea in front of the building.
If we place a scaled image of the building on it we can clearly see that the bottom of the building would be well below the horizon.
If that were really the case then those same buildings would be tipped backover from your sight. This is not observed.Ohhh...and your images are far too big and far too many. There's no need to use so many on one post.
You're only making life harder for yourself.
-
Sceptimatic, your belief is eccentric.
If you gathered together all the known facts about the earth and put them together as a puzzle, the end result is they all fit neatly together, with the big picture earth is a globe. Everything fits.
Everything does not fit...at all. You believe it fits because you accept what you've been told and shown. And that's fair enough. I think you're naive but then again you think I'm eccentric..and you're entitled to think that...and whatever else you feel the need to.
Something for you to ponder:
1. Can you think of any ways your chosen belief system about the world could be harmful to either yourself, or others?
Nope.
All I can think of...assuming you're being truthful in your mockery....is....people will think I'm nuts and a joke.
If giggling is bad for the health, then maybe that.
Indoctrinated beliefs and coaxed ridicule towards alternate thinkers is more damaging to those who do it, I think.
-
No. They get lost in the shade against the upper light.
No, they don't.
We clearly observe the top of the object and can clearly observe it all the way down to the horizon, at which point there is an abrupt change and we clearly see the ground/sea in front of the building.
If we place a scaled image of the building on it we can clearly see that the bottom of the building would be well below the horizon.
If that were really the case then those same buildings would be tipped backover from your sight. This is not observed.
Really? Isn't it?
So you have measured just how far back these buildings tilt?
Or is this just another example of your pathetic "the horizon is always at eye level"?
Even at 100 km, the tilt that a building would experience would be a mere 0.9 degrees.
You are not going to be able to easily measure that.
Especially as it tilting away from you, the hardest direction to measure.
Just how are you planning on measuring the tilt of the building?
and your images are far too big and far too many.
And of course, you look for whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss them.
Grow up.
Either deal with the issues raised, or admit your claims are pure BS and there is nothing wrong with the RE model.
The images from reality clearly show the object has appeared to move below the horizon, such that the base of the object is significantly below. You have no explanation at all for how this occurs in your FE, yet it is exactly what is expected on a RE.
And again, you still haven't been able to find a single fault with this argument which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Care to try addressing it yet?
Everything does not fit...at all.
Then why are you completley incapable of providing a single example of something that doesn't fit for the globe and instead you need to repeatedly lie about what is expected from the globe and what is observed in reality to pretend it doesn't fit?
You still can't even bring yourself to admit the RE would have a horizon.
Indoctrinated beliefs and coaxed ridicule towards alternate thinkers is more damaging to those who do it, I think.
So what you are doing.
-
So you have measured just how far back these buildings tilt?
They don't tilt, unless badly built.
They don't tilt because they are not on a globe.
-
So you have measured just how far back these buildings tilt?
They don't tilt, unless badly built.
They don't tilt because they are not on a globe.
And there you go with more circular BS.
So thanks for admitting you haven't measured the tilt of distant buildings and thus your claim that it isn't observed is false.
The buildings observed are entirely consistent with a RE.
Once more, the fact that the bottom is obscured, as if it has sunk below the horizon, shows quite conclusively that Earth is round.
Once more, that is exactly what is expected on a RE, and is nothing like what is expected for a FE.
You have no explanation at all for why the building appears lower.
And yet again, you ignore the argument that proves beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Going to admit you are wrong yet?
Or do the impossible and show a problem?
-
So thanks for admitting you haven't measured the tilt of distant buildings
There is no tilt, so no measure.
Are you saying you've measured some tilting?
-
So thanks for admitting you haven't measured the tilt of distant buildings
There is no tilt, so no measure.
No, there is no measure so you don't think there is a tilt.
Once more you have no basis for your objection.
You are using entirely circular reasoning.
You believe Earth is flat, so you believe there is no tilt, so you believe Earth is flat.
The problem is that without measuring it your claim is false.
Your objection to the RE is baseless and without merit.
But you just bring it up to avoid the issue which clearly shows you are wrong.
Once more, the bottom of the buildings are not simply not visible, instead it appears that the entire building has sunk below the horizon, such that the base of the building appears to be significantly below the horizon. This is completely inexplicable on a FE, but matches exactly what you would expect for a RE.
And once more you have ignored the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
I will continue to post it until you either accept that you are wrong, and admit that the RE DOES have a horizon, and that it can easily be seen in a level scope when close to the surface; or you actually rationally engage with it and try to point out something wrong with it.
-
I will continue to post it until you either accept that you are wrong, and admit that the RE my globe DOES have a horizon.
Carry on posting as much as you want but you will need many many many many lifetimes before you get me to agree to that.
By all means use the one you have to carry on trying and see where you go from there.
-
I will continue to post it until you either accept that you are wrong, and admit that the RE my globe DOES have a horizon.
Carry on posting as much as you want but you will need many many many many lifetimes before you get me to agree to that.
By all means use the one you have to carry on trying and see where you go from there.
And that just shows that you don't care about the truth at all, that you are not here for any form of rational discussion and instead are just here to preach or troll.
The fact that you cannot accept that a round object would have an edge shows just how irrational your position is.
If you honestly thought the RE wouldn't have a horizon you would be able to object to one of these points (specifically from 1 to 6, as that is for establishing the existence of the horizon).
Likewise you would explain what the transition is between ground from looking down and sky from looking up.
But you don't, instead you just repeat the same lie.
Once more:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Have you figured out anything wrong with it?
If not, are you going to be honest for once and admit the RE does have a horizon?
-
And that just shows that you don't care about the truth at all, that you are not here for any form of rational discussion and instead are just here to preach or troll.
I think that applies to you, not me.
The fact that you cannot accept that a round object would have an edge shows just how irrational your position is.
The fact that you cannot accept your global Earth could not have any horizon if you know it curves down and away from your level sight, means you're holding onto something that you must know to be dodgy.
I think you know this spinning globe, is nonsense....but to say so would place you in the so called nutters camp and you are scared of that...right?
-
And that just shows that you don't care about the truth at all, that you are not here for any form of rational discussion and instead are just here to preach or troll.
I think that applies to you, not me.
And like many things, you think wrong.
I'm not the one rejecting the irrefutable fact that round objects have edges, and that if you look at a round object, you will see a boundary, where on one side of the boundary you see the round object and on the other you see the surroundings, i.e. a horizon.
That would be you.
I'm not the one continually ignoring logical arguments which show I am wrong.
That would be you.
So no, it is certainly you that has no interest in the truth.
The fact that you cannot accept your global Earth could not have any horizon if you know it curves down
The fact that it curves down is what causes the horizon.
If it was flat and infinite, it wouldn't have a horizon.
This has been shown to you repeatedly.
Again, the argument you continue to ignore shows beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
And this image, which you are yet to point out a single issue with, also shows beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon:
(https://i.imgur.com/PvEbbdP.png)
The purple line, the line to the horizon, is formed BECAUSE EARTH CURVES!
If Earth was flat, there would be no horizon, except its edge, as otherwise you could always see further along the surface.
And once more, forget about your level view. First establish if the round Earth has a horizon or not, and then, only after you accept that it exists can we move on to if it would be visible through a level view.
I think you know this spinning globe, is nonsense
And you are wrong again.
I know the spinning globe is backed up by mountains of evidence and actually works to explain reality.
I also know that you are yet to point out a single actual issue with it and instead need to continually appeal to pathetic strawmen of the globe, most of which applies equally to a flat Earth.
-
What!?
Are you now saying that we can see the light reflection from the edge of the dome?
And that this light is qhat causes a horizon?
Nope.
You can try and put as many words into my mouth as you want. You can try and twist stuff as much as you want. You can also take one step forward and two back, whenever you want....which you do with regularity.
Let me know when you're serious about understanding.
I have to put words into your mouth because you are NOT clear!
Its the only way to figure out what youre trying to say.
You refuse to draw a picture.
You refuse to use proper english.
-
your global Earth could not have any horizon ...
That’s right!!! If it is curved you obviously can’t see any ~edge~ on it. That’s ridiculous.
I mean look at this ball here!! It’s round and I can’t see any ...
Oh.
-
Sceptimatic, your belief is eccentric.
If you gathered together all the known facts about the earth and put them together as a puzzle, the end result is they all fit neatly together, with the big picture earth is a globe. Everything fits.
Everything does not fit...at all. You believe it fits because you accept what you've been told and shown. And that's fair enough. I think you're naive but then again you think I'm eccentric..and you're entitled to think that...and whatever else you feel the need to.
Something for you to ponder:
1. Can you think of any ways your chosen belief system about the world could be harmful to either yourself, or others?
Nope.
All I can think of...assuming you're being truthful in your mockery....is....people will think I'm nuts and a joke.
If giggling is bad for the health, then maybe that.
Indoctrinated beliefs and coaxed ridicule towards alternate thinkers is more damaging to those who do it, I think.
Sceptimatic, I accept what I've been told about the Earth, because I trust expertise, I apply common sense, and I apply practicality. Likewise, people trust me in my area of expertise. But, don't mistake that trust for gullibility. The penny has dropped, as to what I do for a living, yes?
The biggest danger of adhering to your belief, sceptimatic, aside from a healthy dose of ridicule, is it is evidence of a massive mistrust issue and I see you are into lesser conspiracy theories.
If you don't trust experts on the shape of the world, how are you going to trust a medical expert who one day tells you something you don't want to hear? What's going to happen if the media reports an imminent danger to you like a meteor shower or danger from space like space debris falling to Earth? You may not even adhere or acknowledge authority telling you to evacuate your house due to fires, or another extreme weather event.
These are relevant concerns. It's troubling you do not see these things, and that is where the physical danger is.
On a psychological danger, your extreme beliefs, if you are sincere, could lead you to a psychotic break.
It would seem the difference between you and the "globalists" in this debate, is you seem to have an extremely low science intelligence, coupled with an extremely high conspiracy mentality with the personality trait of delusion.
Your analytic thinking, quantitative reasoning, and knowledge of scientific facts, barely has a heartbeat.
-
Sceptimatic, I accept what I've been told about the Earth, because I trust expertise, I apply common sense, and I apply practicality.
Applying common sense can be construed in another way. Common, as in masses who follow the same pattern. Sense is what has been added into that mass pattern adherence.
Basically you can read a story among the masses who read the same story and be quizzed on that story, whether it's truth or fiction.
You answer questions related to it and you can relay those to anyone who wishes to know about this story, who may not have took up the opportunity of studying it. If the story is relayed to you as fact when it may be fiction, you reel that off as fact to the people who are unfamiliar with it.
That's also common indoctrination and common acceptance of what is believed to be expert authority.
The issue is, expert authority of what?....Truth or fiction...or even misinfo.
Which is basically what you people are dealing with with your global indoctrination and suchlike.
And then there is the natural common sense we are all geared to in the physical reality, which can be " don't touch the flame"....."don't go too close to the edge"......." don't hold the knife by the blade"....etc....etc....etc. Basic common sense borne from those who had to make the mistakes for it to become common knowledge.
Likewise, people trust me in my area of expertise. But, don't mistake that trust for gullibility.
Life is built on lots of trust with people.
Trusting a person to pay in your lottery money does not mean that they are doing it every time. But to you, you trust they are. Maybe some do. Maybe most do.....but....
I could trust you to hold me on a rope, dangling from a height. My life is in your hands....or vice versa. If I allow you to do it then naturally I trust you....but...am I just trusting you in yourself or am I trusting that you're law abiding and you know the consequences of letting me fall?
There's lots of ways that trust and acceptance can mesh but never always be the same factual outcome.
The penny has dropped, as to what I do for a living, yes?
A pig farmer or a pig vet? You could be anything on a forum?
The biggest danger of adhering to your belief, sceptimatic, aside from a healthy dose of ridicule, is it is evidence of a massive mistrust issue and I see you are into lesser conspiracy theories.
If you don't trust experts on the shape of the world, how are you going to trust a medical expert who one day tells you something you don't want to hear?
If I don't trust a person who drives over 35mph in a 30 zone, do I trust the one who drives 20 in a 30 zone?
Which fishermen do I trust?
The one who tells me he caught a 30lb cod or the one who tells me he caught a 20lb cod...or the one that tells me he caught 20 6lb cod ?
Maybe they're all telling the truth.....but maybe only one is... or two is.
How do I find out?
Medical experts have been wrong on many many occasions....but they've been right on many many more, I would suspect.
Soooo, what do I do if told about something?
I listen to what's said and and I accept it or don't.
If I want to live and I'm told I need this op, I'll get it. I have to trust and I have to accept that there are mistakes made and complications happen.
Your issue is, you go into a mode of thinking I simply deny everything because I question certain stuff. That's your issue and it says more about your state of mind than it does, mine....in my opinion.
What's going to happen if the media reports an imminent danger to you like a meteor shower or danger from space like space debris falling to Earth?
I'll go about business unless I'm forcefully evacuated.
You may not even adhere or acknowledge authority telling you to evacuate your house due to fires, or another extreme weather event.
These are relevant concerns. It's troubling you do not see these things, and that is where the physical danger is.
I would evacuate if told to. Just because I do not believe a lot of stuff, I do accept a lot of stuff...and I'll evaluate whatever is required.
Don't keep getting sidetracked by thinking I just dismiss everything because I question stuff.
On a psychological danger, your extreme beliefs, if you are sincere, could lead you to a psychotic break.
I'm closer to 60 and I'm as good as can be expected. What you think of my psychological makeup says more about you than me, to be fair.
I actually think you have the issues by trying to psychologically examine me over an internet forum.
It would seem the difference between you and the "globalists" in this debate, is you seem to have an extremely low science intelligence, coupled with an extremely high conspiracy mentality with the personality trait of delusion.
Maybe you need to understand what science is and understand what intelligence actually is.
I'll try and help you.
Science is Earth. Scientists are those people/animals/bacteria that use it and try to understand it to survive and gain insight...depending on what we can decipher.
This makes everyone that has a thinking mind and an able body, explore it. This means that every living thing is a scientist in their own field of need or exploration to life betterment....etc.
If you are a scientist that knows everything about everything and you are certain of the facts, you can certainly be brash enough and expert enough to tell me that my scientific intelligence is below yours or other people you know for a fact are similar to you.
Is this the case?
If not then your words means nothing other than instigating a reply like I'm giving you, telling you that.
Your internet smugness is laughable.
Your analytic thinking, quantitative reasoning, and knowledge of scientific facts, barely has a heartbeat.
It can stay frozen to you. You are absolutely irrelevant to my thinking.
You obviously can take part and you are welcome to keep putting up stuff like this. I will answer if I see fit to.
You are more than welcome to any thoughts you have about me but don't get yourself frustrated when you can't gain any traction with your attempts to find ways to belittle and bully, because, ultimately you are the loser and time waster of your own efforts.
People like you make me more resilient, because I sense the weakness in your posts when you have little to say.
And this is what we get.
A bit sad really....but....you plug on.
-
The issue is, expert authority of what?....Truth or fiction...or even misinfo.
Which is basically what you people are dealing with with your global indoctrination and suchlike.
You mean global reality, opposed by people like you spreading fiction and misinformation.
And then there is the natural common sense we are all geared to in the physical reality
Which shows that Earth is round.
you go into a mode of thinking I simply deny everything because I question certain stuff.
The problem is that you don't question it. You just outright reject it.
What's going to happen if the media reports an imminent danger to you like a meteor shower or danger from space like space debris falling to Earth?
I'll go about business unless I'm forcefully evacuated.
So in direct contrast to a medical situation, you choose death.
I'll try and help you.
Perhaps you should make sure you know before trying to help others.
Science is Earth.
No it isn't.
Earth is only part of science. The universe includes a lot more than just Earth.
because I sense the weakness in your posts when you have little to say.
You mean like you do so often?
Where you are unable to engage in any form of rational discussion and instead just cling to insults and baseless assertions?
Where you need to look for any excuse to dismiss a simple diagram or argument rather than actually addressing the issues raised by it?
Like the diagram I provided above which shows what one would expect on a RE, with the horizon being produced by the downwards curve and objects more distant than the horizon having their base obscured, just like what occurs in reality?
And the diagrams showing options of what one might expect on a FE, which don't match reality, with you unable to defend your claim of a RE not having a horizon at all, and likewise being unable to explain why objects appear lower, rather than just having their base invisible.
And of course, the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong, which you just continue to ignore:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Once more, just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
-
I would evacuate if told to. Just because I do not believe a lot of stuff, I do accept a lot of stuff...and I'll evaluate whatever is required.
Don't keep getting sidetracked by thinking I just dismiss everything because I question stuff.
Evaluate the videos then
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
You havent explained shtiall regarding this.
In the end it ended up being some incoherent babble of reflections and shading.
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
And more pathetic deflection.
Once more, until you admit the horizon actually exists on the RE, there is no point in discussing a level sight.
Either it doesn't exist at all, and thus a discsussion of level sight is mute, or it does exist and then we can start discussing where it is located (visually) and thus if it would be visible through a level scope.
Once more, that is summarised in this argument you are yet to point out any issue with:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Points 1 and 2 are basic facts which you have already accepted.
3-6 use those facts to establish that the RE has a horizon
7-9 then show it can easily be visible through a level scope.
Once more, you are only at point 1 and 2, you have not gotten to the point of accepting the RE does have a horizon, so any discussion of a level sight is pointless.
The only exception would be the plenty of examples provided which clearly show the horizon is below level and thus Earth isn't flat.
Once more, just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
This is not a difficult concept, and gets right to the heart of your outright lie that the RE wouldn't have a horizon.
Or, if you are willing to accept that the RE does have a horizon and amend your claim to just be that this horizon wouldn't be visible through a level scope, do that and admit the RE does have a horizon.
-
I would evacuate if told to. Just because I do not believe a lot of stuff, I do accept a lot of stuff...and I'll evaluate whatever is required.
Don't keep getting sidetracked by thinking I just dismiss everything because I question stuff.
Evaluate the videos then
Pick a point at a time and we'll go through it. Is it because you're not sure what you're looking at?
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
You havent explained shtiall regarding this.
In the end it ended up being some incoherent babble of reflections and shading.
Because that's what it is. This is what creates the theoretical horizon line and not seeing a so called point at a so called curve and what not, like you people seem to go with.
-
And more pathetic deflection.
There's no deflection on my part.
-
And more pathetic deflection.
There's no deflection on my part.
Yes there is.
I asked you a simple direct question, and how did you respond, by bringing up "level", which had nothing at all to do with the question and nothing at all to do with the fact that the RE DOES have a horizon.
That is deflection.
Yet again, you ignore the massive issues with your delusional claims and just look for whatever pathetic cop out you can find and latch onto it.
Grow up.
Deal with the issues raised or admit that you are wrong.
Once more, until you admit the horizon actually exists on the RE, there is no point in discussing a level sight.
Either it doesn't exist at all, and thus a discsussion of level sight is mute, or it does exist and then we can start discussing where it is located (visually) and thus if it would be visible through a level scope.
Once more, that is summarised in this argument you are yet to point out any issue with:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Points 1 and 2 are basic facts which you have already accepted.
3-6 use those facts to establish that the RE has a horizon
7-9 then show it can easily be visible through a level scope.
Once more, you are only at point 1 and 2, you have not gotten to the point of accepting the RE does have a horizon, so any discussion of a level sight is pointless.
The only exception would be the plenty of examples provided which clearly show the horizon is below level and thus Earth isn't flat.
Once more, just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
This is not a difficult concept, and gets right to the heart of your outright lie that the RE wouldn't have a horizon.
Or, if you are willing to accept that the RE does have a horizon and amend your claim to just be that this horizon wouldn't be visible through a level scope, do that and admit the RE does have a horizon.
Modify message
-
Or, if you are willing to accept that the RE my global Earth does have a horizon and amend your claim to just be that this horizon wouldn't be visible through a level scope, do that and admit the RE my global Earth does have a horizon.
It would never have any horizon.
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
You havent explained shtiall regarding this.
In the end it ended up being some incoherent babble of reflections and shading.
Because that's what it is. This is what creates the theoretical horizon line and not seeing a so called point at a so called curve and what not, like you people seem to go with.
What?
A line is not a point.
And further
What i was extending to was that the dome curving down to cause a reflection while WHILE at the same time the limited vision due to "hazing' cant be possible.
This is what i was aiming towards but you failed to even get past level1 of your theory.
Draw a picture.
And maybe we can move forward instead of "backwards"
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
That means your comment regarding a level scope was nothing more than a pathetic deflection away from the issue.
So once more, we go over the first few points of the argument:
Just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
Can you draw a diagram of visually what you would see through these 180 degrees?
Make sure you have the ground at the bottom and the sky at the top, and clearly show how it visually transitions between them.
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
You havent explained shtiall regarding this.
In the end it ended up being some incoherent babble of reflections and shading.
Because that's what it is. This is what creates the theoretical horizon line and not seeing a so called point at a so called curve and what not, like you people seem to go with.
What?
A line is not a point.
And further
What i was extending to was that the dome curving down to cause a reflection while WHILE at the same time the limited vision due to "hazing' cant be possible.
This is what i was aiming towards but you failed to even get past level1 of your theory.
Draw a picture.
And maybe we can move forward instead of "backwards"
It's impossible to move forward with you.
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
No horizon on your globe in any way.
Your issue is in seeing one because you believe you are on a globe, so naturally you will see your horizon, because you've been severely indoctrinated into that mindset.
That or you know it's not a globe and are arguing for one.
It doesn't really matter, to be fair, as I don't take you seriously.
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
You havent explained shtiall regarding this.
In the end it ended up being some incoherent babble of reflections and shading.
Because that's what it is. This is what creates the theoretical horizon line and not seeing a so called point at a so called curve and what not, like you people seem to go with.
What?
A line is not a point.
And further
What i was extending to was that the dome curving down to cause a reflection while WHILE at the same time the limited vision due to "hazing' cant be possible.
This is what i was aiming towards but you failed to even get past level1 of your theory.
Draw a picture.
And maybe we can move forward instead of "backwards"
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Because we force you to answer simple questions?
Aaaw.
1.Whats wrong with the video?
2.Draw a diagram of what you mean.
So tough.
-
Sceptimatic, I forewarned you I was on nightshift didn't I, and not to take things personally? I'm fatigued and delirious.
I'm not sorry I've offended you, as we agreed to being honest and you gave me a green light to psychoanalyze you.
I've followed your posts, and your casual dismissal of the easiest to perform visual tests of the horizon, is one proof of many, of how low your scientific intelligence is. I'm not being cruel at all - you mistrust science and science in your life holds no value.
I'm stating a fact which is also a research finding conducted on flat earthers. Your conspiracy mentality is high, as indicated by the number of conspiracies you subscribe to - 9/11 was an inside job, moon landing was hoaxed, bigfoot is real, etc.
Please dont tell me you became a flat earther because you tried to prove to yourself earth is a globe and failed. That is either unlucky or incompetence. So far in this thread you have failed to prove the earth is flat. That isn't incompetence - that's just plain impossible to prove.
-
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Only because you don't want to move forward as that would require admitting you are wrong.
We are dealing with a level scope.
No, we aren't, not until you agree that the RE DOES have a horizon.
Until you do, we are just dealing with looking at Earth.
I know why you don't want to deal with this, because if you do admit the RE does have a horizon, the next question becomes where is it?
And then if you honestly answer that you would easily see that it is visible in a level scope.
Once more, we are effectivelt slowly progressing through this argument:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
You have accepted 1 and 2, but made no more progress.
The level scope is all the way down at 9.
The only way for you to get to a level scope is to progress through the argument.
You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said
The fact you cannot refute the argument provided at all, and cannot even answer extremely basic questions shows you lose the argument, not me.
You are just using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you can't.
In order to make it so I would lose the argument you would actually need to answer the questions or change your claim.
i.e. tell us how the ground visually transitions into the sky, or admit the RE does have a horizon and then say that while it does have a horizon it would be impossible to view through a level scope.
Until you do either of those, (and manage to refute my argument and diagrams) you have lost the argument, if you could even call it an argument, as an argument requires you to actually engage in discussion and deal with the points raised rather than just repeating the same refuted lies and ignoring or dismissing the arguments.
so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
No, I correctly use the FOV of the scope, along with the height of the observer to show that you can easily see the horizon through a level scope.
Meanwhile, you just keep repeating the same lie.
Once more, if the RE doesn't have a horizon at all, why do you need to continually appeal to a level scope?
If it didn't have a horizon at all, you could just completely discard the level scope and just discuss the horizon in general.
But you can't.
Your issue is in seeing one because you believe you are on a globe
No, my issue is that all roughly spherical objects have edges, and if you were to look towards it you would see a boundary, on one side of this boundary you see the object and on the other you see the surroundings.
That boundary is the horizon.
Yet you wish to claim that pure magic prevents this horizon from existing on a RE, even though all the logic and evidence is against you,
Now stop with the pathetic deflection, stop with appealing to a level scope when you claim it doesn't matter.
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Once more, just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
Come on JJA, theres no need to insult sceptimatic by inferring his belly is so big, he can't see the edge of his balls. That's a hit below the belt.
Sceptimatic, what are other debates you like to engage in? I think you're a good debater and would like to see some of your other work.
-
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Try and understand what level sight is.
A clue: It does not mean lifting your head up.
Understand what horizontally level is and we can deal with hat you're trying to argue.
You havent explained shtiall regarding this.
In the end it ended up being some incoherent babble of reflections and shading.
Because that's what it is. This is what creates the theoretical horizon line and not seeing a so called point at a so called curve and what not, like you people seem to go with.
What?
A line is not a point.
And further
What i was extending to was that the dome curving down to cause a reflection while WHILE at the same time the limited vision due to "hazing' cant be possible.
This is what i was aiming towards but you failed to even get past level1 of your theory.
Draw a picture.
And maybe we can move forward instead of "backwards"
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Because we force you to answer simple questions?
Aaaw.
1.Whats wrong with the video?
2.Draw a diagram of what you mean.
So tough.
Show me what you think each point of the video is portraying. How simple can that be?
-
Sceptimatic, I forewarned you I was on nightshift didn't I, and not to take things personally? I'm fatigued and delirious.
I'm not sorry I've offended you, as we agreed to being honest and you gave me a green light to psychoanalyze you.
I've followed your posts, and your casual dismissal of the easiest to perform visual tests of the horizon, is one proof of many, of how low your scientific intelligence is. I'm not being cruel at all - you mistrust science and science in your life holds no value.
I'm stating a fact which is also a research finding conducted on flat earthers. Your conspiracy mentality is high, as indicated by the number of conspiracies you subscribe to - 9/11 was an inside job, moon landing was hoaxed, bigfoot is real, etc.
Please dont tell me you became a flat earther because you tried to prove to yourself earth is a globe and failed. That is either unlucky or incompetence. So far in this thread you have failed to prove the earth is flat. That isn't incompetence - that's just plain impossible to prove.
I'll wait till you've calmed down.
-
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Only because you don't want to move forward as that would require admitting you are wrong.
Admitting I'm wrong, on what?
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You need to think about that.
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
Come on JJA, theres no need to insult sceptimatic by inferring his belly is so big, he can't see the edge of his balls. That's a hit below the belt.
Sceptimatic, what are other debates you like to engage in? I think you're a good debater and would like to see some of your other work.
Open another topic if you want to debate other stuff.
-
Admitting I'm wrong, on what?
The fact that the RE does have a horizon, and then once you finally move past that, the fact that this is easily viewed through a level scope.
The fact that you continue to deflect like this and continue to ignore these simple questions and logical arguments clearly demonstrates that you are wrong and you know it.
Again, you aren't simply claiming that the horizon on a RE isn't visible through a level scope.
You are claiming the RE doesn't have a horizon at all.
That means any appeal to a level scope is just a distraction from the issue at hand.
Once more, this is the argument that clearly shows you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
You have accepted point 1 and 2, but you refuse to go any further, and instead look for whatever excuse you can to avoid it.
You refuse to answer extremely simple questions because you know they will show that you are wrong.
If you disagree, then ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Once more, just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
-
Sceptimatic I'm looking at your hubcap shaped earth avatar, and it has a distinctive rim. Would not that rim create your horizon on your model, and it be a distinct line? But, hilariously, even on hubcap earth, that horizon would be the curve of a circle separating land from sky. Even on your model there is a curve.
Back to what's important before this debate hits 60 pages. What was the monumental date, you decided earth was flat, or wasn't a globe? In other words, how long have you held this belief?
I can't say I've really seen other threads where you actively are debating, so I dont know what else you like to debate?
-
You can buy a glossy poster of Sceptis flat Earth map on Ebay! 7 sold already.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvvr2krw/flat-earth-map.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You need to think about that.
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Seriously... you don't think you can see an object if you are standing on it?
Every time I think I've seen the craziest claim, you always manage to top it. Good job. :)
-
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Because we force you to answer simple questions?
Aaaw.
1.Whats wrong with the video?
2.Draw a diagram of what you mean.
So tough.
Show me what you think each point of the video is portraying. How simple can that be?
It shows itself
Thats why there is no audio description.
It is a point of view at different altitudes looking at trees on a giant ball.
You must not be very smart or dodging.
Which is it?
You must clearly be dodging then.
If its so wrong
Pick a point thats wrong and we can discuss it.
Asking me to pick a point is pointless because the whole thing is correct.
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You need to think about that.
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Diagrams are as invisible as an apparent edge on a round object I guess.
Maybe if he stopped looking at the world through his kitchen roll tube he could have an easier time seeing the bigger picture?
-
You can buy a glossy poster of Sceptis flat Earth map on Ebay! 7 sold already.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvvr2krw/flat-earth-map.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Really, Solarwind? What a rip-off! I have the vibrant colour version of that <ahem> "map" from an old national geographic magazine.
Sceptimatic, have you had a 3d version of this "map" made up? You could use it as your bed pan at night, wash it out in the morning and use it to eat your porridge or black pudding from, and then pop it over one of your hubcaps on your morris minor.
-
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
Doesn't take much to baffle you does it. Some questions:
1. What is your height?
2. What is the width of the tube?
3. What is the length of the tube?
4. What is the radius of the ball you are stood on?
The answers to 2 and 3 will affect your field of view though the tube. Your statement would only hold true if you were looking through a very long, very narrow tube such that you could literally only see along your direct line of sight.
If you were looking through a level tube at your eye height you would be looking along a line which is parallel with a tangential line to the curve. A true tangent line touches the line of the curve at a single point which is perpendicular to a radius line of the curve (principle of differential calculus). So the actual tangent line would be in contact with the surface.
If you are standing on a ball then your eye line will be a height h above the line of the curve of the ball which is also the surface of the ball. Your line of sight and the tangent line of the surface at the point where you are standing will therefore form parallel lines which are separated by a distance which is your height. If your vision was literally limited to your line of vision only then you are right; you wouldn't see the surface of the ball since the surface of the ball would be constantly curving away from your line of sight. This would also be true of a flat Earth though since the straight tangent line of the curve would also be the surface of a flat Earth.
In reality the ratio of the height of a person and the radius of the Earth is such that the height of a person is so small as to be negligible. So we can state without any measurable loss of accuracy that the line of sight of a person on Earth is the same as looking along a tangent line of a point on the surface of the ball of the Earth. You can see from JBs diagram in his reply #1715 that as the red light (height of the person) gets less then the angle of the purple line (the tangent line which naturally forms the observers visible horizon) will approach zero. At which point the section of grey line where the red line intercepts it will be parallel with the purple line.
If a person is 2m in height we can call the height of the eyeline above the surface as 1.8m in which case the horizon is just 4.8km away. As the height of the eyeline increases so the distance you can see will increase as JBs diagram clearly shows and this agrees with real observation. But if the Earth was flat then it wouldn't matter how close you were to the straight line surface of the Earth, you would still be able to see infinitely far into the distance since parallel lines never meet.
-
Admitting I'm wrong, on what?
The fact that the RE does have a horizon, and then once you finally move past that, the fact that this is easily viewed through a level scope.
I've said it many times. By all means refuse to accept it.....but.... your globe that you believe you live on only has a horizon because of that belief.
The reality is much simpler.
You could never have any horizon standing on a ball. You just can't, no matter how much you try to make it appear like you can.
-
Sceptimatic I'm looking at your hubcap shaped earth avatar, and it has a distinctive rim.
Would not that rim create your horizon on your model, and it be a distinct line?
That's not my Earth. My Earth is similar but not exactly like that. My Earth does not have square edges and angels and it also has a dome covering it.
Understand that before you set yourself back, like most do.
A gradual dome build means there is no rim.
But, hilariously, even on hubcap earth, that horizon would be the curve of a circle separating land from sky. Even on your model there is a curve.
The horizon line is theoretical. It does not exist as a real line....just a convergence of light to darker shade due to ever decreasing light reflection back to they eyes, over distance.
Back to what's important before this debate hits 60 pages. What was the monumental date, you decided earth was flat, or wasn't a globe? In other words, how long have you held this belief?
Look back to when I first joined this forum.
I came to question the spinning Earth and had a non spinning globe with everything else spinning around it.
I came to see different takes on Earth.
I decided to experiment on a lot of stuff due to having much more time on my hands.
This is where I'm at, today, with what I deduce of Earth.
Is it correct? I don't know for sure.
Does it seem a much better fit for me? Absolutely.
One thing this forum did for me. It helped me think for myself and by thinking for myself and doing the simple experiments....it became clear that we do no live on a globe...spinning or otherwise.
Living inside one is another matter....hence the dome and decaying bowl we are scattered about on and in, depending on what species of animal/mammal.
-
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Seriously... you don't think you can see an object if you are standing on it?
Every time I think I've seen the craziest claim, you always manage to top it. Good job. :)
Can you see the object you're standing on if you stand on it, upright and at a perfect level?
Try and understand that and you won't need to ask the same question.
-
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Because we force you to answer simple questions?
Aaaw.
1.Whats wrong with the video?
2.Draw a diagram of what you mean.
So tough.
Show me what you think each point of the video is portraying. How simple can that be?
It shows itself
Thats why there is no audio description.
It is a point of view at different altitudes looking at trees on a giant ball.
You must not be very smart or dodging.
Which is it?
You must clearly be dodging then.
If its so wrong
Pick a point thats wrong and we can discuss it.
Asking me to pick a point is pointless because the whole thing is correct.
Either pick a point to discuss or forget about it.
I honestly don't think you know.
-
It would never have any horizon.
And that means that a level scope is entirely irrelevant as we are not discussing if the RE's horizon would be visible through a level scope or not, but merely if it has a horizon.
We are dealing with a level scope. You've just attempted to change it because you lose the argument against what I said, so you try to use FOV as if a supposed sight on a globe gives you any horizon.
Do you think that a "level scope" doesn't have an FOV?
Things can have more than one attribute you know.
Then again, it still baffles me you think you can't see the edge of a ball. ::)
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You need to think about that.
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Diagrams are as invisible as an apparent edge on a round object I guess.
Maybe if he stopped looking at the world through his kitchen roll tube he could have an easier time seeing the bigger picture?
The bigger picture of what?
Can't you get your head around what the horizon is?
-
You can buy a glossy poster of Sceptis flat Earth map on Ebay! 7 sold already.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvvr2krw/flat-earth-map.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Really, Solarwind? What a rip-off! I have the vibrant colour version of that <ahem> "map" from an old national geographic magazine.
Sceptimatic, have you had a 3d version of this "map" made up? You could use it as your bed pan at night, wash it out in the morning and use it to eat your porridge or black pudding from, and then pop it over one of your hubcaps on your morris minor.
And you say you can think on your own. I'd quit if I were you.
-
Doesn't take much to baffle you does it.
I was actually thinking the same thing about you.
Some questions:
1. What is your height?
Around 6 feet.
2. What is the width of the tube?
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
3. What is the length of the tube?
A foot or two foot. It doesn't really matter as long as it offers tunnel vision.
4. What is the radius of the ball you are stood on?
It also doesn't matter.
Have it any size you want to.
Let's deal with the one you believe you're stood on. Or, if you prefer, pick any ball or mound you feel comfortable with.
The answers to 2 and 3 will affect your field of view though the tube. Your statement would only hold true if you were looking through a very long, very narrow tube such that you could literally only see along your direct line of sight.
You kill your argument right here.
If you were looking through a level tube at your eye height you would be looking along a line which is parallel with a tangential line to the curve. A true tangent line touches the line of the curve at a single point which is perpendicular to a radius line of the curve (principle of differential calculus). So the actual tangent line would be in contact with the surface.
There is no tangent line of your curve, unless you are looking at a circle on a basket ball on a table and using the light to dark make up of the diameter which isn't really a tangent line. The real tangent line would be
to look at a line drawn on a circle on a piece of paper like Jackblack tried to use as reality.
If you are standing on a ball then your eye line will be a height h above the line of the curve of the ball which is also the surface of the ball.
There is no line of the curve by standing on any ball.
Your line of sight and the tangent line of the surface at the point where you are standing will therefore form parallel lines which are separated by a distance which is your height.
Nope, they would not.
If your vision was literally limited to your line of vision only then you are right; you wouldn't see the surface of the ball since the surface of the ball would be constantly curving away from your line of sight.
You would see sky....only. Nothing could ever converge on your globe. It simply could not, from a horizontally level standpoint..
This would also be true of a flat Earth though since the straight tangent line of the curve would also be the surface of a flat Earth.
There is no tangent line unless you are looking at a simple 2d model/drawing.
We are not dealing with this.
What we are dealing with, is sight and atmospheric mass over horizontal distance...and the light that is reflected back to our eyes from all around our convex eyesight...which is key to vanishing point and horizon by convergence to a point in object of wider area focused on....not tangent lines.
In reality the ratio of the height of a person and the radius of the Earth is such that the height of a person is so small as to be negligible.
Not at all.
As long as the view is not obscured...meaning horizontally level without lumps and bumps or objects obscuring vision, you get your horizon from a level to convergence of reflected light back to the eyes.
So we can state without any measurable loss of accuracy that the line of sight of a person on Earth is the same as looking along a tangent line of a point on the surface of the ball of the Earth.
Absolutely not.
You can see from JBs diagram in his reply #1715 that as the red light (height of the person) gets less then the angle of the purple line (the tangent line which naturally forms the observers visible horizon) will approach zero. At which point the section of grey line where the red line intercepts it will be parallel with the purple line.
His diagram shows nothing other than a line that is angled to the curved drawn line of his circle.
There is no showing of a horizontal standpoint and view on that because it would clearly see the circle curve down and away from it, leaving?......that's right.....sky or your space....but no ability for any convergence of light due to zero atmospheric reflective foundation to merge against.
If a person is 2m in height we can call the height of the eyeline above the surface as 1.8m in which case the horizon is just 4.8km away. As the height of the eyeline increases so the distance you can see will increase as JBs diagram clearly shows and this agrees with real observation.
The higher you go the more the horizontal view would increase over your globe. The end result would be the same. You would see sky or your space.
We know this does not happen and for good reason. It's because living on a globe is absolute nonsense and we were all brainwashed into it.
I'm just glad I see the nonsense of it...now.
But if the Earth was flat then it wouldn't matter how close you were to the straight line surface of the Earth, you would still be able to see infinitely far into the distance since parallel lines never meet.
No you wouldn't.
You can only see what light can be reflected back to your eyes.
The distances can vary which would be dependent of atmospheric changes.
On a warm hazy day your vision is limited.
On a foggy day it becomes massively less than that.
On a crisp and cold clear day your vision becomes much clearer and you see much farther.
You put too much faith in your own eyes and the distance they can see.
-
I must congratulate you Sceptimatic. Of all the arrogant people I have come across in my life (and there are a few) you by far beat all the rest. So well done for that and I hope you are justly proud of it. I hope having such an self-centred attitude has won you many friends.
Your comment about my ebay image is a classic case in point. It was you who originally posted an image of this map after being asked to produce a diagram of your own model of the Earth. And clearly you have simply posted an already existing and freely available map and claimed it to be like your own. Without ever producing an actual diagram of your own.
So how you can accuse me of not thinking on my own I haven't a clue.
-
I must congratulate you Sceptimatic. Of all the arrogant people I have come across in my life (and there are a few) you by far beat all the rest. So well done for that and I hope you are justly proud of it. I hope having such an self-centred attitude has won you many friends.
Your comment about my ebay image is a classic case in point. It was you who originally posted an image of this map after being asked to produce a diagram of your own model of the Earth. And clearly you have simply posted an already existing and freely available map and claimed it to be like your own. Without ever producing an actual diagram of your own.
So how you can accuse me of not thinking on my own I haven't a clue.
I was asked what my Earth is like and I gave that example, like in my avatar........AND.... I stipulated, quite clearly that this was not any exact version of mine.
You and others have decided to ignore this and (you) have decided to make out that this is my exact model and that I've somehow, copied it.
I'd say you are presumptuous and arrogant and get easily frustrated when you can't bully your points into people.
And this is what it ends up like.
-
His diagram shows nothing other than a line that is angled to the curved drawn line of his circle.
There is no showing of a horizontal standpoint and view on that because it would clearly see the circle curve down and away from it, leaving?......that's right.....sky or your space....but no ability for any convergence of light due to zero atmospheric reflective foundation to merge against.
From this i gather JackB needs to add one horizontally level line from the view point of the guy on the left.
Also
This from the great mind that brought up "vertically stops dead".
Also also
A cardboard kitchen roll will still have a field of view.
Lines converg.
Persepctive
You insisting it doesnt exsit is not validation of anything.
Are you saying all art and photography teachers are wrong?
The very real and provable examples dont exist?
-
It's impossible to move forward with you.
Because we force you to answer simple questions?
Aaaw.
1.Whats wrong with the video?
2.Draw a diagram of what you mean.
So tough.
Show me what you think each point of the video is portraying. How simple can that be?
It shows itself
Thats why there is no audio description.
It is a point of view at different altitudes looking at trees on a giant ball.
You must not be very smart or dodging.
Which is it?
You must clearly be dodging then.
If its so wrong
Pick a point thats wrong and we can discuss it.
Asking me to pick a point is pointless because the whole thing is correct.
Either pick a point to discuss or forget about it.
I honestly don't think you know.
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
-
I've said it many times. By all means refuse to accept it.....but.... your globe that you believe you live on only has a horizon because of that belief.
The reality is much simpler.
Yes, you have repeated that same pathetic lie time and time again, but have been completely incapable of justifying it in any way.
But you are right about one thing, reality is much simpler than your delusions.
The RE has a horizon, because it is roughly a ball, and balls have edges, i.e. horizons.
You could never have any horizon standing on a ball. You just can't, no matter how much you try to make it appear like you can.
If it was so simple, why are you completely incapable of justifying that claim in any way?
Why do you continually ignore the numerous arguments which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong?
Once more, just what do you think is wrong with this argument?
If you honestly knew that a RE couldn't have a horizon you would be able to show the fault with this argument.
If you cannot show the fault with this argument then you cannot know that the RE wouldn't' have a horizon.
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Likewise, if you knew the RE doesn't have a horizon, you would need to know what is there replacing it. If you cannot honestly tell us what visually happens when you start looking at the ground and slowly raise your head, then you cannot honestly say that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
The best you would be able to do is say you have no idea, and that includes having no idea if the RE would have a horizon.
So I'll ask again:
Once more, just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Do you accept that you will have a point where the lower portion of your vision is ground/sea, while the top is sky?
Just what is in between these 2?
Or do you think as you lift your head up, your vision will magically switch to sky?
Or have you gone back to claiming that Earth is invisible and you would see nothing but sky, regardless of where you looked?
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and stop repeating the same baseless lies.
Answer the question asked and deal with the argument presented.
Until you do, every time you claim the RE doesn't have a horizon you are outright lying to everyone.
-
His diagram shows nothing other than a line that is angled to the curved drawn line of his circle.
There is no showing of a horizontal standpoint and view on that because it would clearly see the circle curve down and away from it, leaving?......that's right.....sky or your space....but no ability for any convergence of light due to zero atmospheric reflective foundation to merge against.
From this i gather JackB needs to add one horizontally level line from the view point of the guy on the left.
Also
This from the great mind that brought up "vertically stops dead".
Also also
A cardboard kitchen roll will still have a field of view.
Lines converg.
Persepctive
You insisting it doesnt exsit is not validation of anything.
Are you saying all art and photography teachers are wrong?
The very real and provable examples dont exist?
It will have a field of view. A tunnel vision, which is what I'm trying to get across.
Your globe does not fit into the level scope/FOV of that tube of tunnel vision.
-
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
-
The RE has a horizon, because it is roughly a ball, and balls have edges, i.e. horizons.
Not when you're stood on them and looking horizontally level.
-
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
00:00:00 - 00:00:15
Wrong or not and why?
00:02:47 - 00:03:14
Wrong or not and why?
-
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision is just a smaller FOV. It still doesn't mean a FOV of 0. A FOV of 0 is impossible.
Do you understand that?
Once more, this is what a FOV of 0 looks like:
Notice how you cannot see anything at all, as it subtends an angle of 0.
A "standard" kitchen roll tube, i.e. one I grabbed from my kitchen, it has a diameter of 3.5 cm and a length of 21 cm. This gives it a FOV of 2*atan(0.5*3.5/21) = 9.5 degrees.
This means from directly level (assuming you can orient it level perfectly) you will see ~4.8 degrees above level and 4.8 degrees below level.
This will be important for later.
Note that you have already been provided with a diagram of such a view.
It would be like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
Notice how it isn't just a single line going out level and instead is a region bounding by 2 diverging lines?
That means you still have a FOV and thus can still see the horizon on a RE.
4. What is the radius of the ball you are stood on?
It also doesn't matter.
Except it has been shown repeatedly that it does matter.
Simple math shows it matters.
And if it doesn't matter at all, that means it would include a ball with an effectively infinite radius which is indistinguishable from the FE nonsense you adhere to.
That means that if the radius of the ball doesn't matter, then it also doesn't matter if Earth is flat or round.
Once more, the formula for the angle of dip to the horizon is a=acos(r/(r+h))
This shows quite clearly that size does matter.
If you are on a ball that has a radius of 2 m, and your eye height is 2 m, that means that the horizon would be located at an angle of 60 degrees below level.
But if you were at the same height above a ball with a radius of 6371 km, that angle is a mere 0.045 degrees.
If you were at the same height above a ball with a radius of 1 Ym, that angle would be basically 0.
So for a tiny ball, you need a very large scope to see the horizon, but as the size of the ball gets bigger, the scope you need gets smaller.
With the tiny ball, the angle is far too large to fit in our scope. 60 degrees is much larger than the 4.8 degrees our scope allows.
But for the Earth sized ball, that fits just fine.
In fact, it is only 0.5% of the size of the scope below level.
That will be pretty hard to distinguish with the naked eye.
But as we have a tube, we can also easily see how large a physical object that would amount to at the end of the scope.
As it was 3.5 cm in diameter, that 0.5% amounts to ~0.2 mm. That is just how close to level it is.
Here is an enalrged view of that scope:
(https://i.imgur.com/9LLccT9.png)
Note, this is too scale, what you would expect on the RE, when you stand 2m above the surface.
Notice that you can't notice the horizon below level? Also note that it would be blurry, not so well focused.
The answers to 2 and 3 will affect your field of view though the tube. Your statement would only hold true if you were looking through a very long, very narrow tube such that you could literally only see along your direct line of sight.
You kill your argument right here.
You mean he kills your repeated lies, and you have no refutation so you just claim he kills his argument.
Once more, all tubes like that have a FOV. Depending upon the FOV of the tube, and the size of the ball you are standing on, and the height above the surface, you may or may not be able to see the horizon through the scope.
Just why do you think he kills his argument? Other than him appealing to reality?
There is no tangent line of your curve
There you go discarding basic math.
All curves have tangent lines.
look at a line drawn on a circle on a piece of paper like Jackblack tried to use as reality.
You mean the simple diagrams I made which clearly showed you were wrong which you were unable to refute?
You would see sky....only
No, you would see nothing, as that is all you can see with a FOV of 0.
As soon as you allow any FOV you allow convergence/perspective, which allows the Earth to be seen.
Nothing could ever converge on your globe. It simply could not
Stop just saying it couldn't and explain why it couldn't.
What magic stops perspective working on a globe?
Remember, you can't just appeal to the curve. That is just an affect in addition to the curve.
That would be like saying if on a FE, you would never be able to see the horizon because the ground is below you.
There is no showing of a horizontal standpoint and view on that
You not liking it because it shows you are wrong, doesn't magically mean it doesn't.
Once more, the red line indicates a person standing vertically on Earth.
The brown lines indicates their level FOV. This has a FOV of 90 degrees.
This means they see 45 degrees above level and 45 degrees below level.
Other than your ridiculous tube BS, this is exactly what you have asked for.
And it clearly shows that this person, even being quite high above the ball, can still see the horizon.
It shows exactly what you would expect on a RE.
because it would clearly see the circle curve down and away from it
As you clearly do.
Just what do you think the curve the person is standing on is doing?
Staying straight? curving up and towards the person?
NO! It is quite clearly curving down and away from the person.
We know this does not happen and for good reason
No, you don't seem to know at all, nor do you have any reason.
We know your delusional BS doesn't happen because it in no way represents the globe we live on.
Instead, on the very real globe that we live on, the angle of dip to the horizon is dependent upon your height above the globe.
When you are right near sea level, the horizon is basically at eye level. But as you get higher, the horizon appears to get lower and you can see further.
What doesn't match reality at all is your FE nonsense.
If Earth was flat, there would be no horizon. You would be able to see as far as the atmosphere/resolution would allow, with either limit resulting in a blur.
We know this does not happen, and for good reason, we don't live on a flat surface.
-
The RE has a horizon, because it is roughly a ball, and balls have edges, i.e. horizons.
Not when you're stood on them and looking horizontally level.
Yes when they have a radius of thousands of km and you are looking level through a scope with a FOV of a few degrees from only 2 m above the surface.
But again, YOU ARE NOT JUST CLAIMING THAT IT IS NOT VISIBLE THROUGH A LEVEL SCOPE!
So stop appealing to level tubes just because you cannot justify your blatant lies.
If you want to only deal with level tubes then admit that the RE DOES have a horizon.
Only once you have admitted it does can you make your argument that this level horizon is too low and thus would not be visible through a level scope.
Once more, you are stuck at point 2, refusing to progress. Likely because you know you have already given too much and there is no way for you to admit the RE does have horizon and have any hope of then claiming it isn't visible through a level scope ever.
But if you want to just limit the discussion to level scopes you need to admit the RE has a horizon. Otherwise you are just using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting you are wrong.
When will you grow up and start trying to debate honestly and rationally for once?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Either point out which of this points you think is wrong and why, or stop repeating the same pathetic lies.
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
No, that is still quite clearly you, still refusing to engage with an argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Still repeatedly clinging to a level scope whenever you can as if it magically nullifies all arguments against you.
In fact, that seems to be one of the only 2 things you are capable of:
Spouting a bunch of baseless lies, and then dodging any argument that exposes those lies.
Grow up.
Start defending your lies or admit they are lies.
Can you see the object you're standing on if you stand on it, upright and at a perfect level?
Again, you claim that it doesn't matter if you look out level or not.
You are not just claiming that the horizon on a RE isn't visible when looking out directly level. You are claiming you cannot see a horizon AT ALL, that a RE would NEVER have a horizon.
That would include looking down towards the edge.
And we clearly do have a horizon like that when standing on a ball.
Try and understand that and you won't need to keep repeating the same BS to avoid simple arguments that show you are wrong.
Is it correct? I don't know for sure.
One thing this forum did for me. It helped me think for myself and by thinking for myself and doing the simple experiments....it became clear that we do no live on a globe...spinning or otherwise.
Don't worry, we know for sure, your model is not correct. All the available evidence either cannot distinguish the shape or motion of Earth, or clearly indicates that we live on a spinning globe.
You are yet to present a single observation with this. Instead you just repeat the same pathetic lies.
-
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
How do i address what?
The video was submitted as visual model reflecting reality.
You said show me.
Show you what?
The video in irs entirety?
Like what are you arguing?
See tennis.
When a serve is made, and the other guy does nothing and instead says "is that all you got"
Is the video wrong or not?
Simple question.
-
The RE has a horizon, because it is roughly a ball, and balls have edges, i.e. horizons.
Not when you're stood on them and looking horizontally level.
But do you see an apparent edge of the ball if you look down, or are round objects invisible to you?
-
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
00:00:00 - 00:00:15
Wrong or not and why?
00:02:47 - 00:03:14
Wrong or not and why?
Thumbnail 2 is a good one.
Compare thumbnail to the GOAT rab and his photo of that bridge.
-
Quick question for sceptimatic.
If you took a one inch diameter piece of cardboard tube, held dead level and looked through it, at a building 1Km away. Do you think that you wold just see a one inch diameter part of that building? If not, then please tell us what you would see, as I think this is at the heart of your argument about not seeing the horizon on a globe when using level tunnel vision.
-
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
00:00:00 - 00:00:15
Wrong or not and why?
00:02:47 - 00:03:14
Wrong or not and why?
How about you explain what's happening.
Tell me what's happening and why.
All I see is movement up and over a gradient, as if someone is in a mode of transport.
Is this right?
Please don't tell me it's a telescope creating a moving sight over a convex curve from a standing position.
Surely you wouldn't try that...right?
-
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision is just a smaller FOV. It still doesn't mean a FOV of 0. A FOV of 0 is impossible.
Do you understand that?
Absolutely.
Do you understand that your field of vision cannot just drop to the deck on your globe from a level position of the tunnel vision scope.
Do you get this?
-
Quick question for sceptimatic.
If you took a one inch diameter piece of cardboard tube, held dead level and looked through it, at a building 1Km away. Do you think that you wold just see a one inch diameter part of that building? If not, then please tell us what you would see, as I think this is at the heart of your argument about not seeing the horizon on a globe when using level tunnel vision.
You would see the building that fits into the sight of the tube end to your eye.
-
You can buy a glossy poster of Sceptis flat Earth map on Ebay! 7 sold already.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvvr2krw/flat-earth-map.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Really, Solarwind? What a rip-off! I have the vibrant colour version of that <ahem> "map" from an old national geographic magazine.
Sceptimatic, have you had a 3d version of this "map" made up? You could use it as your bed pan at night, wash it out in the morning and use it to eat your porridge or black pudding from, and then pop it over one of your hubcaps on your morris minor.
And you say you can think on your own. I'd quit if I were you.
Cut me some slack. I typed that at 3am during my lunch break. I thought a bit of humor would lighten these drab and dreary proceedings.
Ok, well thanks for sharing. I can sort of appreciate where you may be coming from. To paraphrase, you had time on your hands, (was that due to covid-19 lay-offs?) and decided to do your own experiments, and flat earth fits better for you than globe earth. If this is your current reality, and it's working for you, then great!
Still, I dont think you just rolled out of bed one day, and told your friends and family you were embarking on a journey of discovery as to the earth being flat. Research shows the majority of flat earthers started out watching conspiracy flavoured YouTube videos and the algorithm suggested flat earth videos.
That happened to me, but I can't remember the original conspiracy I was looking at. Probably sovereign citizens or the Port Arthur massacre.
Like I said, I needed a distraction. Researching the different angles of the debates served me well. I've actually learned a few things along the way.
-
You can buy a glossy poster of Sceptis flat Earth map on Ebay! 7 sold already.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvvr2krw/flat-earth-map.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Really, Solarwind? What a rip-off! I have the vibrant colour version of that <ahem> "map" from an old national geographic magazine.
Sceptimatic, have you had a 3d version of this "map" made up? You could use it as your bed pan at night, wash it out in the morning and use it to eat your porridge or black pudding from, and then pop it over one of your hubcaps on your morris minor.
And you say you can think on your own. I'd quit if I were you.
Cut me some slack. I typed that at 3am during my lunch break. I thought a bit of humor would lighten these drab and dreary proceedings.
Ok, well thanks for sharing. I can sort of appreciate where you may be coming from. To paraphrase, you had time on your hands, (was that due to covid-19 lay-offs?) and decided to do your own experiments, and flat earth fits better for you than globe earth. If this is your current reality, and it's working for you, then great!
Still, I dont think you just rolled out of bed one day, and told your friends and family you were embarking on a journey of discovery as to the earth being flat. Research shows the majority of flat earthers started out watching conspiracy flavoured YouTube videos and the algorithm suggested flat earth videos.
That happened to me, but I can't remember the original conspiracy I was looking at. Probably sovereign citizens or the Port Arthur massacre.
Like I said, I needed a distraction. I was one of the first to arrive at possibly the most sickening murder scenes you could ever imagine. Researching the different angles of the debates served me well. I've actually learned a few things along the way.
You're getting weaker by the minute.
Try thinking for yourself if you want to question stuff. Playing relay with your fellow globalists is all well and good for you people....but what's your goal?
If your Earth's a globe and everyone else's theories render them nutcases, what's to gain for you other than the belief you are ridiculing people for your own supposed entertainment.
You waste a lot of your time trying to play psychological games that have zero effect.
-
You can buy a glossy poster of Sceptis flat Earth map on Ebay! 7 sold already.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvvr2krw/flat-earth-map.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Really, Solarwind? What a rip-off! I have the vibrant colour version of that <ahem> "map" from an old national geographic magazine.
Sceptimatic, have you had a 3d version of this "map" made up? You could use it as your bed pan at night, wash it out in the morning and use it to eat your porridge or black pudding from, and then pop it over one of your hubcaps on your morris minor.
And you say you can think on your own. I'd quit if I were you.
Cut me some slack. I typed that at 3am during my lunch break. I thought a bit of humor would lighten these drab and dreary proceedings.
Ok, well thanks for sharing. I can sort of appreciate where you may be coming from. To paraphrase, you had time on your hands, (was that due to covid-19 lay-offs?) and decided to do your own experiments, and flat earth fits better for you than globe earth. If this is your current reality, and it's working for you, then great!
Still, I dont think you just rolled out of bed one day, and told your friends and family you were embarking on a journey of discovery as to the earth being flat. Research shows the majority of flat earthers started out watching conspiracy flavoured YouTube videos and the algorithm suggested flat earth videos.
That happened to me, but I can't remember the original conspiracy I was looking at. Probably sovereign citizens or the Port Arthur massacre.
Like I said, I needed a distraction. I was one of the first to arrive at possibly the most sickening murder scenes you could ever imagine. Researching the different angles of the debates served me well. I've actually learned a few things along the way.
You're getting weaker by the minute.
Try thinking for yourself if you want to question stuff. Playing relay with your fellow globalists is all well and good for you people....but what's your goal?
If your Earth's a globe and everyone else's theories render them nutcases, what's to gain for you other than the belief you are ridiculing people for your own supposed entertainment.
You waste a lot of your time trying to play psychological games that have zero effect.
You've been here since November 2012? That's what, 8 birthdays?
I haven't wasted any time, and am not playing psychological games with you. If you are so secure in your flat earth belief, why are you even bothered debating those who dont share your belief?
You ridicule globe earth thinkers almost every post you make, so what's the issue? I made fun of your avatar which you couldn't even touch up in photoshop to represent your belief.
I struggle with the fact you have your own version of the shape of earth all worked out, but it's different yet similar to your avatar? At least danang had the good sense to draw his version of earth on a piece of paper and make that drawing his avatar.
My big concern is your lack of trust in humanity, and it's a two way street.
What would I trust you with, knowing what you believe? Would I let you tutor my child in either maths, basic science, geography, or astronomy? Nope.
My level of trust in you to be a contributing member of society is compromised, because if you believe the earth is flat, what other fringe or anti-social beliefs do you hold dear?
-
Obvious dodging.
Is the video wrong or not?
You're the one dodging because you have no clue how to address it.
00:00:00 - 00:00:15
Wrong or not and why?
00:02:47 - 00:03:14
Wrong or not and why?
How about you explain what's happening.
Tell me what's happening and why.
All I see is movement up and over a gradient, as if someone is in a mode of transport.
Is this right?
Please don't tell me it's a telescope creating a moving sight over a convex curve from a standing position.
Surely you wouldn't try that...right?
sure... imagine teh point of view is of some superman flying around at different altitudes.
vid one shows the horizon as superman flies up.
vid two shows the horizon as superman flies down.
you see a ball, when viewed at different altitudes.
and you see very similar to that seen in reality.
at the timepoints picked by stash, not by you:
https://images.app.goo.gl/WsYEs8hdqJSQU9g6A
https://images.app.goo.gl/kG62rwzHhPGk3sLZA
you've repeatedly stated you can't see what we're telling you we do see.
we've asked you to model it, you said it was impossible.
these kind youtubers have taken hte time to do it and woweee, it matches what we see.
you on the other hand have claimed some sort of reflection on reflection without so much as a diagram.
and that you could not see the edge of a basketball. a ball, a very real tangible thing you could pick up and see.
or that the field of view magically disappears when looking through a 1inDIA cardboard tube.
sceppy is king of the trolls.
-
Right now I can think of two classic and obvious pieces of evidence which destroys the whole flat Earth concept. Apparent to everyone if they cared to look but clearly totally overlooked by Scepti given the way his mind works. I'm not even sure what shape his 'world' actually is but it is definitely not a globe or indeed flat.
Yes Scepti, I am easily baffled when it comes to understanding anything you lay claim to. But then I have comfort in that because everyone else in this discussion seems to be just as baffled. But if you think the world is even remotely like the portrayal in your avatar you are sadly deluded my friend. Sadly deluded. One day you might realise that but I strongly doubt it.
What is stopping you from joining a mainstream physics or astronomy forum and advertising your views there? I think they would be... (what's a good word here?) interested or even fascinated to hear what you think. Especially when it comes to your interpretation of what the horizon is (or isn't). You know you are right in what you believe right? So you've got nothing to be scared of. On a mainstream physics forum or astronomy forum you would be talking to real scientists and not just us weak 'globalists' who are no match for your intellect. Go on, spread your wings. I dare you.
-
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision is just a smaller FOV. It still doesn't mean a FOV of 0. A FOV of 0 is impossible.
Do you understand that?
Absolutely.
Then why do you keep acting like you don't, and that instead when looking through such a tube you do have a FOV of 0?
Do you understand that your field of vision cannot just drop to the deck on your globe from a level position of the tunnel vision scope.
Do you get this?
So no, you don't understand at all.
Stop just asserting the same pathetic lie.
I clearly explained why that claim of yours is pure BS, and you can offer no rational argument justify your blatant lie.
All you can do is just continually assert the same pathetic lie.
Grow up.
Rather than just continually asserting the same pathetic lie, JUSTIFY IT!
Just what magic do you think exists which prevents you from seeing the horizon through this tube?
Again, this is what it would look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/9LLccT9.png)
This is a FOV of 9.5 degrees.
But the very real horizon on the very real Round Earth that you are yet to show any problem with would only be a mere 0.045 degrees below level.
Well within the scope.
That means just like basically everything you say, that is an outright lie.
Do you understand that with a FOV larger than ~0.09 degrees you will be able to see the horizon on this very real Round Earth while looking out level 2 m above the surface?
Do you understand that as soon as your FOV goes below level at all, even just a tiny bit, it is no longer a simple case of you can't see the ground (notice, no mention of FE vs RE here, as it applies equally to both, even on a FOV with a FOV which doesn't go below level you cant see the ground)?
Instead it is a case of how large the FOV is vs how large it needs to be to see the ground. And this latter part depends on how high above the ground the view is.
Again, going back to my diagram from before, I'll draw some more cones to indicate some different FOVs:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
There is the original view indicated by the browny-red lines.
From that view, the person can easily see the horizon
But if that person switches to a smaller FOV, indicated by the yellow lines coming from the same point, they can no longer see Earth at all. Instead their view is nothing but sky (and the top of the building).
But if that person moves down to a lower point, and keeps the same size FOV, as indicated by the lower yellow lines, then they can see Earth, with the horizon (with the line of sight to it indicated in orange) now much closer (and as a bonus, they now only see the very top of the building, with the rest obstructed by Earth).
This shows that as you get higher, you need a larger FOV to see the horizon. i.e. the horizon gets lower the higher you are.
So this shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
It clearly shows that it is never a simple case of "YOU CAN'T SEE IT!!!!"
Instead it is a case of what is your FOV and what FOV is needed to see the Earth, with the latter being a case of what is the size of Earth and how high above it are you?
Again, all this matches with what is observed in reality, with the horizon getting lower and further away the higher you get, and you being able to see more of distant objects the higher you get.
And does your lack of any claim to the contrary and you yet again appealing to a level scope mean that you accept the RE DOES have a horizon and it is just a question of where is it?
If not, deal with the argument:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
Once more, you are stuck on point 2, refusing to progress any further and refusing to point out any problem with it.
But points 3-6 (which you appear to really struggle with) are addressed by a simple question:
Just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
And no, a level view is not relevant to that question at all.
That question just establishes the existence of the horizon, not if it would be visible through a level scope. That comes later, after the horizon is established to exist.
-
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.
I'm just curious what others might think.
Thanks.
first argument:
if the earth was flat. THE WHOLE THING KNOWN AS GRAVITY WOULD NOT WORK, because big objects like planets and stars bend the spacetime so if we travel forwards the 4d funnel that has been created, it would funnel us towards the earths center of gravity. so now you all know the basics of gravity and can see the problem: if earth was flat we only would be "pulled" straight down in the north pole and the hill (that it would seem for us) would get pretty steep towards the "edge" and we would just be able to walk "downhill" all the way tho the north pole. (and the downhill would be steep)
second argument:
have you looked at the moon? do you know why the shadow on it is ROUND? thats because the earth gets in the way of sunlight and creates that shadow. if earth would be flat the shadow would too and last time i checked it was still round. and please dont try to tell me that its round cause the earth is a circle because IT DOESENT WORK LIKE THAT.
ok so now i have set you all flat earthers a challenge: if you can proof me wrong and i cant proof your theory to explain that wrong, i officially will become a flat earther.
please how anyone can even believe that? ( ansver: you are too stupid to understand science and try to make your own experiments witch doesn't count the way the universe works.)
i hope i dont need to explain this again.
-
have you looked at the moon? do you know why the shadow on it is ROUND?
Do you mean during an eclipse or the normal phases?
-
just the normal everynight moon
edit: there are a lot of good pictures in google. (just dont pic one witch is almost full cause there the sun is directly shining to moon)
-
The curved terminator that you see on the normal 'everynight' Moon is nothing to do with the Earths shadow. That only applies during an eclipse. The Earths shadow always lies opposite the Sun in the sky and so the shadow of the Earth can only ever become visible as a shadow on the Moon when the Moon lies opposite the Sun in the sky. I.e. at full Moon.
Other times the borderline between the sunlit and dark regions of the Moons surface (the terminator) is purely caused by the angle between the Moon, Earth and Sun.
-
You've been here since November 2012? That's what, 8 birthdays?
I haven't wasted any time, and am not playing psychological games with you. If you are so secure in your flat earth belief, why are you even bothered debating those who dont share your belief?
You're wasting your time right here.
I'm here to put my thoughts onto a forum for people to read. You're here to attempt to be part of the usual posse of indoctrinated globalists that want to feel comfortable in a bubble to play back patting ridicule of anything contrary to the adhered to mass norm.
You ridicule globe earth thinkers almost every post you make, so what's the issue?
Nahhhh. I ridicule the globe as a supposed theory. You take it personal and that's your issue.
I made fun of your avatar which you couldn't even touch up in photoshop to represent your belief.
No need to touch anything up in any proper way. The rough shape is what I put out to give people an idea.
If you want fancy drawings then join a site for art drawing or something.
I struggle with the fact you have your own version of the shape of earth all worked out, but it's different yet similar to your avatar? At least danang had the good sense to draw his version of earth on a piece of paper and make that drawing his avatar.
If you struggle then you'll have to continue to struggle, unless you can loosen the binding to that struggle.
My big concern is your lack of trust in humanity, and it's a two way street.
Don't concern yourself with my life or my thoughts. Concentrate on your own life. Mine has absolutely no relevance to your life, unless you somehow manage to find out there's a sceptimatic in your family tree. :P
What would I trust you with, knowing what you believe?
I'm not wanting nor asking you to trust anything from me. I certainly don't trust you so I hardly expect anything different.
Would I let you tutor my child in either maths, basic science, geography, or astronomy? Nope.
That's fine. It obviously won't be happening, anyway.
My level of trust in you to be a contributing member of society is compromised, because if you believe the earth is flat, what other fringe or anti-social beliefs do you hold dear?
What you think of me in any way shape or form, is absolutely irrelevant to my everyday life and I hope, ditto, with you.
-
Yeah, I don't get the "...your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe," bit. That doesn't make any sense.
In any case, what would change my mind? I'd happily change my mind if on a clear day you NEVER saw such an obstruction from a distance such as this:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Ogse6s.jpg?1)
You say if it NEVER happened. what i'd like you to tell me is how often does this image across the lake fit the globe model. Because whenever flat earthers talk about the very same thing, they show their pictures of it where the curvature is missing. So does it normally look like your picture or theirs, and pls cite a source for your evidence which you present.
-
sure... imagine teh point of view is of some superman flying around at different altitudes.
vid one shows the horizon as superman flies up.
vid two shows the horizon as superman flies down.
you see a ball, when viewed at different altitudes.
and you see very similar to that seen in reality.
at the timepoints picked by stash, not by you:
https://images.app.goo.gl/WsYEs8hdqJSQU9g6A
https://images.app.goo.gl/kG62rwzHhPGk3sLZA
you've repeatedly stated you can't see what we're telling you we do see.
But that is not what you would genuinely see with your superman carry on....unless your superman was
dipping his eyes downwards as he flew higher over the fictional globe.
If your superman kept a level view as he rose he would see nothing but sky.
The diagram is a nonsense.
we've asked you to model it, you said it was impossible.
these kind youtubers have taken hte time to do it and woweee, it matches what we see.
It doesn't match what you see, at all. It matches what you're coaxed into believing you see, because you believe you're looking at horizon lines on a globe and you're simply not.
Any animation will not just magically show a reality unless that reality can be physically shown....and you cannot physically show it for the reasons I gave earlier.
you on the other hand have claimed some sort of reflection on reflection without so much as a diagram.
and that you could not see the edge of a basketball. a ball, a very real tangible thing you could pick up and see.
or that the field of view magically disappears when looking through a 1inDIA cardboard tube.
I never said any field of view magically disappears. The filed of view becomes tunnel vision.
There's still a small field of view with whatever is in that sight......but...now pay attention.........
On a level set up, that tunnel vision would absolutely not offer you any horizon line on your globe that would be curving away and down from your feet....but yet, we see horizon, even through the 1 inch diameter tube.
I understand why you believe you have your horizon on your globe. It's the very same kind of reasoning as to why you believe oceans can magically stick to it when every experiment tells you different.........but.....but.....well, what else can I say?
-
Here's something very simple. Very very simple.
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
You mean if Earth was flat.
Because a flat Earth should only have a horizon as the very edge of Earth which would likely be far too far away given the limited visibility through the atmosphere which would result in a blur rather than a clear horizon.
If Earth was round (as it is), then the ability to see it would depend on the FOV.
For example, assuming the telescope is at an elevation of 2 m above sea level (and a calm sea), then the horizon would be at an angle of roughly 2.7 arc minutes.
If the FOV was smaller than twice that, the horizon would not be visible, if the FOV was larger, it would be visible.
Also note that accurate measuring devices do measure this, confirming that Earth is a globe.
That's my opinion, though...but simple logic should tell most that it requires deep questioning.
Simple logic shows that your claim is pure nonsense.
And the actual evidence available further supports that by demonstrating that Earth is a globe.
But none of that addresses the topic. That is just you trying to support a FE. What would make you accept that Earth is round?
Is it only these strawmen that you wouldn't actually expect on a RE?
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
The limited visibility through the atmosphere would result in your view fading to a blur. On a FE, there should not be a clear horizon unless it is made of something like mountains.
Where you said "..flat earth should only have a horizon at the very edge...which would result in a bllur..."
Is this what you actually believe?
-
Right now I can think of two classic and obvious pieces of evidence which destroys the whole flat Earth concept. Apparent to everyone if they cared to look but clearly totally overlooked by Scepti given the way his mind works. I'm not even sure what shape his 'world' actually is but it is definitely not a globe or indeed flat.
Yes Scepti, I am easily baffled when it comes to understanding anything you lay claim to. But then I have comfort in that because everyone else in this discussion seems to be just as baffled. But if you think the world is even remotely like the portrayal in your avatar you are sadly deluded my friend. Sadly deluded. One day you might realise that but I strongly doubt it.
What is stopping you from joining a mainstream physics or astronomy forum and advertising your views there? I think they would be... (what's a good word here?) interested or even fascinated to hear what you think. Especially when it comes to your interpretation of what the horizon is (or isn't). You know you are right in what you believe right? So you've got nothing to be scared of. On a mainstream physics forum or astronomy forum you would be talking to real scientists and not just us weak 'globalists' who are no match for your intellect. Go on, spread your wings. I dare you.
Me on a mainstream physics forum will go one way and you know it.
BANNED almost immediately when I do not bow down to mainstream bullying and/or not being allowed to put my points across without censor.
soooo...it's not about daring.
I've took anything you people can hand out. The problem you people have is, you are not in control of censoring me. If you were...I'd be banned or heavily censored, which is why you people have no control on here...and rightly so.
Now can you show me the two classic pieces?
Right now I can think of two classic and obvious pieces of evidence which destroys the whole flat Earth concept.
-
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision is just a smaller FOV. It still doesn't mean a FOV of 0. A FOV of 0 is impossible.
Do you understand that?
Absolutely.
Then why do you keep acting like you don't, and that instead when looking through such a tube you do have a FOV of 0?
You're the one saying that I say there's no FOV.
I've never mentioned it.
This is your major problem. You try and twist stuff and think you're getting somewhere.
-
sure... imagine teh point of view is of some superman flying around at different altitudes.
vid one shows the horizon as superman flies up.
vid two shows the horizon as superman flies down.
you see a ball, when viewed at different altitudes.
and you see very similar to that seen in reality.
at the timepoints picked by stash, not by you:
https://images.app.goo.gl/WsYEs8hdqJSQU9g6A
https://images.app.goo.gl/kG62rwzHhPGk3sLZA
you've repeatedly stated you can't see what we're telling you we do see.
But that is not what you would genuinely see with your superman carry on....unless your superman was
dipping his eyes downwards as he flew higher over the fictional globe.
If your superman kept a level view as he rose he would see nothing but sky.
The diagram is a nonsense.
we've asked you to model it, you said it was impossible.
these kind youtubers have taken hte time to do it and woweee, it matches what we see.
It doesn't match what you see, at all. It matches what you're coaxed into believing you see, because you believe you're looking at horizon lines on a globe and you're simply not.
Any animation will not just magically show a reality unless that reality can be physically shown....and you cannot physically show it for the reasons I gave earlier.
you on the other hand have claimed some sort of reflection on reflection without so much as a diagram.
and that you could not see the edge of a basketball. a ball, a very real tangible thing you could pick up and see.
or that the field of view magically disappears when looking through a 1inDIA cardboard tube.
I never said any field of view magically disappears. The filed of view becomes tunnel vision.
There's still a small field of view with whatever is in that sight......but...now pay attention.........
On a level set up, that tunnel vision would absolutely not offer you any horizon line on your globe that would be curving away and down from your feet....but yet, we see horizon, even through the 1 inch diameter tube.
I understand why you believe you have your horizon on your globe. It's the very same kind of reasoning as to why you believe oceans can magically stick to it when every experiment tells you different.........but.....but.....well, what else can I say?
You say that
But yet in vid 2 it shows a horizon line and compares it to a "eye level" red bar.
This is your level.
Still wrong.
And as explained to you, a level site experiment.
Still youre weong.
All youce "explained" is that somehow field of view in a tunnel shows nothing - which ha sbeen explained to you
So youre still wrong again.
I beleive we ve reached another limit to your explanations.
You refuse to draw a picture.
You refuse to watch a video.
You refuse to explain further wtf reflecting shades on a dome means.
-
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision is just a smaller FOV. It still doesn't mean a FOV of 0. A FOV of 0 is impossible.
Do you understand that?
Absolutely.
Then why do you keep acting like you don't, and that instead when looking through such a tube you do have a FOV of 0?
You're the one saying that I say there's no FOV.
I've never mentioned it.
This is your major problem. You try and twist stuff and think you're getting somewhere.
If you keep insisting that a level sight in tunnel would not allow you to see anything below said sight, then you are saying the fov is zero.
That is what you are saying.
If it is not what you mean, say it properly, or better yet - draw a picture
-
I've took anything you people can hand out. The problem you people have is, you are not in control of censoring me.
It's actually I've taken anything you people can hand out but near enough. That's right you have. And we are not in control of you in any shape or form. Why would we want to be?
There is no problem with me and as long as we all stick to our own beliefs (which we will do) in the same way you do then this discussion seems marked as becoming a likely candidate for the longest in this forum. That's fine by me. It's quite fun.
-
Yeah, I don't get the "...your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe," bit. That doesn't make any sense.
In any case, what would change my mind? I'd happily change my mind if on a clear day you NEVER saw such an obstruction from a distance such as this:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Ogse6s.jpg?1)
You say if it NEVER happened. what i'd like you to tell me is how often does this image across the lake fit the globe model. Because whenever flat earthers talk about the very same thing, they show their pictures of it where the curvature is missing. So does it normally look like your picture or theirs, and pls cite a source for your evidence which you present.
What flat earther pictures are you referring to?
-
The curved terminator that you see on the normal 'everynight' Moon is nothing to do with the Earths shadow. That only applies during an eclipse. The Earths shadow always lies opposite the Sun in the sky and so the shadow of the Earth can only ever become visible as a shadow on the Moon when the Moon lies opposite the Sun in the sky. I.e. at full Moon.
Other times the borderline between the sunlit and dark regions of the Moons surface (the terminator) is purely caused by the angle between the Moon, Earth and Sun.
The moon does go behind the earth every month relative to sun and earth and there you can see but im interested to hear what you can come up to explain this. (Dont believe me? Google the moon cyclr and see yourself)
-
All youce "explained" is that somehow field of view in a tunnel shows nothing - which ha sbeen explained to you
So youre still wrong again.
Go and get a straight piece of pipe and go to any gradient and set up your tube horizontally level from the ground at points up the gradient, to the top.
See what you see as you advance in height and then show me what you see at the very top with your levelled tube.
You'll never see any part of that hill as any contrast for a line until you get your scope level with skimming the top of it to the sky after it.
This is your basketball argument.
However, your globe works in a different way.
You aren't walking up any gradient to any top on your globe, you are on top at all times. And this is where the globe model badly messes up.
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
It's a massive dupe aided by nonsensical gravity to create things that are simply illogical and impossible.
Here's a quick diagram. Genuine people....take time to understand what's being said with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
I beleive we ve reached another limit to your explanations.
You've reached a limit to your understanding of any of it at all times. You go backwards everytime.
I'm waiting for you to shock me by understanding something.
You refuse to draw a picture.
Nahhh. I've done that and once again I have.
This is your go to argument when you can't gain any traction.
You refuse to watch a video.
I dd that and you took your time trying to explain it.
You refuse to explain further wtf reflecting shades on a dome means.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Shades reflecting on a dome?
-
A standard kitchen roll tube or a piece of waste pipe...etc. It doesn't really matter as long as it allows tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision is just a smaller FOV. It still doesn't mean a FOV of 0. A FOV of 0 is impossible.
Do you understand that?
Absolutely.
Then why do you keep acting like you don't, and that instead when looking through such a tube you do have a FOV of 0?
You're the one saying that I say there's no FOV.
I've never mentioned it.
This is your major problem. You try and twist stuff and think you're getting somewhere.
If you keep insisting that a level sight in tunnel would not allow you to see anything below said sight, then you are saying the fov is zero.
That is what you are saying.
If it is not what you mean, say it properly, or better yet - draw a picture
You have a field of vision in a tunnel. It's the light at the end of that tunnel and what can be seen within it if there anything within that light that can be seen.
Your eye focuses on a central point of that tunnel end of light. What is outside of that central point is your FOV. It may be tunnelled but it is still a FOV.
-
just the normal everynight moon
edit: there are a lot of good pictures in google. (just dont pic one witch is almost full cause there the sun is directly shining to moon)
Then you are completely wrong.
For example, during a 3rd quarter moon (like the one in this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Waxing_crescent_moon_20131108.jpg ), the layout of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, at least according to the HC model, is like this (not to scale):
(https://i.imgur.com/PFjeaaH.png)
Tell me, how is Earth managing to cast a shadow on the moon here?
-
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
-
Here's a quick diagram. Genuine people....take time to understand what's being said with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
I can obviously only speak for myself, but think this is really great and wanted to say thanks for making the effort to put your thoughts into a diagram.
-
The moon does go behind the earth every month relative to sun and earth and there you can see but im interested to hear what you can come up to explain this. (Dont believe me? Google the moon cyclr and see yourself)
I wouldn't use the word behind personally. After 40 years as an amateur astronomer trust me I know how lunar eclipses and the lunar phase cycle works but that is obviously based on the accepted 'mainstream' heliocentric model works. The Moons orbit around the Earth is inclined by 5 degrees to the ecliptic (path of the Sun through the sky and therefore plane of the Earths orbit as we see it in the sky) and that is why we don't see a lunar eclipse every month. The diameter of the Earths shadow at the Moons distance as seen on the sky is less than 5 degrees (10x moon diameter).
That is my understanding but of course this is a flat Earth forum so people here who subscribe to that sort of thing must come up with their alternatives to the above as it wouldn't work according to them. If it is those alternatives you are after primarily then it's best I leave that to the flat Earthers out there.
-
You're the one saying that I say there's no FOV.
Because you continually act like it.
You continually expect a drawing of such a view to just be a line, rather than the cone.
You objected to the diagram I provided because I didn't just draw a line out straight, level at the person.
You indicated that the one I provided for the FE and RE should be the type I use, because it had just a straight line.
That sure indicates that you are thinking it should be a FOV of 0.
Likewise, you ignore the fact that once you accept there is a FOV and there is a horizon then it is never a simple case of never being able to see the horizon.
The diagram I provided clearly shows that your ability to see the horizon is dependent upon your FOV and your altitude. Here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
Once more, standing high above Earth, the reddy-brown FOV is large enough to see the horizon, while the small yellow one is not.
However, if you stand closer to Earth, the small yellow FOV is enough to see the horizon.
This means any attempt at any rational argument to claim the horizon should not be visible through a level scope needs to appeal to the size of Earth, the FOV of the scope, and the height of the observer.
The only way to claim that doesn't matter, with any amount of integrity, is if you have a FOV of 0.
So that is why I point this out.
This is your major problem.
What problem?
The only problem here is you, you continually spouting pure nonsense and refusing to justify it in any way. You continually ignoring arguments that show beyond any doubt that YOU ARE WRONG! Your continued refusal to admit you are wrong.
You are the problem here, not the REers.
You ridicule globe earth thinkers almost every post you make, so what's the issue?
Nahhhh. I ridicule the globe as a supposed theory. You take it personal and that's your issue.
No, you ridicule a model which accurately describes reality and insult those who support it claiming that they are brainwashed, indoctrinated, not thinking and so on.
So we aren't taking it personally, you are making it personal by repeatedly insulting us to avoid justifying your BS.
On a level set up, that tunnel vision would absolutely not offer you any horizon line on your globe that would be curving away and down from your feet....but yet, we see horizon, even through the 1 inch diameter tube.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same pathetic, baseless lie. It won't magically make it true.
You are yet to tell us what magic stops us from seeing the ground on the globe through that level tube.
The closest you have gotten is that the ground is below your line of sight, but that applies to the FE as well, so you clearly don't believe that is enough.
And once more, the math has repeatedly shown you to be wrong.
Me on a mainstream physics forum will go one way and you know it.
Yes, you will be banned for trolling, because you spout a bunch of lies, refuse to back them up and refuse to event attempt to refute the arguments made against your lies. In short, you would offer nothing constructive.
If someone acted like that it is quite reasonable for them to be banned.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with bullying, (unless you also want to include the bullying by you were you call them indoctrinated and brainwashed and claim they aren't thinking).
Instead it is entirely due to your complete unwillingness to engage in any form of rational discussion of the ideas you put foward, which would involve you defending your claims, rather than just repeating making them and dodging any argument that shows they are wrong.
Now can you show me the two classic pieces?
1 that you have been provided in this thread is the fact that the horizon is easily observed to be below eye level, and how the distance to it varies with altitude, and how it obstructs the bottom of distant objects.
Another could be the apparent location of celestial objects and how they vary across Earth, including the fact that there are 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart that you can circle.
Here's a quick diagram. Genuine people....take time to understand what's being said with it.
Take the time to understand what a FOV is.
Notice how you have just drawn a single red line?
That is for a FOV of 0.
Do you understand that?
Again, that is why I am saying you are appealing to a FOV of 0.
Once more, here is what a FOV through a tube would look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
Notice how it isn't just a straight line from your eye?
Notice how instead it is 2 lines which are diverging, representing a region that you can view?
You will be able to see everything inside the region bounded by the 2 red lines, as long as nothing else obstructs the view.
That means, if you accept that you don't have a FOV of 0, your diagram needs to show a FOV.
Do you understand that?
Now try to draw your diagram with a FOV which isn't 0.
If you want to represent the human eye, that is 150 degrees.
If you want to represent a kitchen roll tube, you want 10 degrees.
To give you an idea of what they need to be, feel free to use this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Degree-Radian_Conversion.svg
And remember, if you want to use the 10 degree FOV to claim you can't see the RE through it and thus Earth isn't round, you also need to make sure it is to scale.
Just in case you don't understand, this is the kind of diagram you need:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Note that this is a to scale diagram for both a RE of radius 6371 km with an observer height of 2 m, and a flat Earth.
That is because for a RE, over that distance (~23 m), the curvature of Earth causes a drop of only 40 um, or roughly 0.002 px.
As you can see from the to scale diagram of a RE, the 10 degree FOV is more than enough to see the horizon. In fact, you can see the ground roughly 23 m in front of you.
Earth simply doesn't curve down fast enough to keep it out of view.
You've reached a limit to your understanding of any of it at all times. You go backwards everytime.
I'm waiting for you to shock me by understanding something.
Us not accepting your blatant lies and explaining why they are wrong doesn't mean we don't understand.
You are the one who either has no understanding or is knowingly lying to us with every post you make.
-
You say if it NEVER happened. what i'd like you to tell me is how often does this image across the lake fit the globe model. Because whenever flat earthers talk about the very same thing, they show their pictures of it where the curvature is missing. So does it normally look like your picture or theirs, and pls cite a source for your evidence which you present.
The problem is how much should be missing.
I am yet to see them provide examples which account for refraction due to the difficulty of doing so.
Most of the time they don't even bother with observer height and instead act as if your eyes are at sea level.
I am yet to see any example where the math is done correctly (including accounting for refraction) which doesn't fit the globe.
Where you said "..flat earth should only have a horizon at the very edge...which would result in a bllur..."
Is this what you actually believe?
Yes.
The horizon in reality is the edge of Earth. it is a boundary between Earth and the sky, where Earth blocks your view to objects behind it.
There is no magic at all involved.
For a FE, ignoring terrain and waves, that means it would be all the way at the very edge of the FE disc.
This means the only limits to your vision would be the resolution and scattering of light through the atmosphere.
Light scattering through the atmosphere effectively mixes up the light as it passes through the air. This means instead of light travelling along a straight line and hitting your eye directly from that object, it bounces all over the place and hits your eye from a range of angles.
This means you no longer have a clear distinction between where each object is.
Instead the light from one object will start to overlap with light from another. This causes them to blur together.
You can see the effect of this on a foggy day.
The limited resolution is dependent upon what optics are used and when things aren't resolved, they appear as a point without a clear shape, and if they are similar in light level to their surroundings (or darker) you won't see them as a distinct object at all. However if they are significantly brighter than their surroundings then they appear as a point of light.
An example of this is the screen you are using, displaying colours by blurring together separate red, green and blue pixels.
The only clear divide between land and sky would be the very edge of Earth.
If you were limited by resolution, then you could use better optics and see further.
If you were limited by atmospheric scattering, it would be a blur.
And in both cases, objects do not appear to have sunk into the ground.
If we include terrain, then mountains and the like can obstruct your view and produce a horizon as well, but if you get up high enough, you can see over them and see to the edge or see other tall mountains past them.
-
just the normal everynight moon
edit: there are a lot of good pictures in google. (just dont pic one witch is almost full cause there the sun is directly shining to moon)
Then you are completely wrong.
For example, during a 3rd quarter moon (like the one in this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Waxing_crescent_moon_20131108.jpg ), the layout of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, at least according to the HC model, is like this (not to scale):
(https://i.imgur.com/PFjeaaH.png)
Tell me, how is Earth managing to cast a shadow on the moon here?
Moon spins around the earth and it goes behind it and the you can see. And secondly why we always just see one side of moon where ever we stand on? If earth was flat, we could see part of the dark side of moon
(Thats the name for the side we cant see
And just to point out you are using a picture what tels that the earth is not flat (please use a picture of your pwn model )
-
All youce "explained" is that somehow field of view in a tunnel shows nothing - which ha sbeen explained to you
So youre still wrong again.
Go and get a straight piece of pipe and go to any gradient and set up your tube horizontally level from the ground at points up the gradient, to the top.
See what you see as you advance in height and then show me what you see at the very top with your levelled tube.
You'll never see any part of that hill as any contrast for a line until you get your scope level with skimming the top of it to the sky after it.
This is your basketball argument.
However, your globe works in a different way.
You aren't walking up any gradient to any top on your globe, you are on top at all times. And this is where the globe model badly messes up.
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
It's a massive dupe aided by nonsensical gravity to create things that are simply illogical and impossible.
Here's a quick diagram. Genuine people....take time to understand what's being said with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
I beleive we ve reached another limit to your explanations.
You've reached a limit to your understanding of any of it at all times. You go backwards everytime.
I'm waiting for you to shock me by understanding something.
You refuse to draw a picture.
Nahhh. I've done that and once again I have.
This is your go to argument when you can't gain any traction.
You refuse to watch a video.
I dd that and you took your time trying to explain it.
You refuse to explain further wtf reflecting shades on a dome means.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Shades reflecting on a dome?
Drawing a picture after pgs of hounding... yes... good for you.
Thank you for finally doing that.
And you picutre is relatively accurate.
The only thing missing is a FCKNG FIELD OF VIEW.
The horizontal level lines of sight - this is you confirming to us that you beleive people only see in 1 dimensipn.
Are you saying people cant look down?
Are you saying as the circle rotates away that a person qiuld see the sun disappear bottom-top and rise top-bottm (because that is literally what people see).
And the lines is literally what was shown to you in the video simulation i clipped.
The video of the sniper scope showing a whole hill side is literally a guy looking through a tube.
So thanks for proving yourself out of am arguement.
This is frekaing amazing!!!!
Reflecting dome?
Thats what you said.
Please clarify.
Possibly with a picture.
-
Take your level line, angle it down until it touches the circle.
Thats your horizon.
Look up definition of tangent.
-
Sceptimatic, I have nothing against people thinking for themselves, and i don't take your posts personally like my brothers. It's good you took the time to conduct your own experiments and reach your own conclusions.
But putting your beliefs and thoughts on a public forum, whilst brave, opens your ideas to criticism. The overall shape of the world is something everybody has an opinion on, because we all live on it, travel on it, and some of us work directly with it.
Tunnel makers and bridge makers for example, work directly with the shape of the earth, and both factor in earth curvature with their work. If they didn't, long span bridges might fail and tunnels not meet in the middle.
I have to wonder if you doing this, is like a social experiment into religious discrimination, and tolerance, or testing the rights of an individual to freely believe whatever they choose, no matter how bizarre? Afterall, flat earth has been compared to a form of religion, more concerned with faith than facts.
Am I on the right track?
-
just the normal everynight moon
edit: there are a lot of good pictures in google. (just dont pic one witch is almost full cause there the sun is directly shining to moon)
Then you are completely wrong.
For example, during a 3rd quarter moon (like the one in this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Waxing_crescent_moon_20131108.jpg ), the layout of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, at least according to the HC model, is like this (not to scale):
(https://i.imgur.com/PFjeaaH.png)
Tell me, how is Earth managing to cast a shadow on the moon here?
Moon spins around the earth and it goes behind it and the you can see. And secondly why we always just see one side of moon where ever we stand on? If earth was flat, we could see part of the dark side of moon
(Thats the name for the side we cant see
And just to point out you are using a picture what tels that the earth is not flat (please use a picture of your pwn model )
I'm pointing out that your argument is wrong. I'm not claiming Earth is flat.
You indicated the normal phase of the moon is evidence that Earth is round because it casts a round shadow.
The diagram I presented shows the position of the sun, moon and Earth during a crescent phase.
It is quite clear that Earth is not casting a shadow on the moon and thus your argument is wrong.
The reason the terminator on the Moon's surface is curved is because the moon is round. It has nothing to do with Earth being round.
The only time Earth ever casts a shadow on the moon is during a lunar eclipse, and that only happens during 2 short periods each year, having at most 4 eclipses per year.
-
I can obviously only speak for myself, but think this is really great and wanted to say thanks for making the effort to put your thoughts into a diagram.
I agree.
-
just the normal everynight moon
edit: there are a lot of good pictures in google. (just dont pic one witch is almost full cause there the sun is directly shining to moon)
Then you are completely wrong.
For example, during a 3rd quarter moon (like the one in this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Waxing_crescent_moon_20131108.jpg ), the layout of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, at least according to the HC model, is like this (not to scale):
(https://i.imgur.com/PFjeaaH.png)
Tell me, how is Earth managing to cast a shadow on the moon here?
Moon spins around the earth and it goes behind it and the you can see. And secondly why we always just see one side of moon where ever we stand on? If earth was flat, we could see part of the dark side of moon
(Thats the name for the side we cant see
And just to point out you are using a picture what tels that the earth is not flat (please use a picture of your pwn model )
I'm pointing out that your argument is wrong. I'm not claiming Earth is flat.
You indicated the normal phase of the moon is evidence that Earth is round because it casts a round shadow.
The diagram I presented shows the position of the sun, moon and Earth during a crescent phase.
It is quite clear that Earth is not casting a shadow on the moon and thus your argument is wrong.
The reason the terminator on the Moon's surface is curved is because the moon is round. It has nothing to do with Earth being round.
The only time Earth ever casts a shadow on the moon is during a lunar eclipse, and that only happens during 2 short periods each year, having at most 4 eclipses per year.
I should just link you to the video where this is explained and again you forgot that the moon is going around the earth and that takes one month so part of the moon will go behind the earth. (What you say would be true if the moon stays in front of the earth and only goes behind twise a year (year has 12 months)
-
Take your level line, angle it down until it touches the circle.
Thats your horizon.
Look up definition of tangent.
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
-
Sceptimatic, I have nothing against people thinking for themselves, and i don't take your posts personally like my brothers. It's good you took the time to conduct your own experiments and reach your own conclusions.
But putting your beliefs and thoughts on a public forum, whilst brave, opens your ideas to criticism. The overall shape of the world is something everybody has an opinion on, because we all live on it, travel on it, and some of us work directly with it.
Tunnel makers and bridge makers for example, work directly with the shape of the earth, and both factor in earth curvature with their work. If they didn't, long span bridges might fail and tunnels not meet in the middle.
I have to wonder if you doing this, is like a social experiment into religious discrimination, and tolerance, or testing the rights of an individual to freely believe whatever they choose, no matter how bizarre? Afterall, flat earth has been compared to a form of religion, more concerned with faith than facts.
Am I on the right track?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
-
Let's stop using this word 'behind' shall we. There is no 'front' to the Earth so there can't be a behind either.
At full Moon (when we see a lunar eclipse) the Earth lies between the Sun and the Moon. So the shadow of the Earth is aiming at the Moon but because the Moons orbit is inclined by 5 degrees compared to the Earths orbit around the Sun. That's why there is no precise line up of the three except a couple of times a year as JB has already stated.
-
I should just link you to the video where this is explained and again you forgot that the moon is going around the earth and that takes one month so part of the moon will go behind the earth. (What you say would be true if the moon stays in front of the earth and only goes behind twise a year (year has 12 months)
Sure, try linking me to a video explaining how the phases of the moon are caused by Earth's shadow.
Make sure the video includes a diagram like mine, but shows how Earth's shadow causes the phases.
While you are at it explain how the time the moon is most likely to be in Earth's shadow it is the fullest and when it is least likely to be in Earth's shadow it is the newest/empties.
What I am saying is true regardless of if the moon orbits Earth or not.
The simple fact is that the phases of the moon are not caused by Earth's shadow.
We can measure the angular separation between the sun and the moon fairly easily. This allows us to tell that there is no possible way for the Earth to cast a shadow onto the moon unless it is a full moon. That means the Earth's shadow cannot cause the moon to appear a a crescent.
The only thing on the moon caused by Earth's shadow is a lunar eclipse, when the moon actually passes through Earth's shadow.
And it only has the chance to actually go into Earth's shadow for 2 periods each year, as the moon's orbit is not in the same plane as Earth's orbit.
The Moon's orbit is roughly 350 000 to 400 000 km away.
Being generous and taking it at 400 000 km away, Earth's penumbra is only ~16500 km wide.
(At 350 000 km it is only ~16 000 km wide).
The Moon has a radius of ~1737 km So if the centre of the moon is roughly 10000 km above perfect alignment, it will not go into Earth's shadow at all.
That corresponds to roughly 1.6 degrees (or 3.2 if you include up and down).
In general, during a full moon, the moon isn't directly behind Earth.
That means if the moon is 1.5 degrees above or below a perfect alignment, it will not pass through the penumbra.
-
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
See how the FOV has a part that is angled down and hits Earth?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
Why? It has none of the traits of a religion.
The spinning global mindset is based upon solid physical evidence and logical arguments.
The FE mindset is based upon repeatedly lying about what you would expect on the RE, outright rejection of rejection of physical evidence, repeatedly asserting the same refuted lies and refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational discord. If anything it is worse than religion.
-
I should just link you to the video where this is explained and again you forgot that the moon is going around the earth and that takes one month so part of the moon will go behind the earth. (What you say would be true if the moon stays in front of the earth and only goes behind twise a year (year has 12 months)
Sure, try linking me to a video explaining how the phases of the moon are caused by Earth's shadow.
Make sure the video includes a diagram like mine, but shows how Earth's shadow causes the phases.
While you are at it explain how the time the moon is most likely to be in Earth's shadow it is the fullest and when it is least likely to be in Earth's shadow it is the newest/empties.
What I am saying is true regardless of if the moon orbits Earth or not.
The simple fact is that the phases of the moon are not caused by Earth's shadow.
We can measure the angular separation between the sun and the moon fairly easily. This allows us to tell that there is no possible way for the Earth to cast a shadow onto the moon unless it is a full moon. That means the Earth's shadow cannot cause the moon to appear a a crescent.
The only thing on the moon caused by Earth's shadow is a lunar eclipse, when the moon actually passes through Earth's shadow.
And it only has the chance to actually go into Earth's shadow for 2 periods each year, as the moon's orbit is not in the same plane as Earth's orbit.
The Moon's orbit is roughly 350 000 to 400 000 km away.
Being generous and taking it at 400 000 km away, Earth's penumbra is only ~16500 km wide.
(At 350 000 km it is only ~16 000 km wide).
The Moon has a radius of ~1737 km So if the centre of the moon is roughly 10000 km above perfect alignment, it will not go into Earth's shadow at all.
That corresponds to roughly 1.6 degrees (or 3.2 if you include up and down).
In general, during a full moon, the moon isn't directly behind Earth.
That means if the moon is 1.5 degrees above or below a perfect alignment, it will not pass through the penumbra.
Just looked it up and reliesed that lunar eclipse is exactly what i was trying to tell and didint just know the name ( because im from finland and dont really speak english )
Its called "kuunpimennys" in finnish
And if you dont try to proof earth flat then we are on same side and we should not waste our time
-
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
See how the FOV has a part that is angled down and hits Earth?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
Why? It has none of the traits of a religion.
The spinning global mindset is based upon solid physical evidence and logical arguments.
The FE mindset is based upon repeatedly lying about what you would expect on the RE, outright rejection of rejection of physical evidence, repeatedly asserting the same refuted lies and refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational discord. If anything it is worse than religion.
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
-
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
See how the FOV has a part that is angled down and hits Earth?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
Why? It has none of the traits of a religion.
The spinning global mindset is based upon solid physical evidence and logical arguments.
The FE mindset is based upon repeatedly lying about what you would expect on the RE, outright rejection of rejection of physical evidence, repeatedly asserting the same refuted lies and refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational discord. If anything it is worse than religion.
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
-
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
See how the FOV has a part that is angled down and hits Earth?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
Why? It has none of the traits of a religion.
The spinning global mindset is based upon solid physical evidence and logical arguments.
The FE mindset is based upon repeatedly lying about what you would expect on the RE, outright rejection of rejection of physical evidence, repeatedly asserting the same refuted lies and refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational discord. If anything it is worse than religion.
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
-
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
See how the FOV has a part that is angled down and hits Earth?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
Why? It has none of the traits of a religion.
The spinning global mindset is based upon solid physical evidence and logical arguments.
The FE mindset is based upon repeatedly lying about what you would expect on the RE, outright rejection of rejection of physical evidence, repeatedly asserting the same refuted lies and refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational discord. If anything it is worse than religion.
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
So 100 meters away I can only see 1" of whatever is there?
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
-
Sceptimatic, just ask your students to look through a telescope fixed to a horizontal position? That will achieve the same result - blue sky well above the horizon line.
In the meantime, Sceptimatic, re-familiarise yourself with the definitions of religion, doctrine, and indoctrination. Indoctrination means to teach a group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. You would argue that applies to the masses with globe earth, but I would argue all those flat earth videos are a form of indoctrination. The essential ingredient is critical thinking. Maybe that can be a new topic of debate? ???
Sceptimatic, do you feel you are being persecuted here for voicing your flat earth belief? You know, you could just post in the believers only section?
How many flat earth conventions have you attended do far?
-
So 100 meters away I can only see 1" of whatever is there?
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
Scaled down, yes.
-
Sceptimatic, just ask your students to look through a telescope fixed to a horizontal position? That will achieve the same result - blue sky well above the horizon line.
Not sure what you're getting at with this.
In the meantime, Sceptimatic, re-familiarise yourself with the definitions of religion, doctrine, and indoctrination. Indoctrination means to teach a group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. You would argue that applies to the masses with globe earth, but I would argue all those flat earth videos are a form of indoctrination.
Anything is indoctrination if something is ingrained into a persons mind with no acceptance of opposing view without consequence.
I'd say that firmly applies to the global indoctrination and mainstream so called scientific pushing of things that are not shown to be reality.
The essential ingredient is critical thinking. Maybe that can be a new topic of debate? ???
Critical thinking is fine. Indoctrination in certain subjects, seem to forbid this by ridicule...etc.
Sceptimatic, do you feel you are being persecuted here for voicing your flat earth belief?
Of course.... but I expect it. It's not an issue.
You know, you could just post in the believers only section?
I could. You could also refuse to correspond with me.
How many flat earth conventions have you attended do far?
None.
-
sceppy you are truly AMAZING!
watch the video.
let me know how much field of view is seen through this 1in sniper's scope at 500yards and the different levels of magnifications.
amazing!
-
So 100 meters away I can only see 1" of whatever is there?
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
Scaled down, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "scaled down". But looking through the 1" tube, 100 meters away, you would still only be seeing 1"? Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Muc4OQP.jpg)
-
well i asume sceppy has use of a cell phone?
and that cell phone has a camera?
and he has a tube of paper towel available to him?
go outside
stick your camera up to the tube
take a photo
post it.
let's see what you're on about.
-
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
See how the FOV has a part that is angled down and hits Earth?
I'd say the spinning global mindset is more of a religion, to be honest....so....no....you're not on the right track.
Why? It has none of the traits of a religion.
The spinning global mindset is based upon solid physical evidence and logical arguments.
The FE mindset is based upon repeatedly lying about what you would expect on the RE, outright rejection of rejection of physical evidence, repeatedly asserting the same refuted lies and refusing to rationally engage in any form of rational discord. If anything it is worse than religion.
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Stop just asserting the same pathetic lie.
That is the FOV through a 1 inch tube.
I did the math before showing that the FOV is roughly 10 degrees.
That image has been drawn with a FOV of 10 degrees.
All it takes is for you to get a tube, stand in a long hallway and look through it.
The fact that you can see the floor through that tube over such a short distance shows that your claims are pure BS.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
Again, this is what the FOV through a tube looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
Notice how the lines start at the eye and then move outwards?
It hits the end of the outer tube and continues outwards.
That means when looking through a 1 inch tube, at something 2 m away, you see more than 1 inch.
Instead, you see 10 degrees.
So 100 meters away I can only see 1" of whatever is there?
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
Scaled down, yes.
So you have no idea at all how FOV/vision in general works.
You don't see in straight lines like that. You see based upon angles.
But once more, all it takes to disprove this is to look at something through the tube.
If you like, go up to a wall, hold the tube at eye level and draw a circle around the tube.
Then, walk away from the wall and look at it through the tube. Do you only see inside the circle on the wall, or do you see more?
Also, we are back to it not working at all on your FE either.
Notice how that 1 inch FOV remains roughly 2 m above the surface, all the time, never getting any closer.
That means if you truly believed this you would also believe that on the FE you don't see a horizon.
That is because no matter how far away you get, your FOV will never touch the ground.
Anything is indoctrination if something is ingrained into a persons mind with no acceptance of opposing view without consequence.
No, you do not need to accept opposing views in order for it to not be considered indoctrination.
You need to consider opposing views and the evidence and arguments for and against the position.
Considering those views, and realising they are BS means you don't need to accept them.
We don't need to accept your nonsenes to not be indoctrinated.
I'd say that firmly applies to the global indoctrination and mainstream so called scientific pushing of things that are not shown to be reality.
And what things would that be?
The RE has been shown to be reality beyond any sane doubt.
It is what all the evidence supports and FEers are unable to show any issue with it at all.
So that clearly isn't the case.
Critical thinking is fine. Indoctrination in certain subjects, seem to forbid this by ridicule...etc.
And in science, that is allowed, including in discussing the RE.
In religion it isn't, because that shows the religion is wrong.
You are outright rejecting critical thinking and refusing to engage in it, likely because it shows the FE and your claims are wrong.
Your only objections to the RE amount to blanant lies you refuse to defend along with insulting the RE and those who support it.
You are describing yourself.
Your adherenece to the FE model is based upon nothing more than indoctrination and ridicule, with no sign of crtical thinking ANYWHERE.
-
If you meant that you needed to scale down the view, such that you account for how perspective makes objects smaller, then you need to make sure you also scale down the distance to Earth. If you do this you have something more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
And a closer view of just the tube:
(https://i.imgur.com/QoRwF04.png)
And yet again you can see Earth through this tube.
Not just below your feet, but by the time you get to 23-24 m, it is within your FOV.
Understand FOV and how vision works yet?
-
It's a very simple experiment to do. Probably one of the simplest. Kitchen towel comes on a role. It is rolled around a length of cardboard tube. I just finished up a role and took hold of the tube. I walked up to my back door (about 1m from it) and looked through the tube with my eye at one end, just as if I was looking through a telescope.
I could see the inside of the tube of course and I could also see some of the back door through the hole at the other end. No surprises so far. I then backed backwards across my kitchen (5m or thereabouts). All the time I was still looking through the tube and as the distance between me and the back door increased, so I could see more and more of my back door. In other words my FOV was increasing all the time. So clearly if I could carry on walking backwards and away from the door far enough then there would come a point where I could see the whole of the door. Whereas while I was standing just a metre or so away from it then I could only see a small part of the door.
According to what Scepti seems to be insisting (reply #1835 for example) is that even as I walk away from the door looking through the tube, I will only ever see the same amount of the door when standing 10m or 100m away as I could when I was standing 1m from it.
So are my eyes deceiving me or is Sceptis assertion that FOV through a tube does not vary with distance wrong? I was using the same tube all the time and I was using the same door all the time, looking through the tube with the same eye all the time and the lighting conditions were the same throughout. So the only variable involved was my distance from the door. I guess I could even have someone measure my actual FOV at different distance from the door and then plot the points on a graph.
I predicted the result of what I would see before I conducted the experiment. My prediction proved to be correct.
-
sceppy you are truly AMAZING!
watch the video.
let me know how much field of view is seen through this 1in sniper's scope at 500yards and the different levels of magnifications.
amazing!
Your field of view is compressed into an inch from the tube.
Magnification does not make the object physically bigger at distance.
Maybe have a think about it and you will understand.........................................maybe.
-
So 100 meters away I can only see 1" of whatever is there?
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
Scaled down, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "scaled down". But looking through the 1" tube, 100 meters away, you would still only be seeing 1"? Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Muc4OQP.jpg)
That tape would be at the end of your tube. You would see the 1 inch.
If you put the tape at distance and look at it, you compress the image from your eye point. Your level point. Your vanishing point....meaning the object (tape) becomes smaller while you open up light around that object, as you move it away from the tube end.
-
well i asume sceppy has use of a cell phone?
and that cell phone has a camera?
and he has a tube of paper towel available to him?
go outside
stick your camera up to the tube
take a photo
post it.
let's see what you're on about.
You will not see anything outside of the tube vision. Your tunnel vision, unless you add in convexity or concavity.
If you were stood at one end of a straight tunnel which is 20 feet in diameter and look through it. How big is the diameter at the other end?
Measure it from your standpoint then carry on measuring it as you walk towards it.
Anything you see at the end of that tunnel works the same.
Your vision vanishes over distance due to reflected light not getting back to your eyes. It becomes a vanishing point in enclosed areas....ie, your tube or tunnel, etc.
-
So you have no idea at all how FOV/vision in general works.
You don't see in straight lines like that. You see based upon angles.
Your trouble is, you're substituting the torch reflective cone set up into a tunnel vision scenario. It doesn't work like you think.
You need to evaluate it and come back to me.
-
If you meant that you needed to scale down the view, such that you account for how perspective makes objects smaller, then you need to make sure you also scale down the distance to Earth. If you do this you have something more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
And a closer view of just the tube:
(https://i.imgur.com/QoRwF04.png)
And yet again you can see Earth through this tube.
Not just below your feet, but by the time you get to 23-24 m, it is within your FOV.
Understand FOV and how vision works yet?
I'm well aware how it works. You seem to be following a path that is not realistic.
-
According to what Scepti seems to be insisting (reply #1835 for example) is that even as I walk away from the door looking through the tube, I will only ever see the same amount of the door when standing 10m or 100m away as I could when I was standing 1m from it.
Pay more attention.
That's not what I've said or saying.
Your FOV is compressed as you move away from the object....in this case your massive kitchen with back door.
Either way you only see what can be compressed into that end tube vision by what light is allowed to reflect back.
If your tube is close of the door then most light is blocked.
Once you step back a little, you allow reflected light to bounce off that door and back to your eye, meaning you see a bit more of that door....and so on until you reach a vanishing point where the object cannot reflect the light and becomes invisible, almost, leaving what appears to be a reversed cone of vision (looking through a theoretical wide end to theoretical convergence opposite to what Jackblack is trying to portray.
-
I also predicted another result after doing my experiment. Which was that whatever anyone does by way of experiment to prove you wrong, you will invent some way of wriggling out having to admit that you are wrong. And so far that prediction is turning out to be true as well.
Use whatever fancy words you like but previously you have claimed that if you are looking through a tube the diameter of the FOV that you see through it never changes. Regardless of how near or how far away the object is that you are looking at through the tube. That is what the parallel lines in the diagram indicate.
As I said it is a very simple experiment which can be performed by anyone with just a simple cardboard tube and the ability to move. Try it.
-
Use whatever fancy words you like but previously you have claimed that if you are looking through a tube the diameter of the FOV that you see through it never changes. Regardless of how near or how far away the object is that you are looking at through the tube. That is what the parallel lines in the diagram indicate.
It's true...it never changes.
As I said it is a very simple experiment which can be performed by anyone with just a simple cardboard tube and the ability to move. Try it.
It doesn't matter what you do, your field of view diameter of and from that tube will always be the same size.
-
Use whatever fancy words you like but previously you have claimed that if you are looking through a tube the diameter of the FOV that you see through it never changes. Regardless of how near or how far away the object is that you are looking at through the tube. That is what the parallel lines in the diagram indicate.
It's true...it never changes.
As I said it is a very simple experiment which can be performed by anyone with just a simple cardboard tube and the ability to move. Try it.
It doesn't matter what you do, your field of view diameter of and from that tube will always be the same size.
This is very confusing. What is a "field of view diameter"? Are you just making things up on the fly?
I think taking some time to study very basic subjects such as geometry and optics would be really helpful for you. It doesn't have to change your mind about the shape of the earth and all your fantasy around it but would definitely help you avoid these really basic errors in thought.
Basic geometry and optics. Millenia old, really helpful to know, relatively easy to learn, and simple to self verify with basic and cheap equipment. It is possible this is still be beyond your capabilities, but I remain hopeful.
-
So 100 meters away I can only see 1" of whatever is there?
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
Scaled down, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "scaled down". But looking through the 1" tube, 100 meters away, you would still only be seeing 1"? Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Muc4OQP.jpg)
That tape would be at the end of your tube. You would see the 1 inch.
If you put the tape at distance and look at it, you compress the image from your eye point. Your level point. Your vanishing point....meaning the object (tape) becomes smaller while you open up light around that object, as you move it away from the tube end.
i.e. the image above is not correct in any way as your FOV is not simple 1 inch.
Instead, the diagram I provided is correct.
Your trouble is, you're substituting the torch reflective cone set up into a tunnel vision scenario.
No, my "trouble" is that you continually reject reality without cause.
Once more, tunnel vision is based upon angle, not physical size. You even effectively admit that.
Once more, looking through a 1 inch diameter tube doesn't mean you see 1 inch. Instead you see roughly 10 degrees (assuming said tube is roughly 15 cm long).
It seems to work exactly like I think.
Did you even try the test I suggested?
Get that tube, and look through it at a circle on the wall or down a hallway.
Do you just see that circle, or do you see more?
Do you see the floor or not?
Once more, this is what you actually see, first the physical idea:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
This is a to scale diagram of the RE, showing the FOV through that tube.
Here is an angular view instead:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
You will easily see Earth through this tube.
Once more, do you have a rational objection, or just continued dismissal of reality?
I'm well aware how it works. You seem to be following a path that is not realistic.
Just what is unrealistic about my path?
Can you actually show anything wrong with it, or just continue with the same pathetic dismissal?
-
Use whatever fancy words you like but previously you have claimed that if you are looking through a tube the diameter of the FOV that you see through it never changes. Regardless of how near or how far away the object is that you are looking at through the tube. That is what the parallel lines in the diagram indicate.
It's true...it never changes.
As I said it is a very simple experiment which can be performed by anyone with just a simple cardboard tube and the ability to move. Try it.
It doesn't matter what you do, your field of view diameter of and from that tube will always be the same size.
This is very confusing. What is a "field of view diameter"? Are you just making things up on the fly?
I think taking some time to study very basic subjects such as geometry and optics would be really helpful for you. It doesn't have to change your mind about the shape of the earth and all your fantasy around it but would definitely help you avoid these really basic errors in thought.
Basic geometry and optics. Millenia old, really helpful to know, relatively easy to learn, and simple to self verify with basic and cheap equipment. It is possible this is still be beyond your capabilities, but I remain hopeful.
It may be more helpful to yourself if you try and understand what's been said.
Your field of view is what you see in the area your eye can see.
In the tube, that area is determined by the diameter of the tube.
Anything you see within that diameter, whether close up or far is your field of view...but it still stays at that diameter.
The only thing that changes is the light reflection from around the the object over distance as you move away from it, seen in that diameter of that scope.
If you stand at a straight tunnel that is 20 feet in diameter and look through to the other end, you only see a massively reduced diameter of that tunnel end but you know it to be 20 feet in diameter.
If someone at the other end to you, sees you, they see you as a dot within a small diameter to their vision from the light surrounding the tunnel end and beyond.
The bigger the distance the smaller the convergence of light around any object back to the eye.
Call this the thick to thin cone view as it may appear.
-
I have a pair of binoculars (15x70) sitting on the desk next to me. On the back it says 231ft at 1000Yds or 77m at 1000m.
These figures give me the diameter of the FOV at those distances. They are basically the same except one is imperial one is metric. If the FOV never varied with distance why would they need to quote at 1000 yards or at 1000 metres?
With the same binoculars I can see the whole of the Moon (and a lot of the sky around it) and that is 3475km in diameter! So the further I look, the wider the FOV. Same applies to our cardboard tube.
I think Scepti might be confusing apparent FOV and real FOV. I also have an eyepiece here which says '13mm/100 degrees). The apparent FOV diameter is always the same. But the actual FOV will vary according to the telescope I use.
My eye has a focal point at the back of the retina. The tube has a diameter larger than the pupil of my eye. So if you draw lines which connect the focal point of my eye with the edges of the far end of the tube you will naturally form an angle. That angle is fixed and is the real FOV. But those lines will continue to diverge infinitely as distance increases. That's why the apparent FOV increases with distance.
-
Once more, this is what you actually see, first the physical idea:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
This is a to scale diagram of the RE, showing the FOV through that tube.
Here is an angular view instead:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
You will easily see Earth through this tube.
Once more, do you have a rational objection, or just continued dismissal of reality?
You're getting mixed up (purposely, imo) with using a telescope/wide angled lens/fish eye lens.
The argument is the tube. Tunnel vision. Deal with that.
Your eye ball sight is negated by that tube. That tube takes away your ability to spread the light as it focuses to a convergence point.
You're using the tube as some kind of angled torch beam. You know it's false.
-
You know it's false.
No you are just interpreting all this so it suits your belief. So you ignore what is real and just carry on reinventing the laws of physics as they apply to light so you don't have to admit you are wrong. Which is pretty much the usual pattern for conspiracy theorists. They only accept as real what they believe.
-
Lets put this to bed as clearly sceppy is contradicting himself.
On one hand he arrognatly tells us that things obviosuly APEAR smaller the farther it goes.
Yet at the same time he insists the FOV remains at the same size of the tube.
He must have sceppisized fov to suit his needs.
While WE are saying fov.
But HE clearly has redfined it in another case of us going pg after pg after pg in retarded circles.
So
Sceppy or anyone else with a camera and a tube, can you go outside and take a picture?
Because while definitions and diagrams are floating around, two points are clear
1. He rejected the sniper video where a clear tunnel scope was made and clesrly the field of view (in the conventional definition) is greater than 1in as we can clearly see up the hill and down the hill by many feet - feet being x12 of an inch.
2. He agreed to the diagram where a 1in tube will only allow you to see 1in of field of view (again in the traditional definition).
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
So
Sceppy or anyone else with a camera and a tube, can you go outside and take a picture?
-
I have a pair of binoculars (15x70) sitting on the desk next to me. On the back it says 231ft at 1000Yds or 77m at 1000m.
These figures give me the diameter of the FOV at those distances. They are basically the same except one is imperial one is metric. If the FOV never varied with distance why would they need to quote at 1000 yards or at 1000 metres?
With the same binoculars I can see the whole of the Moon (and a lot of the sky around it) and that is 3475km in diameter! So the further I look, the wider the FOV. Same applies to our cardboard tube.
I think Scepti might be confusing apparent FOV and real FOV. I also have an eyepiece here which says '13mm/100 degrees). The apparent FOV diameter is always the same. But the actual FOV will vary according to the telescope I use.
My eye has a focal point at the back of the retina. The tube has a diameter larger than the pupil of my eye. So if you draw lines which connect the focal point of my eye with the edges of the far end of the tube you will naturally form an angle. That angle is fixed and is the real FOV. But those lines will continue to diverge infinitely as distance increases. That's why the apparent FOV increases with distance.
Your field of vision remains at the diameter of the tube you look through.
You may see more of an object at distance but that object is compressed into that diameter of sight, surrounded by the reflected light around it and back to your eye.
If you have a tube in which the diameter is the same as a penny and that penny is placed right at the edge, you would see nothing or...at best a thin ring of light around that penny...but not enough to distinguis it as being a penny.
Move away from it a little and you allow the light to reflect around it more and back to your eye but you see a smaller penny by sight...not by physical reality.
All you're doing is allowing the light to reflect around the penny and the more you move away from it the more light washes in and is reflected back to your eye, with the penny becoming ever smaller as the light washes out the penny, leaving it as a dot before it vanishes.
-
sceppy you are truly AMAZING!
watch the video.
let me know how much field of view is seen through this 1in sniper's scope at 500yards and the different levels of magnifications.
amazing!
Your field of view is compressed into an inch from the tube.
Magnification does not make the object physically bigger at distance.
Maybe have a think about it and you will understand.........................................maybe.
AMAZING!
-
Your field of view is what you see in the area your eye can see.
In the tube, that area is determined by the diameter of the tube.
The field of view when looking down a tube would be determined by the diameter and length of the tube.
If you can get your head around this you might make some progress.
And it is simple, easy, and verifiable - you can even do it for free at home if you are willing to cut up your magic kitchen role tube.
-
You may see more of an object at distance but that object is compressed into that diameter of sight, surrounded by the reflected light around it and back to your eye.
Compression and light reflection to make something magically look smaller inside a tube which has no lenses in it is just fantasy on your part and you know it. The tube simply acts as a mask to restrict my field of vision.
I just looked at a barn some half a mile away using the same tube I used before. The barn is a lot bigger than my back door yet I still managed to see the whole of the barn plus quite a bit of the field around it through my tube. Nothing is compressed. Just my field of vision is restricted by the tube.
All you're doing is allowing the light to reflect around the penny and the more you move away from it
If you have a tube the same diameter as a penny and you place the penny so it is sitting against the far end of the tube then the penny prevents light from entering the tube and you see nothing. If you now move that penny away from the tube the angular diameter of the image of the penny on your eye decreases so it appears smaller so it no longer blocks light from entering the tube. Light does not 'reflect' around the penny. What is it reflecting off? You are simply seeing light from more distant objects which before were being blocked by the penny.
-
It may be more helpful to yourself if you try and understand what's been said.
It may be more helpful to yourself (and everyone) if you try to understand how things work in reality.
Your FOV is based upon an angle, not a length.
The FOV through the tube is 10 degrees.
It doesn't matter if it is 10 degrees 15 cm in front of your face, 10 degrees 100 m away, it is 10 degrees.
This 10 degree cone lets you see the ground on Earth.
You're getting mixed up (purposely, imo) with using a telescope/wide angled lens/fish eye lens.
No, I am explaining how reality works. that reality that you repeatedly reject.
I am not using a wide angle lense at all.
Instead I am using a tube 1 inch in diameter and 15 cm long.
The argument is the tube. Tunnel vision. Deal with that.
I have. That is what those diagrams are showing.
You not liking it because it shows you are wrong does not change that.
That tube allows you to easily see the ground.
To claim otherwise would require claiming that the tube magically only lets you see 1 inch, regardless of how far away an object is, so if you were to look at a building 100 m away, you still only see 1 inch. But that is simply not how vision works.
So do you have any rational objection, such as a diagram showing how this magic supposedly happens? Or are you only capable of continually asserting the same pathetic lies?
Your field of vision remains at the diameter of the tube you look through.
You may see more of an object at distance
These 2 statements directly contradict one another.
If your FOV stayed at the physical diameter of the tube, then no matter how far away the object is, you would only see that physical diameter.
You would never be able to see any more.
The fact that you do see more shows that your FOV is not limited to the physical size of the tube.
Once more, it is related to the angular size, as my diagrams clearly show.
Once more, this is how the FOV through a tube works:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
The tube simply blocks out your line of sight to anything outside that red cone (except the tube itself)
This produces an angular FOV.
Again, all it takes to see your claims are pure garbage is to look through a tube and realise you can see more than simply the physical diameter of the tube.
-
Lets put this to bed as clearly sceppy is contradicting himself.
On one hand he arrognatly tells us that things obviosuly APEAR smaller the farther it goes.
Yet at the same time he insists the FOV remains at the same size of the tube.
He must have sceppisized fov to suit his needs.
While WE are saying fov.
But HE clearly has redfined it in another case of us going pg after pg after pg in retarded circles.
So
Sceppy or anyone else with a camera and a tube, can you go outside and take a picture?
Because while definitions and diagrams are floating around, two points are clear
1. He rejected the sniper video where a clear tunnel scope was made and clesrly the field of view (in the conventional definition) is greater than 1in as we can clearly see up the hill and down the hill by many feet - feet being x12 of an inch.
2. He agreed to the diagram where a 1in tube will only allow you to see 1in of field of view (again in the traditional definition).
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
So
Sceppy or anyone else with a camera and a tube, can you go outside and take a picture?
What are you trying to explain?
-
Once more, this is how the FOV through a tube works:
https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png
The tube simply blocks out your line of sight to anything outside that red cone (except the tube itself)
This produces an angular FOV.
Which is exactly what I said in a previous post. Something that Scepti can't seem to grasp.
-
Lets put this to bed as clearly sceppy is contradicting himself.
On one hand he arrognatly tells us that things obviosuly APEAR smaller the farther it goes.
Yet at the same time he insists the FOV remains at the same size of the tube.
He must have sceppisized fov to suit his needs.
While WE are saying fov.
But HE clearly has redfined it in another case of us going pg after pg after pg in retarded circles.
So
Sceppy or anyone else with a camera and a tube, can you go outside and take a picture?
Because while definitions and diagrams are floating around, two points are clear
1. He rejected the sniper video where a clear tunnel scope was made and clesrly the field of view (in the conventional definition) is greater than 1in as we can clearly see up the hill and down the hill by many feet - feet being x12 of an inch.
2. He agreed to the diagram where a 1in tube will only allow you to see 1in of field of view (again in the traditional definition).
(https://i.imgur.com/cTX9fFL.jpg)
So
Sceppy or anyone else with a camera and a tube, can you go outside and take a picture?
What are you trying to explain?
that you are wrong...
also,
if you want to convey what you mean with this tube business, go outside and take a photo using a tube.
report back (with photo)
-
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Seriously... you don't think you can see an object if you are standing on it?
Every time I think I've seen the craziest claim, you always manage to top it. Good job. :)
Can you see the object you're standing on if you stand on it, upright and at a perfect level?
Try and understand that and you won't need to ask the same question.
If it's big enough compared to you, then yes you can see it. How can you think otherwise?
Easy question.
So you still think you can't see objects you stand on if you look straight ahead.
It's been said you seem to think we see in one dimension. I'm starting to think you really do think that's how eyes work. ::)
-
Scepti was talking about a tube that has the same diameter as a penny. So lets call that ~1cm give or take a bit. He goes on to say that the penny is placed right at the edge so you would see nothing. I will take that to mean you place the penny so it is sitting up against the far end of the tube so it effectively caps it off.
If we now try to look through the tube we can see nothing because of course the penny is blocking all the incoming light. Just like when I put the lens cap on the end of my telescope. So far so good. Our tube does not have any lenses in it so there is no magnification involved.
The next bit I'm not sure what he means. He says 'move away from it a little and you allow the light to reflect around it more and back to your eye but you see a smaller penny by sight'. Not a physical reality.
My take on this is that we move the penny away from but still in line with the end of the tube while still looking through the tube. Because the distance between our eye and the penny is increased, so the penny now looks smaller than it did initially. But of course the penny is not physically changing in size. I think that's what he means by not a physical reality. And I agree.
Next he says 'All you are doing is allowing the light to reflect around the penny and the more you move away from it the more light washes in and is reflected back to your eye , with the penny becoming ever smaller as the light washes out the penny..'
So are we moving our eye back from our end of the tube or are we moving the penny away from its end of the tube? If the former then we still won't see anything because the penny is still blocking off the far end of the tube. So no light can enter the tube. If the latter then the penny looks smaller and smaller because the size of the image of the penny on our retina is diminishing with increasing distance. However the far end of the tube remain fixed in size since it always the same distance from our eye. Nothing to do with reflection or compression.
I am using a cardboard tube so nothing is going to reflect off a cardboard surface. So if light is being reflected to produce the bright ring around the penny, then what is it reflecting off?
-
In asking what would change your mind, I think it's important to establish how one's mind reaches the current conclusion it does.
As a child I accepted earth to be a globe because of Christopher Columbus travels and Captain James Cook who discovered the east coast of Australia, but circumnavigated Antarctica.
Ok, so you've never been to a flat earth conference. How many flat earth YouTube videos do you estimate you have watched since 2012, Sceptimatic?
Which is your all-time favourite flat earth YouTube video, Sceptimatic?
-
Scepti likes to use the word indoctrination and he claims that anyone who doesn't believe what he does has been 'indoctrinated' with that alternative view. That must therefore be his definition (or at least understanding) of the word indoctrination.
But it simply means to accept without question. So if one day when I was just a small toddler someone told me the Earth is a globe and I hadn't made any effort at all to check that out for myself but had simply accepted right through to this day then that would be a form of indoctrination.
However I have an enquiring mind and I am certainly not the type to simply 'take someones word for it'. If I think I have found a discrepancy between what I have read or what someone has said and my own personal experience based on my own observations I will look into it. That is a perfectly natural reaction for anyone (well most people) I would have thought.
I wouldn't flatly and completely refuse to accept something someone says or something I read just because it happens to be different to something that I believe. Nor would I ridicule someone else just because they have a different belief to my own. But it seems to be something that Scepti would do because he 'questions' anything he either can't or won't accept at true.
Not agreeing with Sceptis views doesn't mean we have been indoctrinated. It simply means we have an alternative view and good reasons for having that alternative view.
-
What are you trying to explain?
What has been explained to you repeatedly.
The diagram is wrong.
Your FOV does not remain at 1 inch just because you look through a 1 inch diameter tube.
Instead it remains at ~10 degrees.
At 15 cm, that 10 degrees is the 1 inch tube.
But at a much greater distance (somewhere between 20 an 30 m), that 10 degrees is 4 m, and thus allows you to see the ground.
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
-
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Seriously... you don't think you can see an object if you are standing on it?
Every time I think I've seen the craziest claim, you always manage to top it. Good job. :)
Can you see the object you're standing on if you stand on it, upright and at a perfect level?
Try and understand that and you won't need to ask the same question.
If it's big enough compared to you, then yes you can see it. How can you think otherwise?
Easy question.
So you still think you can't see objects you stand on if you look straight ahead.
It's been said you seem to think we see in one dimension. I'm starting to think you really do think that's how eyes work. ::)
Try and put your head into gear and understand what is being said.
Standing on a ball with a tube that is horizontally level offers you no chance of seeing the ball you would be standing on.
It's that simple.
Dressing it up to be anything else, means you people are wrong.
-
Scepti was talking about a tube that has the same diameter as a penny. So lets call that ~1cm give or take a bit. He goes on to say that the penny is placed right at the edge so you would see nothing. I will take that to mean you place the penny so it is sitting up against the far end of the tube so it effectively caps it off.
If we now try to look through the tube we can see nothing because of course the penny is blocking all the incoming light. Just like when I put the lens cap on the end of my telescope. So far so good. Our tube does not have any lenses in it so there is no magnification involved.
The next bit I'm not sure what he means. He says 'move away from it a little and you allow the light to reflect around it more and back to your eye but you see a smaller penny by sight'. Not a physical reality.
My take on this is that we move the penny away from but still in line with the end of the tube while still looking through the tube. Because the distance between our eye and the penny is increased, so the penny now looks smaller than it did initially. But of course the penny is not physically changing in size. I think that's what he means by not a physical reality. And I agree.
Next he says 'All you are doing is allowing the light to reflect around the penny and the more you move away from it the more light washes in and is reflected back to your eye , with the penny becoming ever smaller as the light washes out the penny..'
So are we moving our eye back from our end of the tube or are we moving the penny away from its end of the tube? If the former then we still won't see anything because the penny is still blocking off the far end of the tube. So no light can enter the tube. If the latter then the penny looks smaller and smaller because the size of the image of the penny on our retina is diminishing with increasing distance. However the far end of the tube remain fixed in size since it always the same distance from our eye. Nothing to do with reflection or compression.
I am using a cardboard tube so nothing is going to reflect off a cardboard surface. So if light is being reflected to produce the bright ring around the penny, then what is it reflecting off?
Each molecule of matter in that area.
-
What are you trying to explain?
What has been explained to you repeatedly.
The diagram is wrong.
Your FOV does not remain at 1 inch just because you look through a 1 inch diameter tube.
Instead it remains at ~10 degrees.
At 15 cm, that 10 degrees is the 1 inch tube.
But at a much greater distance (somewhere between 20 an 30 m), that 10 degrees is 4 m, and thus allows you to see the ground.
It always remains the same.
You may have more light reflected but it's all reflected back within the same diameter of the tube.
You're just not getting it.
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
This perfectly shows the Earth is not a globe.
Why?
Because this could never happen on your globe.
This is where you people mess up.
You have to remember that, to see what you think you're seeing on your globe, your globe has to be spinning away from that sun, meaning ...if the sun is setting, it means your Earth should be rotating down and away from that vision.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
So how do you think you could elevate your position and bring that sun back?
To elevate your position you would be angling it farther away from where your sun is.
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
-
Each molecule of matter in that area.
So what is the size of each molecule of matter in relation to the wavelength range of optical light? Because that has a bearing on whether light is transmitted or reflected. If reflected then reflection occurs at random angles. That's why we can't see very far in fog. But when I looked through my tube, the light around the object didn't look very foggy.
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
This perfectly shows the Earth is not a globe.
Why?
Because this could never happen on your globe.
This is where you people mess up.
You have to remember that, to see what you think you're seeing on your globe, your globe has to be spinning away from that sun, meaning ...if the sun is setting, it means your Earth should be rotating down and away from that vision.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
So how do you think you could elevate your position and bring that sun back?
To elevate your position you would be angling it farther away from where your sun is.
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
Sceptimatic: My opinion is that seeing double sunsets is NONSENSE and those who believe it are delusional!!!
Sceptimatic a week later: Clearly seeing double sunsets by changing elevation is very strong evidence of my opinions!!!
Lol
Edited to add this is wrong. Sceptimatic did not say that you could not see an apparent sunset by increasing elevation. It was a misreading on my part. Apologies.
-
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
Nice figure sceptimatic!
Now can you do one for your explanation of how you can see the sun visually rise when you change elevation? Comparing the two would be useful.
-
Each molecule of matter in that area.
So what is the size of each molecule of matter in relation to the wavelength range of optical light? Because that has a bearing on whether light is transmitted or reflected. If reflected then reflection occurs at random angles. That's why we can't see very far in fog. But when I looked through my tube, the light around the object didn't look very foggy.
You're not getting it.
Answer these questions.
If you cover the tube with a penny...he tube being the same diameter in this instance, you see nothing...right?
Once you move away from that penny, the penny gets smaller to your vision, withing that tube diameter and the light allowed to bleed in around that penny.....right?
The farther you step back the smaller the penny os to your vision due to more light bleeding in.
Your focal point is the penny.
Your vision is like a wide cone to thin cone from the end of that tube to the penny itself, not the light around it.
Any object in that light, even around that penny, is compressed inverted cone vision.
Your field of vision is compressed into that diameter of the tube to your eye.
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
This perfectly shows the Earth is not a globe.
Why?
Because this could never happen on your globe.
This is where you people mess up.
You have to remember that, to see what you think you're seeing on your globe, your globe has to be spinning away from that sun, meaning ...if the sun is setting, it means your Earth should be rotating down and away from that vision.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
So how do you think you could elevate your position and bring that sun back?
To elevate your position you would be angling it farther away from where your sun is.
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
Sceptimatic: My opinion is that seeing double sunsets is NONSENSE and those who believe it are delusional!!!
Sceptimatic a week later: Clearly seeing double sunsets by changing elevation is very strong evidence of my opinions!!!
Lol
Making stuff up to suit yourself is all well and good...but what are you gaining?
Show me the quotes and reference them.
If you refuse to you will be ignored from this point on.
Your call.
-
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
Nice figure sceptimatic!
Now can you do one for your explanation of how you can see the sun visually rise when you change elevation? Comparing the two would be useful.
I'd like to see how you deal with this, first.
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
This perfectly shows the Earth is not a globe.
Why?
Because this could never happen on your globe.
This is where you people mess up.
You have to remember that, to see what you think you're seeing on your globe, your globe has to be spinning away from that sun, meaning ...if the sun is setting, it means your Earth should be rotating down and away from that vision.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
So how do you think you could elevate your position and bring that sun back?
To elevate your position you would be angling it farther away from where your sun is.
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
Sceptimatic: My opinion is that seeing double sunsets is NONSENSE and those who believe it are delusional!!!
Sceptimatic a week later: Clearly seeing double sunsets by changing elevation is very strong evidence of my opinions!!!
Lol
Making stuff up to suit yourself is all well and good...but what are you gaining?
Show me the quotes and reference them.
Apologies. I actually misread what you said. Totally my fault. Have corrected the original post to reflect this.
-
You're not getting it.
Answer these questions.
If you cover the tube with a penny...he tube being the same diameter in this instance, you see nothing...right?
You are probably right there. When it comes to your descriptions of the laws of physics I don't think anyone 'gets it'. OK if I'm not getting it then draw a diagram to help me out.
In the meantime you answer me these questions.
What is the wavelength range of optical light?
What is the average size of an air molecule?
Hence which is greater? And what does that mean about the behaviour of light through air?
-
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
Nice figure sceptimatic!
Now can you do one for your explanation of how you can see the sun visually rise when you change elevation? Comparing the two would be useful.
I'd like to see how you deal with this, first.
Deal with what? Your idea of how sight works? How geometry works? I’m trying to. I am trying to sketch out how you think it all works, but it is never clear from your words. Figure are very clarifying, your lasts showed clearly where the differences in our thinking are, which is very helpful. That’s why I’m asking for a figure of what you think ~is~ happening. Can you do this or is it not possible?
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
This perfectly shows the Earth is not a globe.
Why?
Because this could never happen on your globe.
This is where you people mess up.
You have to remember that, to see what you think you're seeing on your globe, your globe has to be spinning away from that sun, meaning ...if the sun is setting, it means your Earth should be rotating down and away from that vision.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
So how do you think you could elevate your position and bring that sun back?
To elevate your position you would be angling it farther away from where your sun is.
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
Hey, diagrams! Awesome.
Here's another cool one:
So here's the deal as to why your explanation just doesn't work. The above video is exemplary as to why. At 100 meters the drone pulls the sun back into view for a second sunset. There's literally no atmospheric difference between the drone view starting at approximately 10 meters and finishing at 100. No greater density to look through is present throughout the entire climb. The only visual difference is the altitude. Simple as that.
-
Try and put your head into gear and understand what is being said.
Follow your own advice and stop repeating the same refuted BS.
Standing on a ball with a tube that is horizontally level offers you no chance of seeing the ball you would be standing on.
It's that simple.
Dressing it up to be anything else, means you people are wrong.
As has been repeatedly shown, it isn't that simple.
Pointing that you are wrong and that it is not that simple doesn't mean we are wrong. It means you are wrong and have no rational defence of your blatant lies.
Once more, the only way for it to be that simple is if you are claiming that because the ground is below you, you can't see it, because you have a FOV of 0.
But that works just as well on a FE.
As soon as you admit that you can see things below you as you have a FOV greater than 0, you need to deal with just how large the Earth is, and how high you are above it and what the FOV is.
Once more, this is a to-scale diagram of what you would expect on a RE, clearly showing the FOV, clearly showing that you CAN see the ground (i.e. YOU ARE WRONG):
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
If instead you want your FOV to be 2 parallel lines and appeal to "scale", you get the same thing:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
The angular position is the scaled height.
Now, instead of your FOV being a cone extending outwards, everything is is scaled down as it gets further away.
This again results in the ground being visible and thus again it results in you being wrong.
Stop just asserting the same refuted BS and start defending your claims or admitting they are wrong.
What are you trying to explain?
What has been explained to you repeatedly.
The diagram is wrong.
Your FOV does not remain at 1 inch just because you look through a 1 inch diameter tube.
Instead it remains at ~10 degrees.
At 15 cm, that 10 degrees is the 1 inch tube.
But at a much greater distance (somewhere between 20 an 30 m), that 10 degrees is 4 m, and thus allows you to see the ground.
It always remains the same.
Again, all it takes to see that is pure BS is to get a tube and look through it. You can clearly see more than 1 inch.
You can do this by looking at a large building in the distance, or by standing in a long corridor and looking through it and seeing the ground and ceiling (and maybe the walls as well) all at the same time.
If you don't trust me, go get the tube, take it to a wall and draw a circle on the wall, by circling the tube.
Then go stand away from the wall.
If your blatant lie was correct, all you would be able to see is the inside of the circle. But in reality, you can see much more.
It isn't me that isn't getting it.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
Who said anything about it being a level line of sight?
And once more, don't forget the FOV.
Take a look at your so called ball.
Only once you understand what a FOV is and start drawing it in as well.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
Logic tells us it IS because Earth is round, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
-
Say Stash, that is a great video of a drones eye view of a Sunset. I have a drone myself so I might go for the triple sunset!
-
Sceppy
Show us a photo.
Take a photo looking thriugh a tube.
Lets see what youre on about
-
You're not getting it.
Answer these questions.
If you cover the tube with a penny...he tube being the same diameter in this instance, you see nothing...right?
You are probably right there. When it comes to your descriptions of the laws of physics I don't think anyone 'gets it'. OK if I'm not getting it then draw a diagram to help me out.
In the meantime you answer me these questions.
What is the wavelength range of optical light?
What is the average size of an air molecule?
Hence which is greater? And what does that mean about the behaviour of light through air?
Really?
-
Sceptimatic, what brand of toilet roll do you use? Mine doesn't seem to be working.
Sceptimatic, what credentials do you hold? I mean, are you a qualified optometrist, or eye surgeon, or do you work for some optical company?
-
Scepti, did you forget about the double sunsets you said couldn't exist?
It's the same with the so called sun and the pretence that you can see it set again if you climb a building...but people cannot see the nonsense of it and forsake the reality of why you do see the so called sunset again.
Here's the nonsense of it:
This perfectly shows the Earth is not a globe.
Why?
Because this could never happen on your globe.
This is where you people mess up.
You have to remember that, to see what you think you're seeing on your globe, your globe has to be spinning away from that sun, meaning ...if the sun is setting, it means your Earth should be rotating down and away from that vision.
This means your level line of sight is risen by that rotation away.
So how do you think you could elevate your position and bring that sun back?
To elevate your position you would be angling it farther away from where your sun is.
Take a look at your so called ball.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6KNzBwZ/sunset-on-globe.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The reason you do see two so called sunsets is because, the Earth is flat over water and once the sun moves away, you can elevate to look through less dense atmosphere to bring back that reflection a little, or more if you elevate higher quite quickly.
There's a reason for crows nests and such and lighthouses. It isn't due to any so called globe we walk upon and logic should tell you that.
Hey, diagrams! Awesome.
Here's another cool one:
So here's the deal as to why your explanation just doesn't work. The above video is exemplary as to why. At 100 meters the drone pulls the sun back into view for a second sunset. There's literally no atmospheric difference between the drone view starting at approximately 10 meters and finishing at 100. No greater density to look through is present throughout the entire climb. The only visual difference is the altitude. Simple as that.
Of course there's less air density at height.
Every elevation changes your theoretical horizon, including the sunlight moving to or away from you.
In this case its away from you (your sunset).
Elevating your position allows your theoretical horizon line to change, meaning your horizon line lets you see more light at more distance due to atmospheric change at elevated positions.
No way in hell would you bring anything back on a globe and my diagram explains this perfectly well.
-
Sceppy
Show us a photo.
Take a photo looking thriugh a tube.
Lets see what youre on about
Your own logic should clearly tell you what I'm on about.
-
Sceptimatic, what brand of toilet roll do you use? Mine doesn't seem to be working.
Don't worry about the brand...just use the tissue from it until the roll is empty and then use the roll. You're just making your life more difficult trying to hold a fat scope. ;)
Sceptimatic, what credentials do you hold? I mean, are you a qualified optometrist, or eye surgeon, or do you work for some optical company?
Don't worry about credentials for this stuff. Worry about what you really see as opposed to what you're told you do see, by mainstream indoctrination measures.
You said you can think for yourself, so prove it.
-
What is the wavelength range of optical light?
What is the average size of an air molecule?
Hence which is greater? And what does that mean about the behaviour of light through air?
Yes really...questions which anyone with a reasonable knowledge of physics should be able to answer. Including you if you really are as clued up as you think you are.
-
What is the wavelength range of optical light?
What is the average size of an air molecule?
Hence which is greater? And what does that mean about the behaviour of light through air?
Yes really...questions which anyone with a reasonable knowledge of physics should be able to answer. Including you if you really are as clued up as you think you are.
You struggle with basics so don't be coming out with this hogwash.
-
Another classic example of a classic Scepti response there. The classic response of someone who thinks he knows more about a subject than he actually does. If you did know then you would also know why your 'explanations' are completely meaningless.
So I will ask again, but simplify it for you this time. A one word answer will do this time.
If the wavelength of light is significantly less than the diameter of the particles (matter if you wish) it interacts with, does light get scattered or transmit directly through? This is directly relevant with your tube experiment and your claims about compression and reflection.
This isn't 'hogwash' it is simple physics. And no I don't struggle with the basics but you obviously do.
Why do you always resort to these sort of comments whenever someone asks you a question you can't answer? You simply make claims about stuff which isn't true and then whenever questions come back to you that you know you can't answer you resort to those sort of replies rather that admitting you don't know.
There is a difference by the way between others being wrong and simply disagreeing with your opinions. So just because they see things differently to you, that doesn't also mean they are wrong.
-
No way in hell would you bring anything back on a globe and my diagram explains this perfectly well.
Your diagram explains nothing because you are still pretending that you have a FOV of 0.
Draw it with an actual FOV.
Worry about what you really see as opposed to what you're told you do see
The problem is that what we see doesn't match what you tell us we see.
When looking through the 1 inch tube, we see far more than 1 inch.
Once more, if you actually understood FOV you would understand it is a cone, not a 1 inch cylinder.
Once more, this is easily confirmed by actually looking through such a tube.
Why do you need to resort to the same pathetic lies?
-
The thing I noticed about Sceptis diagram is that while the Earth is shown as rotating (as per the arrows), the tower and the telescope seem to be not changing their position? Rather the tower (and the telescope with it) is simply being tilted backwards and so upwards away from the line of sight of the Sun (which is not a bad thing without suitable filtering!).
Once more, if you actually understood FOV you would understand it is a cone, not a 1 inch cylinder.
Once more, this is easily confirmed by actually looking through such a tube.
We are basically discussing/arguing/debating what you can see through a piece of tube here. Simple, straightforward stuff which lets face it anyone can check for themselves what is true or not.
When do we move on to more interesting/complex stuff which is actually worth discussing?
-
So in the discussion of 'level sight' and the horizon, trying to conceptualize geometrically how Sceptimatic sees the world.
Is this how others see his description? A foundation sloping upwards towards the center, where there is a light source which holographically projects the 'sun' onto the encasing dome overhead? Anything in particular that others have understood that I am missing? Anything to add or edit?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
-
Is this drawing entirely of your own making and based on Sceptis descriptions, or have you got this from somewhere else?
A couple of questions immediately come to mind. Why is there only a hump the very centre (and how was the hump created in the first place) and what causes this crystal to turn? if this is true then the crystal has been rotating non-stop for over 4.5 billion years.
-
Sceptimatic, what brand of toilet roll do you use? Mine doesn't seem to be working.
Don't worry about the brand...just use the tissue from it until the roll is empty and then use the roll. You're just making your life more difficult trying to hold a fat scope. ;)
Why you playing games?
Just take the photo and show us all how youre right?
-
Is this drawing entirely of your own making and based on Sceptis descriptions, or have you got this from somewhere else?
Entirely my own, based on my personal understanding of sceptimatic's posts. Im just trying to construct the geometry in broad strokes in my mind, as I have not seen it depicted anywhere and Sceptimatic seems reluctant or unable to draw it himself. Im just trying to figure out if this is how others see it as well, and since others have probably read more of his posts than I have, if they have understanding that I am missing.
A couple of questions immediately come to mind. Why is there only a hump the very centre (and how was the hump created in the first place) and what causes this crystal to turn? if this is true then the crystal has been rotating non-stop for over 4.5 billion years.
I have no idea, he just mentioned a sloping rise in the center to the crystal and said that this was all a natural, self driven system. I dont think he buys into the accepted timeline of 4.5 billion years of Earths history.
-
Well I would say this to you; well done for trying. At least it is better than what Sceptimatic has come up with so far (i.e. nothing) so until we are shown different then we will take this to be the Earth according to Sceptimatic.
There is some irony going on here as well because it seems like Scepti believes he can make claim about anything he likes about his own model for the Earth and we are expected to just 'accept' without asking any questions to explore his model in any more detail. When we do ask questions we never get answers but instead we get shot down with all sorts of condescending comments.. The best he can come up with in terms of an answer is I believe what I believe and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Yet when it comes to us 'globalists' he accuses us of just accepting what we are told! I can't help thinking of that often used phrase 'pot and kettle'...
I'm sure he doesn't buy into the timeline for the Suns current age. I wouldn't expect him too. That would mean he would have to agree with mainstream physics and Sceptimatic simply doesn't do such things.
It's just a shame that some people are so unwilling to learning anything which falls outside of their own, self-created belief system!
-
Well I would say this to you; well done for trying. At least it is better than what Sceptimatic has come up with so far (i.e. nothing) so until we are shown different then we will take this to be the Earth according to Sceptimatic.
There is some irony going on here as well because it seems like Scepti believes he can make claim about anything he likes about his own model for the Earth and we are expected to just 'accept' without asking any questions to explore his model in any more detail. When we do ask questions we never get answers but instead we get shot down with all sorts of condescending comments.. The best he can come up with in terms of an answer is I believe what I believe and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Yet when it comes to us 'globalists' he accuses us of just accepting what we are told! I can't help thinking of that often used phrase 'pot and kettle'...
I'm sure he doesn't buy into the timeline for the Suns current age. I wouldn't expect him too. That would mean he would have to agree with mainstream physics and Sceptimatic simply doesn't do such things.
It's just a shame that some people are so unwilling to learning anything which falls outside of their own, self-created belief system!
Is my figure how you see the world he has described as well? Putting aside any notions of whether it an accurate reflection of the world we see, I'm just trying to understand it first and I want to make sure I am not in some way obviously misinterpreting his words.
As to you last point, completely agree. Unfortunately, I think this happens all too often across a lot of belief systems. Luckily, Sceptimatic's rigidity is pretty harmless though when you think about how damaging and dangerous some closed belief systems can be. Probably pretty lonely though.
-
No way in hell would you bring anything back on a globe and my diagram explains this perfectly well.
Your diagram explains nothing because you are still pretending that you have a FOV of 0.
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
-
So in the discussion of 'level sight' and the horizon, trying to conceptualize geometrically how Sceptimatic sees the world.
Is this how others see his description? A foundation sloping upwards towards the center, where there is a light source which holographically projects the 'sun' onto the encasing dome overhead? Anything in particular that others have understood that I am missing? Anything to add or edit?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
Not too bad. You seem to be getting a bit of a grasp.
-
Initial questions then would be:
1. What is the base diameter of the dome (and thus the Earth)
2. How high above the surface is the Sun spinning round
3. How do you get the day/night cycle from this?
4. What/who created the central hump
5. How do you explain the passage of spots across a Sun which is hologram?
-
Initial questions then would be:
1. What is the base diameter of the dome (and thus the Earth)
Don't know.
2. How high above the surface is the Sun spinning round
Don't know.
3. How do you get the day/night cycle from this?
Reflection back to one part, leaving other parts in darkness.
4. What/who created the central hump
Not a clue.
I believe Earth could potentially be a cell among cells.
5. How do you explain the passage of spots across a Sun which is hologram?
To get a hologram you have to project whatever it is to make it, so what you see above you will be seeing the working of what's inside the Earth.
-
Reflection back to one part, leaving other parts in darkness.
Going by the diagram as shown, every part of the Earth would always be in the direct line of sight of the Sun. So how do you get night from that.. reflection or otherwise?
I believe Earth could potentially be a cell among cells.
What sort of cells?
Where would the Moon be in this diagram and what would the Moon be?
-
Initial questions then would be:
1. What is the base diameter of the dome (and thus the Earth)
2. How high above the surface is the Sun spinning round
3. How do you get the day/night cycle from this?
4. What/who created the central hump
5. How do you explain the passage of spots across a Sun which is hologram?
Those are all good questions. Mine would be -
How can you see the sun with your level tube view? It never crosses his tubes FOV.
(https://i.imgur.com/abHzwKw.png)
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
Once more, this is a to scale model of the RE, showing an observer 2 m above Earth with a 10 degree FOV (as produced by a kitchen roll tube):
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
This shows beyond any doubt that looking through a level tube easily allows one to see the ground and thus the horizon.
If instead you want to pretend it remains at "1 inch" and instead you need to use the "scaled height", then you end up with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
The "scaled height" of the distance from the observers direct line of sight to the ground at ~25 m is "1 inch", and thus you still see the ground, and thus still see the horizon.
Once more, if you claim all that is wrong and that magically you still only see 1 inch and because the ground is below that you can't see that, in direct conflict to all observable reality, and supported by nothing other than your repeated blatant lie; that also means you would never be able to see the ground or horizon on a FE as it is still below your 1 inch tunnel.
-
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Seriously... you don't think you can see an object if you are standing on it?
Every time I think I've seen the craziest claim, you always manage to top it. Good job. :)
Can you see the object you're standing on if you stand on it, upright and at a perfect level?
Try and understand that and you won't need to ask the same question.
If it's big enough compared to you, then yes you can see it. How can you think otherwise?
Easy question.
So you still think you can't see objects you stand on if you look straight ahead.
It's been said you seem to think we see in one dimension. I'm starting to think you really do think that's how eyes work. ::)
Try and put your head into gear and understand what is being said.
Standing on a ball with a tube that is horizontally level offers you no chance of seeing the ball you would be standing on.
It's that simple.
Dressing it up to be anything else, means you people are wrong.
Why don't you draw us a diagram of what you think is happening with light and the tube.
Because all you are doing is claiming you can't see an object you are standing on. Want to try using some geometry? Show us!
I'll start.
Here is a quick diagram of what you are talking about. The black rectangle is a standard paper towel tube. This is not to scale.
Tube is has a radius of 0.75 inches. Length is 12 inches.
The blue line on the left is 6ft off the ground, held at eye level.
With a right triangle with the sides of 12 inches and 0.75 inches, the angle at the eye will be 3.591 degrees.
Now, lets calculate how far away the ground has to be to be sighted with that angle.
We form a triangle with one side (the purple line) 72 inches high (6 feet times 12 inches), and use the 3.591 degree angle. That gives an answer of 1,147 inches, or 95 feet (the brown line). So on a perfectly flat Earth, we can see the ground through the paper towel roll 95 feet away.
This is pretty easy to verify, I just did it outside and you can see the ground not too far away.
Now, how much does the Earth curve down at 95 feet away? Using the 8 inches per mile formulae which works fine for short distances gets us (95/5280*8) = 0.14 inch drop. So on a perfectly spherical Earth, the ground will be 72.14 inches below eye level at 95 feet.
Lets use that number and calculate again. A right triangle with one side 72.14 inches long and an angle of 3.591 degrees gives 1,149 inches.
So what does all that mean? It means on a round Earth, you see the ground a whole 2 inches further away than if the Earth was flat.
So it's that simple. You can see the horizon on a round Earth. You want to show a diagram explaining how you think it's not possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.png)
-
No more diagrams.
Sceppy needs ti go outside and take a photo for us to know what hes om about.
-
Reflection back to one part, leaving other parts in darkness.
Going by the diagram as shown, every part of the Earth would always be in the direct line of sight of the Sun. So how do you get night from that.. reflection or otherwise?
Pay attention.
I believe Earth could potentially be a cell among cells.
What sort of cells?
What do you mean, what sort of cells? Not jail cells....how's that?
Where would the Moon be in this diagram and what would the Moon be?
The moon is just another hologram reflection from the sun.
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
There is no flaw. The flaw is with you not understanding what I'm saying and changing it to suit yourself.
You make out I've said there's no field of vision and you use a torch view example of divergence. I'm telling you that your field of view is never more than the size of the end of the simple tube you view through because it's compressed into that back to your eye.
-
You have been shown many, many diagrams explaining how you can see the horizon while standing on the Earth.
Seriously... you don't think you can see an object if you are standing on it?
Every time I think I've seen the craziest claim, you always manage to top it. Good job. :)
Can you see the object you're standing on if you stand on it, upright and at a perfect level?
Try and understand that and you won't need to ask the same question.
If it's big enough compared to you, then yes you can see it. How can you think otherwise?
Easy question.
So you still think you can't see objects you stand on if you look straight ahead.
It's been said you seem to think we see in one dimension. I'm starting to think you really do think that's how eyes work. ::)
Try and put your head into gear and understand what is being said.
Standing on a ball with a tube that is horizontally level offers you no chance of seeing the ball you would be standing on.
It's that simple.
Dressing it up to be anything else, means you people are wrong.
Why don't you draw us a diagram of what you think is happening with light and the tube.
Because all you are doing is claiming you can't see an object you are standing on. Want to try using some geometry? Show us!
I'll start.
Here is a quick diagram of what you are talking about. The black rectangle is a standard paper towel tube. This is not to scale.
Tube is has a radius of 0.75 inches. Length is 12 inches.
The blue line on the left is 6ft off the ground, held at eye level.
With a right triangle with the sides of 12 inches and 0.75 inches, the angle at the eye will be 3.591 degrees.
Now, lets calculate how far away the ground has to be to be sighted with that angle.
We form a triangle with one side (the purple line) 72 inches high (6 feet times 12 inches), and use the 3.591 degree angle. That gives an answer of 1,147 inches, or 95 feet (the brown line). So on a perfectly flat Earth, we can see the ground through the paper towel roll 95 feet away.
This is pretty easy to verify, I just did it outside and you can see the ground not too far away.
Now, how much does the Earth curve down at 95 feet away? Using the 8 inches per mile formulae which works fine for short distances gets us (95/5280*8) = 0.14 inch drop. So on a perfectly spherical Earth, the ground will be 72.14 inches below eye level at 95 feet.
Lets use that number and calculate again. A right triangle with one side 72.14 inches long and an angle of 3.591 degrees gives 1,149 inches.
So what does all that mean? It means on a round Earth, you see the ground a whole 2 inches further away than if the Earth was flat.
So it's that simple. You can see the horizon on a round Earth. You want to show a diagram explaining how you think it's not possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.png)
If that green is your ground then you will never see it and nor would you see the water.
You see your horizon because the Earth is not a globe...not because you think it is a globe.
You kill your own argument by using the inches a per mile squared and thinking you can use it as some kind of proof that you can somehow see the deck over a short distance.
You know fine well you can't.
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical, so even trying to use your globe as some kind of edging to this so called global horizon, is nonsense and simple logic should help you see that.
-
Now you pay attention Sceptimatic..
The moon is just another hologram reflection from the sun.
Your kidding right? How can the Moon possibly any kind of reflection from the Sun???? The two look completely different and last time I looked a reflection looks pretty similar (to the point of being identical) to the object being reflected but in reverse. No one of any reasonable state of mind could ever say the Sun looks remotely anything like the Moon. Other than looking the same size in the sky. Also if the Moon is just another holographic reflection from the Sun, why does the Moon show phases when the Sun doesn't?
What do you mean, what sort of cells? Not jail cells....how's that?
Come on Sceptimatic.. you know exactly what I mean. You can do better than that! What sort of cell could the Earth possibly be in your opinion and why?
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical
What is your understanding of what theoretical means then? Because when it comes to seeing a distinct line representing the borderline between sea and sky, I would hardly call that theoretical..
-
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.png)
If that green is your ground then you will never see it and nor would you see the water.
You see your horizon because the Earth is not a globe...not because you think it is a globe.
You kill your own argument by using the inches a per mile squared and thinking you can use it as some kind of proof that you can somehow see the deck over a short distance.
You know fine well you can't.
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical, so even trying to use your globe as some kind of edging to this so called global horizon, is nonsense and simple logic should help you see that.
AMAZING!
You understand how triangles work?
Extend the image out another 2x or 3x and the right end of the truangle keeps expanding
amazing!!!
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
There is no flaw.
You ignoring that flaw doesn't magically mean there is none.
Again, address why you think you cannot see the floor when all the available evidence says you can.
You make out I've said there's no field of vision
Because you continually provide images where instead of a FOV you draw a line.
That line corresponds to a FOV of 0, where the upper and lower limit is the same.
If you want me to stop acting like you are appealing to a FOV of 0, then stop appealing to a FOV of 0.
you use a torch view example of divergence.
No, I draw 2 lines of sight through the tube.
This shows you the FOV through the tube.
Again, notice that unlike your line, it actually subtends an angle.
I'm telling you
Stop just repeating the same lies.
Deal with the massive flaw in that claim of yours.
Explain why you magically can't see the ground on a RE but can on a FE.
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
There is no flaw. The flaw is with you not understanding what I'm saying and changing it to suit yourself.
You make out I've said there's no field of vision and you use a torch view example of divergence. I'm telling you that your field of view is never more than the size of the end of the simple tube you view through because it's compressed into that back to your eye.
So you really think the FOV through the tube is within the two blue arrows and remains so all the way till the end of your vision?
(https://i.imgur.com/hequXBz.jpg)
And that notion is based upon what exactly?
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
There is no flaw. The flaw is with you not understanding what I'm saying and changing it to suit yourself.
You make out I've said there's no field of vision and you use a torch view example of divergence. I'm telling you that your field of view is never more than the size of the end of the simple tube you view through because it's compressed into that back to your eye.
So you really think the FOV through the tube is within the two blue arrows and remains so all the way till the end of your vision?
(https://i.imgur.com/hequXBz.jpg)
And that notion is based upon what exactly?
No more think
No more theory
Go outside and take a damn picutre
Show us what you see
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
There is no flaw. The flaw is with you not understanding what I'm saying and changing it to suit yourself.
You make out I've said there's no field of vision and you use a torch view example of divergence. I'm telling you that your field of view is never more than the size of the end of the simple tube you view through because it's compressed into that back to your eye.
So you really think the FOV through the tube is within the two blue arrows and remains so all the way till the end of your vision?
(https://i.imgur.com/hequXBz.jpg)
And that notion is based upon what exactly?
No more think
No more theory
Go outside and take a damn picutre
Show us what you see
I agree. Initially, it's a yes or no answer. Whichever way, it needs to be backed up with a simple picture. Because if it's a 'yes', holy shit, I need to see that!
-
Now you pay attention Sceptimatic..
The moon is just another hologram reflection from the sun.
Your kidding right? How can the Moon possibly any kind of reflection from the Sun???? The two look completely different and last time I looked a reflection looks pretty similar (to the point of being identical) to the object being reflected but in reverse. No one of any reasonable state of mind could ever say the Sun looks remotely anything like the Moon. Other than looking the same size in the sky. Also if the Moon is just another holographic reflection from the Sun, why does the Moon show phases when the Sun doesn't?
A mirror reflection may do but a bright light will not look the same reflected from angles.
Have you ever looked directly at a security light? It blinds you, right?
Have you ever tried walking towards the security light and looking under the beam? You can see the reflective inside of it and all the rest of it.
Have a think on that.
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical
What is your understanding of what theoretical means then? Because when it comes to seeing a distinct line representing the borderline between sea and sky, I would hardly call that theoretical..
Let's make this clear.
If you look out to sea you are only seeing a few miles to your horizon, unless something comes between that, like a ship or a building, depending on where you are.
You are not seeing any real lines.
You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
It's a theoretical line, meaning it appears to be a line but in theory it is not.
-
You are not seeing any real lines.
You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
No, we are seeing the edge of Earth.
It is not convergence.
Now again, care to explain how you magically get a FOV of 0?
Or will you stop pretending that you have a FOV of 0 and instead admit that through a 1 inch diameter tube you can easily have a FOV of roughly 10 degrees, allowing you to easily see the ground?
-
. . . admit that through a 1 inch diameter tube you can easily have a FOV of roughly 10 degrees, allowing you to easily see the ground?
How do you determine the FOV without knowing the length of the tube?
-
So it's that simple. You can see the horizon on a round Earth. You want to show a diagram explaining how you think it's not possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.png)
If that green is your ground then you will never see it and nor would you see the water.
You see your horizon because the Earth is not a globe...not because you think it is a globe.
You kill your own argument by using the inches a per mile squared and thinking you can use it as some kind of proof that you can somehow see the deck over a short distance.
You know fine well you can't.
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical, so even trying to use your globe as some kind of edging to this so called global horizon, is nonsense and simple logic should help you see that.
Once again you just simply deny reality, and fail to draw a diagram of whatever you think is happening.
Sadly you also failed to understand a simple triangle, again.
Fine, lets move the ground so it doesn't confuse you.
Explain how the red line going to the ground isn't possible. There is a straight line from the eye to the curving ground. You say it's impossible? What is blocking that red line from seeing the sky, the ground and yes, the horizon?
Try and prove your case for once. Show a diagram. Use some math. Or show a flaw in my math. Do something other than just claim everyone in the entire world is wrong, except you.
Or... just accept you CAN see the ground through a tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
-
You understand how triangles work?
Extend the image out another 2x or 3x and the right end of the truangle keeps expanding
amazing!!!
You are not looking outwards in any triangular fashion unless you're looking through a fluted tube or a scope that offers curved magnification.
Try again.
-
If FOV was zero there would be no vision at all, so get your act together.
That is the point. So stop pretending it is.
Instead make your diagrams with an actual FOV, i.e. in 2D, you have 2 lines which are divirging.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
When you are just drawing a straight line, you are drawing in a FOV of 0.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws in your claim?
There is no flaw. The flaw is with you not understanding what I'm saying and changing it to suit yourself.
You make out I've said there's no field of vision and you use a torch view example of divergence. I'm telling you that your field of view is never more than the size of the end of the simple tube you view through because it's compressed into that back to your eye.
So you really think the FOV through the tube is within the two blue arrows and remains so all the way till the end of your vision?
(https://i.imgur.com/hequXBz.jpg)
And that notion is based upon what exactly?
No. I'm saying your FOV is compressed into the same diameter of your tube over any distance.
-
You are not seeing any real lines.
You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
No, we are seeing the edge of Earth.
It is not convergence.
If you think you're seeing an edge of Earth then I can't help you in any way.
-
You are not looking outwards in any triangular fashion
No. I'm saying your FOV is compressed into the same diameter of your tube over any distance.
Amazing!
Please go outside, take a tube, your camera phone and take a picture for us
-
So it's that simple. You can see the horizon on a round Earth. You want to show a diagram explaining how you think it's not possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.png)
If that green is your ground then you will never see it and nor would you see the water.
You see your horizon because the Earth is not a globe...not because you think it is a globe.
You kill your own argument by using the inches a per mile squared and thinking you can use it as some kind of proof that you can somehow see the deck over a short distance.
You know fine well you can't.
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical, so even trying to use your globe as some kind of edging to this so called global horizon, is nonsense and simple logic should help you see that.
Once again you just simply deny reality, and fail to draw a diagram of whatever you think is happening.
Sadly you also failed to understand a simple triangle, again.
Fine, lets move the ground so it doesn't confuse you.
Explain how the red line going to the ground isn't possible. There is a straight line from the eye to the curving ground. You say it's impossible? What is blocking that red line from seeing the sky, the ground and yes, the horizon?
Try and prove your case for once. Show a diagram. Use some math. Or show a flaw in my math. Do something other than just claim everyone in the entire world is wrong, except you.
Or... just accept you CAN see the ground through a tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Ok let's use some simple logic based on what you believe is your Earth.
You understand it to curve away from you, so you understand that every inch in front or you it curves down. It doesn't matter by how much or that you think it's irrelevant....it curves down and away.
Ok I'm sure you have to accept that.
Ok, you must also accept that if you were stood at the beach looking out to sea, your sea will offer you the very same curve downwards as you look over distance....always. Fair enough?
Ok, so....if you stand with a horizontally levelled tube at eye height and we'll assume this tube is 2 feet long. You can understand that this tube will be 2 feet from your eye and two feet in front of your body and anything directly under it.
I'm sure even you can't deny this would be the case if your globe was the reality for you.
Ok, so you tell me how in the hell you can bring anything on the ground or water into focus when your Earth is curving down and away at eye height and will never do anything else but that.
Your sight at the back of that tube cannot suddenly jump top the end of it and look down.
Start using your logical brain instead of just back patting each other because mass opinion is easier to follow.
-
You are not looking outwards in any triangular fashion
No. I'm saying your FOV is compressed into the same diameter of your tube over any distance.
Amazing!
Please go outside, take a tube, your camera phone and take a picture for us
I'm beginning to wonder about you people.
-
You are not looking outwards in any triangular fashion
No. I'm saying your FOV is compressed into the same diameter of your tube over any distance.
Amazing!
Please go outside, take a tube, your camera phone and take a picture for us
I'll let you into a secret. You're not viewing anything on a globe.
-
So it's that simple. You can see the horizon on a round Earth. You want to show a diagram explaining how you think it's not possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.png)
If that green is your ground then you will never see it and nor would you see the water.
You see your horizon because the Earth is not a globe...not because you think it is a globe.
You kill your own argument by using the inches a per mile squared and thinking you can use it as some kind of proof that you can somehow see the deck over a short distance.
You know fine well you can't.
Your horizon is not physical...it's theoretical, so even trying to use your globe as some kind of edging to this so called global horizon, is nonsense and simple logic should help you see that.
Once again you just simply deny reality, and fail to draw a diagram of whatever you think is happening.
Sadly you also failed to understand a simple triangle, again.
Fine, lets move the ground so it doesn't confuse you.
Explain how the red line going to the ground isn't possible. There is a straight line from the eye to the curving ground. You say it's impossible? What is blocking that red line from seeing the sky, the ground and yes, the horizon?
Try and prove your case for once. Show a diagram. Use some math. Or show a flaw in my math. Do something other than just claim everyone in the entire world is wrong, except you.
Or... just accept you CAN see the ground through a tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Ok let's use some simple logic based on what you believe is your Earth.
You understand it to curve away from you, so you understand that every inch in front or you it curves down. It doesn't matter by how much or that you think it's irrelevant....it curves down and away.
Ok I'm sure you have to accept that.
Ok, you must also accept that if you were stood at the beach looking out to sea, your sea will offer you the very same curve downwards as you look over distance....always. Fair enough?
Ok, so....if you stand with a horizontally levelled tube at eye height and we'll assume this tube is 2 feet long. You can understand that this tube will be 2 feet from your eye and two feet in front of your body and anything directly under it.
I'm sure even you can't deny this would be the case if your globe was the reality for you.
Ok, so you tell me how in the hell you can bring anything on the ground or water into focus when your Earth is curving down and away at eye height and will never do anything else but that.
Your sight at the back of that tube cannot suddenly jump top the end of it and look down.
Start using your logical brain instead of just back patting each other because mass opinion is easier to follow.
Why don't you look at the diagram again, that answers your question on how you can see the ground through a tube. ::)
See the red line? That is a line straight from your eyeball to the ground. Through a level tube. Do you not understand how lines work?
Apparently not.
It's just mind-boggling you can't understand how a LINE works, or bother to look through a tube to verify your insane claims.
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
-
You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
It's a theoretical line, meaning it appears to be a line but in theory it is not.
To everyone else except Scepti... does this make sense to anyone else? If it does then can someone explain it better than he can? I look out to sea and see the line of the horizon. It appears to be a line to me but in theory it isn't. eh?
Have you ever looked directly at a security light? It blinds you, right?
Yes and no
Have you ever tried walking towards the security light and looking under the beam? You can see the reflective inside of it and all the rest of it.
Have a think on that.
OK I have thought about it but if you think that shows the Moon is some sort of reflection of the Sun then I'm afraid that doesn't work for me.
Have you ever seen mountains and craters on the Suns disk? Have you ever seen sunspots, plages or faculae on the Moons disk? Have you ever seen a lunar crater change shape over a few hours? Have you ever seen a sunspot change shape or size or even disappear after a few hours.
Have you ever looked at the Sun through a telescope in the light of Ha or CaK and wondered why the Sun looks completely different in each of those different wavelengths?
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
That tube was level.
And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.
THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube. Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.
I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube. I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling. But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.
Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.
Or draw us a diagram.
If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
That tube was level.
And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.
THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube. Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.
I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube. I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling. But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.
Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.
Or draw us a diagram.
If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?
So, the tube is level and the ground is flat...right? Is this what you're saying?
Show me.
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
That tube was level.
And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.
THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube. Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.
I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube. I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling. But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.
Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.
Or draw us a diagram.
If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?
So, the tube is level and the ground is flat...right? Is this what you're saying?
Show me.
Yes the tube is level. Yes the ground is flat, not on a hill.
If I show you a picture of the tube with a bubble level, will that be enough? If you see that the tube is level, will you admit you can see the ground through a level tube?
Or will you come up with more demands?
Why don't you list all your demands in advance, right now. What EXACTLY do you need to see, and if you see it, will you admit you can see the ground through a level tube?
Otherwise I'm wasting more time than I'm willing to put into arguing with you.
Why not address my diagram? Tell me how that red line that sees the ground is blocked? That's going to be easier than jumping through whatever hoops you have in mind. What is blocking the line from the eye to the ground?
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
-
You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
It's a theoretical line, meaning it appears to be a line but in theory it is not.
To everyone else except Scepti... does this make sense to anyone else? If it does then can someone explain it better than he can? I look out to sea and see the line of the horizon. It appears to be a line to me but in theory it isn't. eh?
To me it appears:
He thinks the horizon needs to be at eye level
And that people are in capable of looking down
And that people have zero field of vision
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
That tube was level.
And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.
THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube. Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.
I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube. I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling. But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.
Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.
Or draw us a diagram.
If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?
Same photo
Now without the tube.
Side by side them.
Show him the "field of view"
-
To me it appears:
He thinks the horizon needs to be at eye level
And that people are in capable of looking down
Well yesterday I asked 5 pretty basic question about his 'model'. Two of which came back with the answer 'I don't know' and one was 'Haven't a clue'. So it seems like Scepti doesn't know much about something that only he believes in. Which doesn't exactly fill you with confidence does it.
I don't know many people who find it acceptable to call into question a well known model which manages pretty well to not only to explain everything we see but also successfully predict future events in sky very precisely when they seem to know precious little even at a basic level about their own 'alternative' model. Yet he still expects us to just accept everything he claims as true. Surely if he wants to challenge something which has been accepted since before he was born then he had better come up with a very strong case for why his is better. Which is what he apparently believes. So Scepti by all means carry on living in your state of total denial about 'our globe' but there is no denying that we seem to have figured out rather more about our globe up to now than you have about your own flat Earth.
I have other questions in the line about his model but if he hasn't figured out any of the basics such as what the diameter of his flat Earth is or how high the Sun is circling over it then I think I had better wait on those until he has.
-
. . . admit that through a 1 inch diameter tube you can easily have a FOV of roughly 10 degrees, allowing you to easily see the ground?
How do you determine the FOV without knowing the length of the tube?
I used a length of 15 cm.
You are not looking outwards in any triangular fashion unless you're looking through a fluted tube or a scope that offers curved magnification.
Yes you are.
Again, what magic stops your eyes from seeing outwards?
What magic makes is so no matter how far away the object is you only see 1 inch of it?
Try again.
Here is the same diagram, but this time with a few extra lines.
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
The bottom of the tube has been "extended" with the purple line, to show how it goes as you get further away.
Now, lets consider light coming from the direction of the blue line and the orange line, both from below the bottom of the tube.
We can easily see that the orange line would intersect the tube, i.e. in order for that light to reach your eye, it would need to pass through the wall of the tube. That isn't possible so that ray of light is stopped and you can't see anything from that direction.
But what about the blue line?
It only needs to pass through the open end of the tube, which wont stop any light.
There is nothing to stop it from reaching your eye, so it will reach your eye.
If you wish to claim it wont tell us what magic is there to stop it.
If you think you're seeing an edge of Earth then I can't help you in any way.
Sure, you can't "help" me, because I see through your BS.
I'm not the one that needs help.
I'm not the one with no understanding how FOV or vision works.
Ok let's use some simple logic based on what you believe is your Earth.
No, lets forget about the shape of Earth as your claim has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If it was true and you magically only see for 1 inch, the ground being below you would prevent you from seeing it regardless of if Earth is flat or if it curved down.
You understand it to curve away from you, so you understand that every inch in front or you it curves down. It doesn't matter by how much or that you think it's irrelevant....it curves down and away.
Again, this only matters if you are willing to accept that you can see objects below you.
If you can't see objects just because they are below you, you cannot see the FE through your scope either.
If you can see objects below you then it is a question of how far below the Earth is.
And that is where the size of Earth/how quickly it curves down actually matters.
Once more, there are 2 competing effects.
There is perspective which makes everything below you appear higher, with it appearing higher the further away it is, and there is the downwards curve.
You need to determine which is more significant.
At short distances, perspective is. At large distances the curve is.
Ok, you must also accept that if you were stood at the beach looking out to sea, your sea will offer you the very same curve downwards as you look over distance....always. Fair enough?
No, not fair enough.
It is the same pathetic baseless assertion which has been refuted countless times.
If you want to make it fair, then actually address the issue.
Tell us what magic stops you seeing light coming from below the bottom of the tube like the blue line on my diagram. Tell us what magic causes you to only see 1 inch of distant objects. Tell us what magic exists on your FE, but not the very real RE which magically makes it so you can see the ground through the tube magically on the FE but magically not on the RE, especially as you claim the radius of Earth doesn't matter.
Even after you move the goalposts to a 2 foot long tube, it still doesn't stop you. A 2 foot long, 1 inch wide tube provides a FOV of ~2.4 degrees.
Still well above the 2.4 arc minutes you need.
You would need your tube to be over 50 feet long to not see the ground on a RE when it is mounted perfectly 2 m above the level surface.
Ok, so you tell me how in the hell you can bring anything on the ground or water into focus when your Earth is curving down
Again, forget about if Earth is curving down.
Tell us how you manage to bring it into view on your fantasy FE.
Because that is how it is brought into view on the RE.
If it being below you prevented that, it would prevent you from seeing it on the FE.
If you are claiming that Earth curving down is more significant, then you need to show that to be the case.
Start using your logical brain instead of just back patting each other because mass opinion is easier to follow.
Follow your own advice and start actually using your brain rather than repeating the same pathetic, refuted assertions.
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Do you notice how it is still an angular FOV, and that they can see more than just 1 inch of the distant objects?
Unless you are going to try telling me the trees off in the distance are less than 1 inch tall?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
I'm just thinking KY . . .
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
That tube was level.
And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.
THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube. Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.
I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube. I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling. But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.
Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.
Or draw us a diagram.
If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?
Show me the road to be level to that distance and also show me how you levelled your tube.
Are you holding the tube by hand?
-
Show me the road to be level to that distance and also show me how you levelled your tube.
Are you holding the tube by hand?
Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?
Again, do you think the trees in the distance are less than an inch tall?
Again, just what magic stops the blue line from reaching your eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
-
Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?
This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well. The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth. As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.
From Sceptis reply #1833 we have:
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
So on that basis if you were to place a 2.54cm diameter tube 1 metre directly above one rail of a straight and level standard gauge railway track and look through it, you would never see the other rail that is running parallel to it. Because the separation of the tracks is greater than the diameter of the tube you are looking through.
Yet we know you will because the rails will appear to converge in the distance.
-
Here. I just took this. It's a tube. I can see the ground through it. And the sky.
Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?
Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.
Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.
That tube was level.
And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.
THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube. Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.
I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube. I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling. But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.
Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.
Or draw us a diagram.
If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?
So, the tube is level and the ground is flat...right? Is this what you're saying?
Show me.
Yes the tube is level. Yes the ground is flat, not on a hill.
If I show you a picture of the tube with a bubble level, will that be enough? If you see that the tube is level, will you admit you can see the ground through a level tube?
Or will you come up with more demands?
Why don't you list all your demands in advance, right now. What EXACTLY do you need to see, and if you see it, will you admit you can see the ground through a level tube?
Otherwise I'm wasting more time than I'm willing to put into arguing with you.
Why not address my diagram? Tell me how that red line that sees the ground is blocked? That's going to be easier than jumping through whatever hoops you have in mind. What is blocking the line from the eye to the ground?
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.
It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.
-
You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
It's a theoretical line, meaning it appears to be a line but in theory it is not.
To everyone else except Scepti... does this make sense to anyone else? If it does then can someone explain it better than he can? I look out to sea and see the line of the horizon. It appears to be a line to me but in theory it isn't. eh?
To me it appears:
He thinks the horizon needs to be at eye level
And that people are in capable of looking down
And that people have zero field of vision
The horizon has to be at eye level.
Any can look up or down but that is not horizontal vision, is it?
-
Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?
This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well. The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth. As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.
Correct.
-
So how is any of this what you see looking through a tube business providing any supporting evidence for the Earth being flat? Or indeed got anything to do with changing anyones mind, as was the question 60 odd pages back?
Also if you would eventually see the two rails converge in the distance (since they are parallel) then if the flat ground of the Earth is one rail and your view through a tube is the other rail, then you would eventually see the ground because they are parallel as well. Only difference is in one case the lines are horizontal, in the other they are vertical.
That contradicts what you said in reply # 1833 and #1835.
-
So how is any of this what you see looking through a tube business providing any supporting evidence for the Earth being flat? Or indeed got anything to do with changing anyones mind, as was the question 60 odd pages back?
It only provides supporting evidence to those who wish to see the nonsense of a globe. That would be enough to potentially change some minds to the realisation we do not live on a globe.
Are you getting all wound up?
Also if you would eventually see the two rails converge in the distance (since they are parallel) then if the flat ground of the Earth is one rail and your view through a tube is the other rail, then you would eventually see the ground because they are parallel as well.
You wouldn't see the two rails converge, unless you were using a scope or your naked eyes.
This is why the tube is offered. It creates the tunnel vision and takes away the wide view and replaces it with a compressed view.
You will not bring any track into focus unless you're bringing that track into tube focus.
Only difference is in one case the lines are horizontal, in the other they are vertical.
That contradicts what you said in reply # 1833 and #1835.
There's no contradiction.
-
Are you getting all wound up?
Don't kid yourself... I wouldn't let any of this wind me up. Quite the opposite actually.
By the way have you figured out how wide your flat Earth is and how high your holographic Sun is circling above it? As I said before, if you don't then best learn the basics of your own model before you go blasting any others.
I ask you 'What is the diameter of your flat Earth?'. You say. 'Don't know'
You say 'What is the diameter of your globe Earth?' and I can give you at least three different methods by which the diameter of the Earth has been measured at different times through history and all have reached very close to the same answer.
This might be of interest to you as well. Check out the little thumbnail image on the right just under the video. Look familiar?
-
Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?
This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well. The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth. As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.
Correct.
Another thing you could never see through the level tube would be the sun, correct?
-
Are you getting all wound up?
Don't kid yourself... I wouldn't let any of this wind me up. Quite the opposite actually.
By the way have you figured out how wide your flat Earth is and how high your holographic Sun is circling above it? As I said before, if you don't then best learn the basics of your own model before you go blasting any others.
The only one I'm arguing against, is the one you go with. The indoctrinated globe model.
The reason I do is because, it is not a globe we live on.
I ask you 'What is the diameter of your flat Earth?'. You say. 'Don't know'
I don't. How could I?
You say 'What is the diameter of your globe Earth?' and I can give you at least three different methods by which the diameter of the Earth has been measured at different times through history and all have reached very close to the same answer.
Ok then give me the three different methods that you know work and explain how you know they give a correct size, or close to it as you people suggest.
If you're just referring to the stories told then you have no real evidence.
Maybe you've done some proof experiments.
I'm waiting patiently..
This might be of interest to you as well. Check out the little thumbnail image on the right just under the video. Look familiar?
No....what?
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
-
I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.
It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.
If I follow your instructions exactly, and show a picture of the ground through a level tube... will you admit you are wrong and you CAN see the ground through a level tube?
Simple question.
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
-
I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.
It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.
If I follow your instructions exactly, and show a picture of the ground through a level tube... will you admit you are wrong and you CAN see the ground through a level tube?
Simple question.
Don't bother trying to back me into a corner. Just show me a set up where I can't pick at it or if I can then amend it so I have zero chance.
Stash promised a similar thing and has not done anything about it.
Maybe you can manage it.
Don't waste any more time arguing it. Either do it or don't.
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
When did I ever say that?
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
When did I ever say that?
I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark). It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing. I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.
This is what I came up with -
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.
If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too. Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.
-
The reason I do is because, it is not a globe we live on.
So you keep saying. I get it that you are hell bent convinced that we don't live on a globe but there is oodles of evidence that shows we are. I'm just fascinated about what makes you so sure. From where I am you have admitted that you know sweet FA about the model that you claim is so much better than the globe model. Anyone could be forgiven for wondering whether that is why you never share any of the precise details of your model with us. Because it doesn't exist. Other than in your mind. Any more than your theoretical horizon does. I can imagine anything in my mind just as you can. I can put myself on the edge of a black hole and imagine myself watching as the outer regions of a super compact white dwarf star are pulled into it.
I'm sure the Earth that exists in your mind is not a globe. I'm not entirely sure what it is and I don't think anyone else (including quite possibly you) is entirely sure what shape it is either but it is obviously not a globe.
Nevertheless I will ask once again.. since you are so confident that your model is the real and right one, then you should be able to meaure/calculate what the diameter of your Earth is.... so what is it?
No....what?
Come on Scepti.. use your eyes. Do you see anything familiar just under the video window to the right. Clue... I see the same image every time you post.
-
You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
You have been shown to be wrong, repeatedly, and you just ignore it.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.
You claim Earth is flat, so unless you are now going to admit that you wouldn't be able to see the ground through a level tube on a FE, what is the point? Just what do you think it will show?
The horizon has to be at eye level.
Any can look up or down but that is not horizontal vision, is it?
In case you are just learning English, "horizon" and "horizontal" are different words, with different meanings.
There is no need for the horizon to be at eye level, and again, actual evidence shows that it is below.
Also note that "eye level" is not the same as "horizontal" either, nor is it the same as "flat".
However if you were to go to where the horizon is, you would find it horizontal to Earth.
Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?
This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well. The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth. As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.
Correct.
So you now admit that one of the earliest claims of yours in this thread was wrong?
That seeing the horizon through a level tube is not evidence that Earth is flat, because if Earth is flat you should see nothing but sky?
It only provides supporting evidence to those who wish to see the nonsense of a globe. That would be enough to potentially change some minds to the realisation we do not live on a globe.
No, according to your admission, it is also evidence AGAINST a FE.
Those who accept the reality of a globe, see no problem with seeing the horizon through a level tube, as that is what you would actually expect.
But you claim you should see nothing but sky, with that claim now also applying to a FE, so seeing the horizon through a levelled tube should show you that Earth isn't flat.
As it has been your claim that that is how it is seen, why do you not admit Earth isn't flat?
In order to attempt to justify your irrational and baseless attack on the RE, you have had to resort to claiming you are completely wrong and that Earth cannot be flat.
You wouldn't see the two rails converge, unless you were using a scope or your naked eyes.
This is why the tube is offered.
A tube is still using your naked eye.
The only way to change that is if you use a lens.
All a tube does is block out a part of your vision.
It does not make magical tunnel vision where looking through a 1 inch wide tube means you can only see 1 inch of any object.
For example, a picture of rails taken with a standard camera:
(https://i.imgur.com/4yv5F5Y.png)
Then, if instead you looked through a tube, you would end up with something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ksobdoV.png)
And zooming in (just making the image larger, not using any lens) on that tunnel part, you see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/5aKVO0Q.png)
So even with the "tunnel vision" you still clearly see the rails converge.
Again, what magic stops the blue line of light reaching your eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Unless you can actually answer this, you have no justification at all for why it shouldn't be visible and thus no justification at all for why the ground shouldn't be.
That is because that blue line can continue outside the bounds of the 1 inch, and reach the ground.
What you are suggesting would actually need a lens.
A lens which does this to the light:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
This lens would take parallel rays of light and cause them to converge to the eye.
The opposite of this (taking diverging rays of light and making them parallel) is done at a lighthouse to give a straight beam from a "point" light source.
Notice that the lens changes the direction of the light rays. The come in from the right all parallel, but then on the left of the lens they are all converging to the eye.
Don't bother trying to back me into a corner.
Don't waste any more time arguing it. Either do it or don't.
Considering just how dishonest you have been, backing you into a corner is the only possible reason for anyone to really want to bother taking any effort to appease you.
Otherwise you will just come up with some pathetic excuse for why it must be wrong so you can magically pretend to be correct.
That will be a massive waste of time, as the entire experiment will be a waste that gets people no where.
So if you don't want to waste time, list every demand that is required to show that you are wrong, such that when it is provided you will just admit you are wrong rather than coming up with more excuses when the evidence is provided that shows you are wrong; or stop demanding such evidence when you will just dismiss it anyway.
-
I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.
It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.
If I follow your instructions exactly, and show a picture of the ground through a level tube... will you admit you are wrong and you CAN see the ground through a level tube?
Simple question.
Don't bother trying to back me into a corner. Just show me a set up where I can't pick at it or if I can then amend it so I have zero chance.
Stash promised a similar thing and has not done anything about it.
Maybe you can manage it.
Don't waste any more time arguing it. Either do it or don't.
Hahaha. Back you into a corner? You mean make you actually commit to something instead of you constantly and endlessly making up new lists of objections and demands.
But that's a pretty telling response there... back you into a corner. Because that's the only way you can continue to argue, is always leaving yourself an out so you don't have to accept any evidence. NO matter what you are shown, you always just make up new excuses to disregard it.
You still haven't provided a picture of your own, showing how a tube can't see the ground. Do you not own a cell phone or camera? Or do you not know how to use it?
Have you ever looked through a tube? Try it sometime.. you might be surprised that you can actually, you know, see through it.
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
When did I ever say that?
I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark). It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing. I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.
This is what I came up with -
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.
If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too. Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.
Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.
-
The reason I do is because, it is not a globe we live on.
So you keep saying. I get it that you are hell bent convinced that we don't live on a globe but there is oodles of evidence that shows we are.
That depends on what you want to put forward as so called evidence.
Appealing to authority is not evidence.
I'm just fascinated about what makes you so sure. From where I am you have admitted that you know sweet FA about the model that you claim is so much better than the globe model.
I know plenty about my model but it is just that and has never been put forward as the only reality. It's my potential fit for what I decipher, test, observe and perceive.
When I set it out as fact then I have to physically prove it all to be that fact.
I can't physically do that but I can show certains tuff that hints at the potential, as I have.
However, the main thing is, I've shown quite clearly and physically that the Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.
The simplicity of it has been shown but completely denied by you and your fellow globalists, in favour of magical nonsense that you were indoctrinated into from an early age and have stuck to that, (almost?) unconditionally.
Anyone could be forgiven for wondering whether that is why you never share any of the precise details of your model with us. Because it doesn't exist.
Other than in your mind.
Precise details?
Any more than your theoretical horizon does. I can imagine anything in my mind just as you can.
Of course you can. You're doing it regularly with your globe and universe.
I can put myself on the edge of a black hole and imagine myself watching as the outer regions of a super compact white dwarf star are pulled into it.
Absolutely...and you likely do...aided by a large chunk of storytelling by those you deem as, experts in that particular book.
I'm sure the Earth that exists in your mind is not a globe. I'm not entirely sure what it is and I don't think anyone else (including quite possibly you) is entirely sure what shape it is either but it is obviously not a globe.
At least you're starting to understand that. It's just a case of figuring out what the potential is. We know what it isn't.
Nevertheless I will ask once again.. since you are so confident that your model is the real and right one, then you should be able to meaure/calculate what the diameter of your Earth is.... so what is it?
When have I ever said I'm confident my model is real?
Youyr problem is, you suppose a lot of stuff and it doesn't help you in any way.
No....what?
Come on Scepti.. use your eyes. Do you see anything familiar just under the video window to the right. Clue... I see the same image every time you post.
How about you tell me what's what.
-
For example, a picture of rails taken with a standard camera:
(https://i.imgur.com/4yv5F5Y.png)
Then, if instead you looked through a tube, you would end up with something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ksobdoV.png)
And zooming in (just making the image larger, not using any lens) on that tunnel part, you see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/5aKVO0Q.png)
So even with the "tunnel vision" you still clearly see the rails converge.
So you think blacking out a picture to a circle is what I'm arguing against?
You'll try anything.
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
When did I ever say that?
I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark). It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing. I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.
This is what I came up with -
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.
If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too. Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.
Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.
Well can you explain to me how to modify it to be a more accurate representation? Can you sketch it out at all?
If I read your words and try to apply your concepts of vision and light to own described dome world with projected holographic, it seem like it is not possible that the sun is visible through a `level view` in your conceptual model of the world. I have tried to show this conceptually with a figure.
What am I missing? If the apparent edge of a sphere that is below level tunnel sight should be invisible, how can the hologram of the sun that is always above level tunnel sight not also be invisible?
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
When did I ever say that?
I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark). It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing. I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.
This is what I came up with -
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.
If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too. Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.
Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.
Well can you explain to me how to modify it to be a more accurate representation? Can you sketch it out at all?
If I read your words and try to apply your concepts of vision and light to own described dome world with projected holographic, it seem like it is not possible that the sun is visible through a `level view` in your conceptual model of the world. I have tried to show this conceptually with a figure.
What am I missing? If the apparent edge of a sphere that is below level tunnel sight should be invisible, how can the hologram of the sun that is always above level tunnel sight not also be invisible?
You have the person stood away from the inner gradient towards the centre and towards the inner gradient of the outer dome.
-
Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?
What are you talking about?
In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?
When did I ever say that?
I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark). It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing. I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.
This is what I came up with -
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.
If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too. Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.
Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.
Well can you explain to me how to modify it to be a more accurate representation? Can you sketch it out at all?
If I read your words and try to apply your concepts of vision and light to own described dome world with projected holographic, it seem like it is not possible that the sun is visible through a `level view` in your conceptual model of the world. I have tried to show this conceptually with a figure.
What am I missing? If the apparent edge of a sphere that is below level tunnel sight should be invisible, how can the hologram of the sun that is always above level tunnel sight not also be invisible?
You have the person stood away from the inner gradient towards the centre and towards the inner gradient of the outer dome.
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
-
At least you're starting to understand that. It's just a case of figuring out what the potential is. We know what it isn't
Incorrect choice of word there on your part. I understand that the world as it exists in your mind is not a globe but I know the world as it actually exists is. There is a difference. So don't make out that what you believe is the same as what I know because it isn't. What you think it is, is entirely up to you.
-
That depends on what you want to put forward as so called evidence.
Sure, if you accept the normal, honest definition which is used by pretty much everyone, then there is plenty.
If instead you use a definition which requires it to agree with your insane claims, then there is none.
So you think blacking out a picture to a circle is what I'm arguing against?
Yes, because that is what looking through a tube does.
Again, if you wish to claim a tube has magic properties which results in it acting like a lens like in this diagram, feel free to justify that insanity:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
See, this is what you are arguing for, that you only see the rays of light shown in blue. But that requires a lens or pure magic such that instead of going parallel they converge.
Meanwhile, if you accept reality, then you have a situation like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
There is nothing stopping the blue ray of light from reaching your eye, SO IT DOES! A tube cannot magically prevent it.
However, the orange ray of light would hit the wall of the tube and thus be stopped by it.
All putting a tube does is block the line of sight.
Or if you would prefer an angular version, here:
(https://i.imgur.com/QoRwF04.png)
The tube is the blue line at the start.
As this is now using angles, it shows what portion of your FOV is blocked, as the tube blocks anything directly to the right of it.
The longer you make the tube the greater the angle.
But that is all the tube does, it blocks a portion of your FOV.
It doesn't magically make it so you can only see 1 inch of any object.
Again, if you wish to disagree, tell us what magic stops the blue ray of light from reaching the eye.
If you can't, why not just stop lying and admit you are wrong?
Either way, you have shown yourself to be wrong.
Either you are wrong with how the light/vision works with a tube, or the fact the horizon is observed through a level tube shows that FE is wrong.
You'll try anything.
No, that would be you, well anything other than admitting you are wrong.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
-
At least you're starting to understand that. It's just a case of figuring out what the potential is. We know what it isn't
Incorrect choice of word there on your part. I understand that the world as it exists in your mind is not a globe but I know the world as it actually exists is. There is a difference. So don't make out that what you believe is the same as what I know because it isn't. What you think it is, is entirely up to you.
What do you know...and what does knowing mean in terms of what you believe?
Does it mean you know what you've been told or is it you know for a fact that your Earth is a globe.
If the latter then show me some proof.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
-
That depends on what you want to put forward as so called evidence.
Sure, if you accept the normal, honest definition which is used by pretty much everyone, then there is plenty.
If instead you use a definition which requires it to agree with your insane claims, then there is none.
So you think blacking out a picture to a circle is what I'm arguing against?
Yes, because that is what looking through a tube does.
Again, if you wish to claim a tube has magic properties which results in it acting like a lens like in this diagram, feel free to justify that insanity:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
See, this is what you are arguing for, that you only see the rays of light shown in blue. But that requires a lens or pure magic such that instead of going parallel they converge.
Your field of vision never changes. It is only blocked and then compressed as the blockage is distanced from the tube.
Your vision does not flute out at the end of a straight tube.
What you see, is parallel.
You still have that scope mindset or fluted mindset.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
Either try and understand it, or don't.
Trying to be clever will just set you back.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
Either try and understand it, or don't.
Trying to be clever will just set you back.
As I said and demonstrated, I am interested and trying to understand YOUR conceptual model of the world around us.
It seems like you just want to play games though instead. Oh well.
-
Your field of vision never changes. It is only blocked and then compressed as the blockage is distanced from the tube.
No, it isn't compressed.
All the tube does is just block it.
What you see, is parallel.
No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.
Once more, address the actual issues raised.
What magic stops the ray of light indicated by the blue line in the following diagram from reaching your eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Either answer that question or admit you are spouting pure BS.
-
Sceptimatic, you'll be pleased to hear I had two cans of baked beans for lunch, and I'll be finishing off the remaining paper on my dunny roll, faster than you can say, "lickety split".
So, just to recap, the purpose of the experiment is to prove when the roll is horizontal and looked through with one eye open and the other closed, the open eye will will see land on the bottom of the circular aperture of the tube. By virtue of seeing land, and not just blue sky, means Earth is flat. Am I on the right track? :D
So, my first criticism is the girth of a toilet roll tube, is too thick. A horizontal drinking straw with the looking through end having a fixed piece of timber around it to stop one getting poked in the eye, would be much more accurate with what you are trying to prove.
Here's the deal, sceptimatic. (I know you're a betting man, because you know how far the odds of earth being flat, is stacked against you).
The deal is, I'll perform the dunny roll and/ or straw experiment, if you will perform my horizontal table on the sand at the beach, experiment.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
Either try and understand it, or don't.
Trying to be clever will just set you back.
As I said and demonstrated, I am interested and trying to understand YOUR conceptual model of the world around us.
It seems like you just want to play games though instead. Oh well.
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
-
What you see, is parallel.
No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.
Yep, they converge once at the tube and back to the eye, hence the compression.
From the tube end you see parallel, you do not suddenly go fluted from that point.
-
So, just to recap, the purpose of the experiment is to prove when the roll is horizontal and looked through with one eye open and the other closed, the open eye will will see land on the bottom of the circular aperture of the tube. By virtue of seeing land, and not just blue sky, means Earth is flat. Am I on the right track? :D
Nope. You're on the wrong track.
So, my first criticism is the girth of a toilet roll tube, is too thick. A horizontal drinking straw with the looking through end having a fixed piece of timber around it to stop one getting poked in the eye, would be much more accurate with what you are trying to prove.
Use a straw if you want to, as long as it's straight and levelled out to sea.
Here's the deal, sceptimatic.
The deal is, I'll perform the dunny roll and/ or straw experiment, if you will perform my horizontal table on the sand at the beach, experiment.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with a table on the beach.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
Either try and understand it, or don't.
Trying to be clever will just set you back.
As I said and demonstrated, I am interested and trying to understand YOUR conceptual model of the world around us.
It seems like you just want to play games though instead. Oh well.
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
More games to avoid discussing your conceptual model of the world I guess.
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
Either try and understand it, or don't.
Trying to be clever will just set you back.
As I said and demonstrated, I am interested and trying to understand YOUR conceptual model of the world around us.
It seems like you just want to play games though instead. Oh well.
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
More games to avoid discussing your conceptual model of the world I guess.
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
-
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
And everyone is still waiting for you to post a picture of a tube or address the fact you can't understand how lines work. ;D
-
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
And everyone is still waiting for you to post a picture of a tube or address the fact you can't understand how lines work. ;D
Check the tube yourself and also understand what a level line of sight is.
Sitting there internet smirking, is not going to help you.
-
We checked it.
We see what we see with and with out the tube - understanding that the "with tube" scenario the peripheral is gone but the end horizon is still the same.
We can see more than 1in of the far away thing
-
We checked it.
We see what we see with and with out the tube - understanding that the "with tube" scenario the peripheral is gone but the end horizon is still the same.
We can see more than 1in of the far away thing
No you can't.
You can see 1 inch of it through a 1 inch diameter tube.
The more of anything you see is just compressed into that inch.
-
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
And everyone is still waiting for you to post a picture of a tube or address the fact you can't understand how lines work. ;D
Check the tube yourself and also understand what a level line of sight is.
Sitting there internet smirking, is not going to help you.
Try actually looking through a tube, which you clearly have never done.
Smirking doesn't help, but I've taken pictures, made diagrams, showed you the math. What have you done, other than just flat out deny reality? I did the work, now I get to make faces. :P
If you know so much about 'level tubes' why not take a picture and show us all how it's done?
-
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
And everyone is still waiting for you to post a picture of a tube or address the fact you can't understand how lines work. ;D
Check the tube yourself and also understand what a level line of sight is.
Sitting there internet smirking, is not going to help you.
Try actually looking through a tube, which you clearly have never done.
Smirking doesn't help, but I've taken pictures, made diagrams, showed you the math. What have you done, other than just flat out deny reality? I did the work, now I get to make faces. :P
If you know so much about 'level tubes' why not take a picture and show us all how it's done?
You've done no work that proves anything.
By all means make faces and what not...but you have no clue.
-
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
And everyone is still waiting for you to post a picture of a tube or address the fact you can't understand how lines work. ;D
Check the tube yourself and also understand what a level line of sight is.
Sitting there internet smirking, is not going to help you.
Try actually looking through a tube, which you clearly have never done.
Smirking doesn't help, but I've taken pictures, made diagrams, showed you the math. What have you done, other than just flat out deny reality? I did the work, now I get to make faces. :P
If you know so much about 'level tubes' why not take a picture and show us all how it's done?
You've done no work that proves anything.
By all means make faces and what not...but you have no clue.
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
-
I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?
Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.
If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.
I obviously am trying. Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be. Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.
If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well. Its a free world.
Either try and understand it, or don't.
Trying to be clever will just set you back.
As I said and demonstrated, I am interested and trying to understand YOUR conceptual model of the world around us.
It seems like you just want to play games though instead. Oh well.
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
More games to avoid discussing your conceptual model of the world I guess.
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
Yes, it is pretty obvious I have the devious goal of trying to properly understand the model of the world you have.
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
Work for yourself and stop looking for back pats from these lot.
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
Are you Jackblack in disguise?
I think you just get a kick out of arguing.
Put some effort in.
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
Are you Jackblack in disguise?
I think you just get a kick out of arguing.
Put some effort in.
LOL. Are you describing yourself now? Did you get confused?
Here, have some effort. This shows how you can see the ground through a level tube.
Why don't you draw your own diagram showing how you think lines work. Or at least explain what you think is wrong.
It's a simple diagram. You have an eyeball, a tube, the sky, and the ground. You can draw a red line from the eyeball to the ground and sky, so how can you claim you can't see it? What blocks it?
Use your words. Don't just say it's wrong. Don't just say it's wrong say WHY it's wrong. Draw the correct one. Point out what specific parts are incorrect, and show how it really works in your mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
Are you Jackblack in disguise?
I think you just get a kick out of arguing.
Put some effort in.
LOL. Are you describing yourself now? Did you get confused?
Here, have some effort. This shows how you can see the ground through a level tube.
Why don't you draw your own diagram showing how you think lines work. Or at least explain what you think is wrong.
It's a simple diagram. You have an eyeball, a tube, the sky, and the ground. You can draw a red line from the eyeball to the ground and sky, so how can you claim you can't see it? What blocks it?
Use your words. Don't just say it's wrong. Don't just say it's wrong say WHY it's wrong. Draw the correct one. Point out what specific parts are incorrect, and show how it really works in your mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
It's very simple. You do not see by fluted vision.
Your tube is 1 inch diameter (as an instance) and it's 1 inch from front eye to tube end.
Inside that tube your eye sees what is sees in the distance in that diameter, only.
It does not magically flute outwards unless you have something to make it do that, like a curved lens.
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
Ask away. What are you stuck on?
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
Are you Jackblack in disguise?
I think you just get a kick out of arguing.
Put some effort in.
LOL. Are you describing yourself now? Did you get confused?
Here, have some effort. This shows how you can see the ground through a level tube.
Why don't you draw your own diagram showing how you think lines work. Or at least explain what you think is wrong.
It's a simple diagram. You have an eyeball, a tube, the sky, and the ground. You can draw a red line from the eyeball to the ground and sky, so how can you claim you can't see it? What blocks it?
Use your words. Don't just say it's wrong. Don't just say it's wrong say WHY it's wrong. Draw the correct one. Point out what specific parts are incorrect, and show how it really works in your mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
It's very simple. You do not see by fluted vision.
Your tube is 1 inch diameter (as an instance) and it's 1 inch from front eye to tube end.
Inside that tube your eye sees what is sees in the distance in that diameter, only.
It does not magically flute outwards unless you have something to make it do that, like a curved lens.
So basically, all you said is my diagram is wrong because the tube is not 'fluted'.
Draw a picture. Show an eye and a tube and how you think light comes into it.
You need to explain why the red lines in my picture are blocked. What is blocking it? Can you not see the line going from the eye to the ground?
You really need to draw a picture, because you are not actually explaining anything, just using different variations of "you're wrong".
Or explain what is blocking the red line. How can the eye not see along that line? There isn't anything in the way.
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
Ask away. What are you stuck on?
How do I need to modify my understanding of your model so I that someone can see the hologram sun using a level tube view?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
-
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
As I recall, you said you have several cameras. Why don't you get a picture through a level tube showing what you are talking about. Show us how it is done please.
-
What you see, is parallel.
No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.
Yep, they converge once at the tube and back to the eye, hence the compression.
From the tube end you see parallel, you do not suddenly go fluted from that point.
Not from a simple tube.
That requires a lens, as clearly shown in the diagram.
If instead we trace them back from the eye, you can clearly see that the lines are diverging, spreading outwards and getting further apart.
But then when they reach the end, they magically switch to being parallel.
What magic causes them to swtich?
That would require a lens, the very thing you said to not use.
Without that lens the rays of light continue straight.
Again, what stops the blue ray of light in this image from reaching your eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Take part or don't. Don't bother wasting your time saying the same thing.
It's pretty obvious what you're up to.
Follow your own advice. You only seem to be here to waste time and spread lies, with no interest in any form of rational discussion.
You've done nothing worth anything.
Projecting again I see?
So far all you have done is continually repeat pathetic lies and refuse to engage in any form of rational discussion.
You avoid extremely simple questions which clearly show you are wrong and refuse to provide any evidence at all, when that evidence clearly shows you are wrong.
You use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting you are wrong and have contradicted yourself yet again.
Your position is so pathetic and indefensible that is all you can do. Reality easily shows you are wrong so you cannot use any evidence from it to support your fantasies.
Your initial claim of not being able to see the horizon on a RE was so indefensible that you then had to claim you couldn't see it at all, and when that failed, you now need to appeal to complete fantasy of how light works to pretend it all goes parallel to pretend you can't see the ground through a tube. But that required you to also admit you can't see the ground on a FE, so you have defeated yourself.
In order to pretend to have a case you have had to effectively claim your initial claim is pure BS.
Grow up.
Now again, care to tell us what magic stops the ray of light indicated by the blue line from reaching your eye?
Or alternatively are you going to admit that your initial claim of being able to see the horizon through a level tube magically proving Earth is flat is completely wrong, as you claim you shouldn't be able to see it on a FE either?
-
So let me ask you a simple question. Referring back to your reply #1992,
No you can't.
You can see 1 inch of it through a 1 inch diameter tube.
The more of anything you see is just compressed into that inch.
Are you suggesting then that when I watch a B747 airliner pass over me at its cruising height of say 35,000ft through a kitchen role tube, I can see the entire plane (which is significantly larger than my kitchen role tube) because it has somehow been compressed down so the whole plane fits inside the tube? Yet to a passenger sitting in the plane, it remains its normal, usual size?
Explain then please exactly where and how you think compression is happening in this case. It is common knowledge that anything looks smaller as the distance between our eye and the object increases but this has nothing to do with physical compression has it.
I hope you will agree with me that looking at the plane through a tube makes no difference at all to how big the plane appears to be in the sky to my eyes. It will look just the same size if I throw the tube away. What the tube is doing is simply acting as a mask so I can see less of the sky around it. Visually cropping what I can see in other words.
-
Sceptimatic, I'm confused. I looked at the horizon out to sea, through the dunny roll with my right eye. What I saw is no different to when I looked at the horizon without the dunny roll, except the dunny roll created a nice thin circle around part of what I looked at. Then, I opened my left eye. Same picture, with both eyes open, except with a thin circle. I guess I must be right eye dominant?
What am i supposed to be achieving?
For gods sake, do the table at the beach experiment, using a level to make sure it is as level as possible. Move to a corner, and bring your eyes down so that the edge farthest away, lines up with the edge closest to you. Now compare where that edge meets up against the actual horizon.
Do it sceptimatic. Do it. Do it.
-
I looked at the horizon out to sea
Careful! Remember according to Sceptimatic the horizon is just theoretical. It's hard to break the habit of a lifetime by calling that the line we see separating the sea from the sky the horizon..
-
I looked at the horizon out to sea
Careful! Remember according to Sceptimatic the horizon is just theoretical. It's hard to break the habit of a lifetime by calling that the line we see separating the sea from the sky the horizon..
Theoretical in the literal sense that its not a physical line.
-
There's nothing theoretical about it. On any photo of the horizon, the horizon is a line. If sceptimatic were to sit down at the beach with his canvas on an easel and his paints, and brushes to paint the Seascape, he would create a horizontal line to represent the horizon he sees.
However, sceptimatic's flat earth horizon is theoretical, indeed. The flat earth horizon, theoretically sits higher than the actual horizon. All level, parallel lines, converge at a point in space higher than the actual horizon line.
Yes, I said it, and I'll say it again. The horizon is a line, not a blur, not a gradient of colour, not a haze, a razor SHARP line.
Where's the proof? Try any of the gazillion billion photos of the horizon at sea, floating around the internet. Where's sceptimatic's photographic proof the horizon is a gradient? That's right - nowhere. No such photo exists. It's "theoretical".
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
Are you Jackblack in disguise?
I think you just get a kick out of arguing.
Put some effort in.
LOL. Are you describing yourself now? Did you get confused?
Here, have some effort. This shows how you can see the ground through a level tube.
Why don't you draw your own diagram showing how you think lines work. Or at least explain what you think is wrong.
It's a simple diagram. You have an eyeball, a tube, the sky, and the ground. You can draw a red line from the eyeball to the ground and sky, so how can you claim you can't see it? What blocks it?
Use your words. Don't just say it's wrong. Don't just say it's wrong say WHY it's wrong. Draw the correct one. Point out what specific parts are incorrect, and show how it really works in your mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
It's very simple. You do not see by fluted vision.
Your tube is 1 inch diameter (as an instance) and it's 1 inch from front eye to tube end.
Inside that tube your eye sees what is sees in the distance in that diameter, only.
It does not magically flute outwards unless you have something to make it do that, like a curved lens.
So basically, all you said is my diagram is wrong because the tube is not 'fluted'.
Draw a picture. Show an eye and a tube and how you think light comes into it.
You need to explain why the red lines in my picture are blocked. What is blocking it? Can you not see the line going from the eye to the ground?
You really need to draw a picture, because you are not actually explaining anything, just using different variations of "you're wrong".
Or explain what is blocking the red line. How can the eye not see along that line? There isn't anything in the way.
It's pretty self explanatory.
Let me make this a bit more clear and you'll likely understand.
You know how a torch has a reflective fluted end with the bulb sat in the middle, right?
You know when you shine it your lights diverges, just like you mention.
Take away the reflective and the fluted end and what do you have?
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
Ask away. What are you stuck on?
How do I need to modify my understanding of your model so I that someone can see the hologram sun using a level tube view?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
Put the person on the inner gradient and lower the sun reflection as your sun reflection as it starts to move over and around.
-
Yes, I said it, and I'll say it again. The horizon is a line, not a blur, not a gradient of colour, not a haze, a razor SHARP line.
Correct. As a check, look up the definition of the word horizon using any online dictionary website. How many of them use the word 'line' in their definition and how many of them use the word 'gradient'?
-
A holographic sun that produces enough heat and light to heat up and light up, half the world at a time. ::)
A hologram is nothing more than a 3 dimensional image. A hologram, the sun, is not.
Did you really suggest the sun is merely a hologram, sceptimatic?
-
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
As I recall, you said you have several cameras. Why don't you get a picture through a level tube showing what you are talking about. Show us how it is done please.
You can do it easily yourself.
All you need is honesty and a straight tube that you level to eye level.
Look out to sea or a lake and you'll notice your horizon. This will absolutely show you you are not on a globe.
Your horizon will always be at eye level no matter where you stand in elevation. As long as your scope is perfectly level you will see your horizon (theoretical) line in the centre of your scope.
As for looking over level ground with your unfluted tunnel tube, you see what you see in the end diameter from a level point. If you're looking level over level ground you'll never see ground.
Change to a curved scope and you obviously will. But we're not dealing with that.
-
So let me ask you a simple question. Referring back to your reply #1992,
No you can't.
You can see 1 inch of it through a 1 inch diameter tube.
The more of anything you see is just compressed into that inch.
Are you suggesting then that when I watch a B747 airliner pass over me at its cruising height of say 35,000ft through a kitchen role tube, I can see the entire plane (which is significantly larger than my kitchen role tube) because it has somehow been compressed down so the whole plane fits inside the tube?
Course it has. Your eye has done that by focus.
If the plane fits into the diameter of your kitchen roll tube then the picture must be compressed. Surely you must be able to understand that.
Yet to a passenger sitting in the plane, it remains its normal, usual size?
You wouldn't see the passenger in that plane, so what are you talking about?
Explain then please exactly where and how you think compression is happening in this case. It is common knowledge that anything looks smaller as the distance between our eye and the object increases but this has nothing to do with physical compression has it.
Who mentioned physical compression?
Do you seriously think I was implying that the plane ( in this case) gets physically squashed so it fits into the diameter of the tube?
If so, I'm worried.
I hope you will agree with me that looking at the plane through a tube makes no difference at all to how big the plane appears to be in the sky to my eyes. It will look just the same size if I throw the tube away.
Of course it will, unless you magnify.
What the tube is doing is simply acting as a mask so I can see less of the sky around it.
Visually cropping what I can see in other words.
Bingo. Have a think on this.
-
No, sceptimatic. No.
In your tube, your eye is in the centre of the tube. For what you are saying to have any merit whatsoever, first you make sure your tube is perfectly level. Second, you look through it with one eye, but bring your eye down until the front bottom of the tube is in line with the rear bottom of the tube.
I guarantee, you will not see the actual horizon.
-
Sceptimatic, I'm confused. I looked at the horizon out to sea, through the dunny roll with my right eye. What I saw is no different to when I looked at the horizon without the dunny roll, except the dunny roll created a nice thin circle around part of what I looked at. Then, I opened my left eye. Same picture, with both eyes open, except with a thin circle. I guess I must be right eye dominant?
What am i supposed to be achieving?
For gods sake, do the table at the beach experiment, using a level to make sure it is as level as possible. Move to a corner, and bring your eyes down so that the edge farthest away, lines up with the edge closest to you. Now compare where that edge meets up against the actual horizon.
Do it sceptimatic. Do it. Do it.
The purpose of the roll is to see the horizon in the centre of the roll diameter...but also knowing you would never see any horizon on a downward curing globe you think you're walking upon.
As for your table, I still fail to see what you're getting at.
Unless you're trying to use the table as some kind of line against the sea or sky.
If you are then answer me this.
If you are looking level over your flat table that is also levelled, just with your eye, then do you agree that your eye sees up down left and right?
Do you also agree that this gives you the wide angle and also do you agree that your table top and sea/sky would have to converge a theoretical line because you surely must know you have no line on your table.
I'll let you ponder this.
-
I looked at the horizon out to sea
Careful! Remember according to Sceptimatic the horizon is just theoretical. It's hard to break the habit of a lifetime by calling that the line we see separating the sea from the sky the horizon..
Theoretical in the literal sense that its not a physical line.
This fella gets it.
-
A holographic sun that produces enough heat and light to heat up and light up, half the world at a time. ::)
A hologram is nothing more than a 3 dimensional image. A hologram, the sun, is not.
Did you really suggest the sun is merely a hologram, sceptimatic?
Nope. I said it's a reflection.
-
No, sceptimatic. No.
In your tube, your eye is in the centre of the tube. For what you are saying to have any merit whatsoever, first you make sure your tube is perfectly level. Second, you look through it with one eye, but bring your eye down until the front bottom of the tube is in line with the rear bottom of the tube.
I guarantee, you will not see the actual horizon.
You look central inside the tube.
No wonder you're confused.
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
Ask away. What are you stuck on?
How do I need to modify my understanding of your model so I that someone can see the hologram sun using a level tube view?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
Put the person on the inner gradient and lower the sun reflection as your sun reflection as it starts to move over and around.
So like this? Everyone lives on a central mound or conical structure at the center of the cell and at an angle to the base of the dome, so our 'level view' intersects with the suns path?
And no one lives in the 'flatter' zone away from the mound?
(https://i.imgur.com/FOYdToQ.png)
-
Theoretical in the literal sense that its not a physical line.
I also 'get it' that the horizon is not a physical line. But that doesn't change the fact that our 'perception' of the borderline between the sea and the sky is sharp and well defined on a clear day with excellent visibility and therefore NOT a gradient.
I understand what Scepti is getting at but he is simply playing on words to suit his beliefs. That's the way I see it.
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
Ask away. What are you stuck on?
How do I need to modify my understanding of your model so I that someone can see the hologram sun using a level tube view?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
Put the person on the inner gradient and lower the sun reflection as your sun reflection as it starts to move over and around.
So like this? Everyone lives on a central mound or conical structure at the center of the cell and at an angle to the base of the dome, so our 'level view' intersects with the suns path?
And no one lives in the 'flatter' zone away from the mound?
(https://i.imgur.com/FOYdToQ.png)
Do you seriously think we stand like that?
-
Asking simple questions, looking for confirmation of understanding before proceeding, asking for feedback on comprehension. It's all so diabolical, I fully understand why you dont want to engage.
Seriously though, I don't know why you are so reluctant to talk about your model, but the hesitation to answer simple, straightforward questions comes across to games to me. You, as always, are welcome to your own opinion on that.
I've actually answered you so why are you consistently whining on instead of trying to probe further?
You answered. I responded that I didn’t understand your answer and asked for clarification, and you have been in a weird non responsive state ever since.
If you don’t want to talk about your model, just say so. You are under no obligation and it’s no matter to me so if you would rather not it’s fine.
Ask away. What are you stuck on?
How do I need to modify my understanding of your model so I that someone can see the hologram sun using a level tube view?
(https://i.imgur.com/aNGr6Ps.png)
Put the person on the inner gradient and lower the sun reflection as your sun reflection as it starts to move over and around.
So like this? Everyone lives on a central mound or conical structure at the center of the cell and at an angle to the base of the dome, so our 'level view' intersects with the suns path?
And no one lives in the 'flatter' zone away from the mound?
(https://i.imgur.com/FOYdToQ.png)
Do you seriously think we stand like that?
Im just trying to understand your words. If I make a mistake, perhaps the first place you should look is your own explanation.
Do you mean more like this -
(https://i.imgur.com/7X30809.png)
-
A holographic sun that produces enough heat and light to heat up and light up, half the world at a time. ::)
A hologram is nothing more than a 3 dimensional image. A hologram, the sun, is not.
Did you really suggest the sun is merely a hologram, sceptimatic?
Nope. I said it's a reflection.
A reflection that generates heat? A reflection of what, sceptimatic and from where?
You are putting the nails in the flat earth coffin with each and every post you make, and then hammer them in.
-
No, sceptimatic. No.
In your tube, your eye is in the centre of the tube. For what you are saying to have any merit whatsoever, first you make sure your tube is perfectly level. Second, you look through it with one eye, but bring your eye down until the front bottom of the tube is in line with the rear bottom of the tube.
I guarantee, you will not see the actual horizon.
You look central inside the tube.
No wonder you're confused.
Ofcourse if you look central inside the tube you will see the horizon and the ground below at the horizon, if the tube is perfectly level. The bottom of the tube will be two centimetres below the eye line of where your pupil is.
But if you bring your eye down to the bottom of the tube, you will see only sky.
-
So like this? Everyone lives on a central mound or conical structure at the center of the cell and at an angle to the base of the dome, so our 'level view' intersects with the suns path?
And no one lives in the 'flatter' zone away from the mound?
(https://i.imgur.com/FOYdToQ.png)
You're getting there.
-
A holographic sun that produces enough heat and light to heat up and light up, half the world at a time. ::)
A hologram is nothing more than a 3 dimensional image. A hologram, the sun, is not.
Did you really suggest the sun is merely a hologram, sceptimatic?
Nope. I said it's a reflection.
A reflection that generates heat? A reflection of what, sceptimatic and from where?
You are putting the nails in the flat earth coffin with each and every post you make, and then hammer them in.
Are you saying heat cannot be reflected?
-
No, sceptimatic. No.
In your tube, your eye is in the centre of the tube. For what you are saying to have any merit whatsoever, first you make sure your tube is perfectly level. Second, you look through it with one eye, but bring your eye down until the front bottom of the tube is in line with the rear bottom of the tube.
I guarantee, you will not see the actual horizon.
You look central inside the tube.
No wonder you're confused.
Ofcourse if you look central inside the tube you will see the horizon and the ground below at the horizon, if the tube is perfectly level. The bottom of the tube will be two centimetres below the eye line of where your pupil is.
But if you bring your eye down to the bottom of the tube, you will see only sky.
Why are you using the bottom of the tube?
Is this your way of trying to verify something?
-
Sceptimatic, I'm confused. I looked at the horizon out to sea, through the dunny roll with my right eye. What I saw is no different to when I looked at the horizon without the dunny roll, except the dunny roll created a nice thin circle around part of what I looked at. Then, I opened my left eye. Same picture, with both eyes open, except with a thin circle. I guess I must be right eye dominant?
What am i supposed to be achieving?
For gods sake, do the table at the beach experiment, using a level to make sure it is as level as possible. Move to a corner, and bring your eyes down so that the edge farthest away, lines up with the edge closest to you. Now compare where that edge meets up against the actual horizon.
Do it sceptimatic. Do it. Do it.
The purpose of the roll is to see the horizon in the centre of the roll diameter...but also knowing you would never see any horizon on a downward curing globe you think you're walking upon.
As for your table, I still fail to see what you're getting at.
Unless you're trying to use the table as some kind of line against the sea or sky.
If you are then answer me this.
If you are looking level over your flat table that is also levelled, just with your eye, then do you agree that your eye sees up down left and right?
Do you also agree that this gives you the wide angle and also do you agree that your table top and sea/sky would have to converge a theoretical line because you surely must know you have no line on your table.
I'll let you ponder this.
Would it help you to get out a black marker pen and draw a line along the two edges of the table, just so you can see a line?
Do you not live near a beach or own a table and a level?
I live near a beach and own a level and a table. Would you like me to photograph for you what I am saying, considering you seem too incompetent or resistant to conduct the experiment yourself?
Arguably, everything we see in life, is made up of lines.
-
No, sceptimatic. No.
In your tube, your eye is in the centre of the tube. For what you are saying to have any merit whatsoever, first you make sure your tube is perfectly level. Second, you look through it with one eye, but bring your eye down until the front bottom of the tube is in line with the rear bottom of the tube.
I guarantee, you will not see the actual horizon.
You look central inside the tube.
No wonder you're confused.
Ofcourse if you look central inside the tube you will see the horizon and the ground below at the horizon, if the tube is perfectly level. The bottom of the tube will be two centimetres below the eye line of where your pupil is.
But if you bring your eye down to the bottom of the tube, you will see only sky.
Why are you using the bottom of the tube?
Is this your way of trying to verify something?
Yes, and it's already verified. Your tube experiment is a trick.
-
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
As I recall, you said you have several cameras. Why don't you get a picture through a level tube showing what you are talking about. Show us how it is done please.
You can do it easily yourself.
Yep. I've done a couple videos on flat Earther claims.
All you need is honesty and a straight tube that you level to eye level.
You should try that "honesty" thing. So what methods of leveling the tube meet your approval?
Look out to sea or a lake and you'll notice your horizon. This will absolutely show you you are not on a globe.
Actually it does.
Your horizon will always be at eye level no matter where you stand in elevation.
Wrong. You obviously haven't done this experiment.
As long as your scope is perfectly level you will see your horizon (theoretical) line in the centre of your scope.
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
As for looking over level ground with your unfluted tunnel tube, you see what you see in the end diameter from a level point. If you're looking level over level ground you'll never see ground.
Change to a curved scope and you obviously will. But we're not dealing with that.
Like I said, you claim to be a professional with a lot of equipment, so let's see your results, or are you all talk?
-
So like this? Everyone lives on a central mound or conical structure at the center of the cell and at an angle to the base of the dome, so our 'level view' intersects with the suns path?
And no one lives in the 'flatter' zone away from the mound?
(https://i.imgur.com/FOYdToQ.png)
You're getting there.
Back to games I see. Again, if you dont want to discuss this for some reason, its fine by me.
-
So if the Sun (and Moon) are just reflections from this 'projection crystal' as depicted on Sobchaks drawing, then it seems that the projection crystal is sitting on the top of some central 'hill' in the middle of the Earth.
If that is true then why has no one ever been to see this projection crystal and taken any photos of it? You would think it would be fairly obvious projecting a blindingly bright light into the sky. Bright enough to illuminate half the Earth at any one time. No pilots have ever reported seeing a brilliant beam of light from the ground beaming into the sky while flying near the north pole.
Just seems a bit weird to me that the existence of such a projection crystal seems to only exist as a claim by flat Earth believers up to now. No one seems to have actually seen it. So there is no real evidence that this projection crystal actually exists. And when you see the Sun in the sky (using the proper filters) what evidence is there that what we are seeing is a reflection? How would you account for the effects on Earth of solar flares and CMEs if the Sun was a reflection of a ground based light source?
I would say that if you are going to believe in an 'alternative' theory or model then the first thing you need to do is make it believable or even realistic or plausible. This dome and projection crystal idea is none of those. You might be able to make something like this work in Hollywood (even that would be a stretch) but in reality... no.
-
So like this? Everyone lives on a central mound or conical structure at the center of the cell and at an angle to the base of the dome, so our 'level view' intersects with the suns path?
And no one lives in the 'flatter' zone away from the mound?
(https://i.imgur.com/FOYdToQ.png)
You're getting there.
Back to games I see. Again, if you dont want to discuss this for some reason, its fine by me.
We re all failing turings test
-
Let me make this a bit more clear and you'll likely understand.
You know how a torch has a reflective fluted end with the bulb sat in the middle, right?
You know when you shine it your lights diverges, just like you mention.
I have no idea what torches you have been using, but mine aren't like that.
Instead it has a parabolic reflector to FOCUS the light. i.e. to try to make the rays of light leave parallel.
Take away the reflective and the fluted end and what do you have?
Light travelling in straight lines, like the blue line in the diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
In order to have them go out parallel, you need a lens or reflector, like in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
Take out the grey lens, and the light rays will no longer be parallel.
If you're interested then do it for you and do it genuinely.
As I recall, you said you have several cameras. Why don't you get a picture through a level tube showing what you are talking about. Show us how it is done please.
You can do it easily yourself.
And like so many other things, when people do it themselves, they get results that contradict you.
Why don't you do it and show us?
Look out to sea or a lake and you'll notice your horizon. This will absolutely show you you are not on a globe.
And according to your BS it also shows you that you are not on a flat Earth.
So are you going to admit that Earth isn't flat?
Your horizon will always be at eye level no matter where you stand in elevation.
Except when it is clearly observed to be below, as provided by plenty of evidence, which you are unable to refute or counter and instead just need to dismiss as fake.
So let me ask you a simple question. Referring back to your reply #1992,
No you can't.
You can see 1 inch of it through a 1 inch diameter tube.
The more of anything you see is just compressed into that inch.
Are you suggesting then that when I watch a B747 airliner pass over me at its cruising height of say 35,000ft through a kitchen role tube, I can see the entire plane (which is significantly larger than my kitchen role tube) because it has somehow been compressed down so the whole plane fits inside the tube?
Course it has. Your eye has done that by focus.
If the plane fits into the diameter of your kitchen roll tube then the picture must be compressed. Surely you must be able to understand that.
It seems the only one incapable of understanding is you.
Do you know how normal people would explain this?
By appealing to ANGLES!
The kitchen roll tube subtends an angle of roughly 10 degrees. That means you will see no more than 10 degrees of any object you see through it.
This means that viewing a distant plane which subtends an angle of less than 10 degrees will allow you to see the entire plane through the tube.
Normal people don't pretend this means the plane has magically shrunk. Instead they just use the angular size.
Also note that this does mean you can see the ground, where using your nonsense language, the height between you and the ground shrinks to less than 0.5 inches after 30 m and thus is visible through the level tube.
Do you seriously think I was implying that the plane ( in this case) gets physically squashed so it fits into the diameter of the tube?
In order to be consistent, that is what you need.
If the rays of light are coming into the tube parallel like you claim then you can only see 1 inch of any object, and that inch is physical.
If instead you accept reality and accept that the rays of light continue straight rather than magically bending, then you just see whatever fits in that angular FOV and there is no issue.
I hope you will agree with me that looking at the plane through a tube makes no difference at all to how big the plane appears to be in the sky to my eyes. It will look just the same size if I throw the tube away.
Of course it will, unless you magnify.
What the tube is doing is simply acting as a mask so I can see less of the sky around it.
Visually cropping what I can see in other words.
Bingo. Have a think on this.
You have yet again contradicted yourself.
You have now admitted that all the tube does is cut out a region of the image.
So what was wrong with the example I provided with the train tracks, where I simply blocked out a region of the image so you would only see what would be visible through the tube?
you would never see any horizon on a downward curing globe you think you're walking upon.
Grow up and stop repeating the same pathetic refuted childish lie.
That blatant lie of yours has been refuted so many times it isn't funny.
The only justification you can manage for why the horizon shouldn't be seen on a globe is because the ground is below you, which also applies on a FE, and is wrong in both instances.
That is what led you down your BS about tubes magically seeing parallel.
Do you also agree that this gives you the wide angle and also do you agree that your table top and sea/sky would have to converge a theoretical line because you surely must know you have no line on your table.
No, we see the edge of the table.
-
Would it help you to get out a black marker pen and draw a line along the two edges of the table, just so you can see a line?
Do you not live near a beach or own a table and a level?
I live near a beach and own a level and a table. Would you like me to photograph for you what I am saying
Arguably, everything we see in life, is made up of lines.
Yep, I'll appreciate you showing me and explaining what it is you are showing.
-
Yes, and it's already verified. Your tube experiment is a trick.
Only if you want to trick yourself into seeing something else. It's called severe indoctrination to not see reality.
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
-
So if the Sun (and Moon) are just reflections from this 'projection crystal' as depicted on Sobchaks drawing, then it seems that the projection crystal is sitting on the top of some central 'hill' in the middle of the Earth.
Something like that, yes.
If that is true then why has no one ever been to see this projection crystal and taken any photos of it?
You would think it would be fairly obvious projecting a blindingly bright light into the sky.
I don't give it out as a truth. I give it out as my musing/hypothesis/theory based on what I perceive and see with simple experiments.
Bright enough to illuminate half the Earth at any one time.
Reflective wise, yes. At least the known parts. Maybe not half the Earth.
Try not to think of your globe when you absorb this bit.
No pilots have ever reported seeing a brilliant beam of light from the ground beaming into the sky while flying near the north pole.
Why would they?
They would be nowhere near it.
This isn't some hill. It's a gradient over thousands of miles with most of it inhabitable and inhospitable. No planes, people or vehicles will get anywhere near if. Imo.
Just seems a bit weird to me that the existence of such a projection crystal seems to only exist as a claim by flat Earth believers up to now.
I believe it could very well be that. What others think, is their thoughts.
No one seems to have actually seen it.
I wouldn't expect anyone to.
So there is no real evidence that this projection crystal actually exists.
No physical proof...no.
And when you see the Sun in the sky (using the proper filters) what evidence is there that what we are seeing is a reflection?
It goes way back. You have to understand why we're in a cell to go that far but evidence is only that if people accept it as evidence, no matter how obscure it is to them.
You accept all kinds of stuff about a spinning globe and firey vacuum sun...etc and think nothing of it, whereas it reeks of bull and seems totally batsheet insane to even think I once followed that train of indoctrinated thought.
So really you're not surprising me.
How would you account for the effects on Earth of solar flares and CMEs if the Sun was a reflection of a ground based light source?
If we live by electrical impulses, etc, then we can also be part of all kinds of surges.
To think this comes from a vacuum...well....that's the nonsense, to me.
I would say that if you are going to believe in an 'alternative' theory or model then the first thing you need to do is make it believable or even realistic or plausible.
If I was to show it to an audience then, of course I'd have to show it to be plausible.
When that day arrives, I'll be able to do that. Until then you have my typing on a forum.
This dome and projection crystal idea is none of those.
To you, maybe...and I wouldn't expect any different.
To me it's plausible and I very much believe I'm on the right path.
You might be able to make something like this work in Hollywood (even that would be a stretch) but in reality... no.
The reason you're steadfastly anchored to your belief is in some part....Hollywood.
-
No, we see the edge of the table.
No you don't.
-
To me it's plausible and I very much believe I'm on the right path.
I'm sure you do. And where do you think that will get you?
-
To me it's plausible and I very much believe I'm on the right path.
I'm sure you do. And where do you think that will get you?
I'm not actually sure he does. The reluctance to discuss it in actual detail in a way to get others to understand is a somewhat telling that he doesn't really have much faith in it.
-
Look at his reply #2044. Do any of his answers make the slightest bit of sense to you? Or anybody else for that matter. I could summarise everything about Scepti in one single sentence. If you believe it then it is real.
My take on Scepti is that he takes umbrage to science and so in his mind he has dreamed up this alternative version of reality that satisfies his imagination of how things should work. What he has described (again ref #2044) I wouldn't like to even try and draw so that probably why he hasn't come up with anything either.
Scepti takes the concept of 20 questions to whole new heights. And the answers are usually 'don't know' or 'haven't a clue'. Very helpful.
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
No
Please explain why.
-
To me it's plausible and I very much believe I'm on the right path.
I'm sure you do. And where do you think that will get you?
At the very least it gets me away from nonsensical global indoctrination and allows me to think for myself.
-
To me it's plausible and I very much believe I'm on the right path.
I'm sure you do. And where do you think that will get you?
I'm not actually sure he does. The reluctance to discuss it in actual detail in a way to get others to understand is a somewhat telling that he doesn't really have much faith in it.
Yeah and you should try and not take the pee by putting your man on an angle on a gradient looking down.
Trying to be clever them crying foul.
You carry on.
-
Look at his reply #2044. Do any of his answers make the slightest bit of sense to you? Or anybody else for that matter. I could summarise everything about Scepti in one single sentence. If you believe it then it is real.
My take on Scepti is that he takes umbrage to science and so in his mind he has dreamed up this alternative version of reality that satisfies his imagination of how things should work. What he has described (again ref #2044) I wouldn't like to even try and draw so that probably why he hasn't come up with anything either.
Scepti takes the concept of 20 questions to whole new heights. And the answers are usually 'don't know' or 'haven't a clue'. Very helpful.
You don't need any help. Your questions are not designed to help you...only to try and hinder me. It doesn't work.
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
No
Please explain why.
You've been given enough hints at it. Try a bit harder.
-
At the very least it gets me away from nonsensical global indoctrination and allows me to think for myself.
Ok so what do you get out of being part of this forum then?
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
No
Please explain why.
You've been given enough hints at it. Try a bit harder.
No
Youve provided no justification for why it has to be "eye level"
It is a theoretical line where you cease to see water/ground and start to see sky.
No where does it say "must be eye level".
-
At the very least it gets me away from nonsensical global indoctrination and allows me to think for myself.
Ok so what do you get out of being part of this forum then?
The ability to express my thoughts and to see other people's thought processes on alternate thoughts to the mainstream ideals.
What do you get out of it?
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
No
Please explain why.
You've been given enough hints at it. Try a bit harder.
No
Youve provided no justification for why it has to be "eye level"
It is a theoretical line where you cease to see water/ground and start to see sky.
No where does it say "must be eye level".
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
-
To me it's plausible and I very much believe I'm on the right path.
I'm sure you do. And where do you think that will get you?
I'm not actually sure he does. The reluctance to discuss it in actual detail in a way to get others to understand is a somewhat telling that he doesn't really have much faith in it.
Yeah and you should try and not take the pee by putting your man on an angle on a gradient looking down.
Trying to be clever them crying foul.
You carry on.
Feel free to use whatever excuses you need to avoid describing your model.
You can claim I am a demon trying to mind control you and you need to keep the details safe to preserve your sanity, or you can just say you do not want to talk about it. The truth though it is really not a big deal and no one cares that much.
I do like thinking through other perspectives and was trying to explore yours, but if all you want to do is play games and avoid talking about it, I have plenty of other things to do.
Carry on. :)
-
Feel free to use whatever excuses ways you need to avoid describing your model.
You can claim I am a demon pretender trying to mind control bait you and you need to keep the details safe to preserve your sanity, or you can just say you do not want to talk about it. The truth though it is really not a big deal and no one cares that much.
If it's no big deal then stop worrying about it.
I do like thinking through other perspectives and was trying to explore yours, but if all you want to do is play games and avoid talking about it, I have plenty of other things to do.
Carry on. :)
Explore it and stop whining....or don't.
I've met many like you on here who love to play games and you can carry that on if that's your modus operandi...or you can actually take notice.
It's up to you but I'm far from desperate to play games. I have enough of that with Jackblack's attempts...etc.
-
Feel free to use whatever excuses ways you need to avoid describing your model.
You can claim I am a demon pretender trying to mind control bait you and you need to keep the details safe to preserve your sanity, or you can just say you do not want to talk about it. The truth though it is really not a big deal and no one cares that much.
If it's no big deal then stop worrying about it.
Done!
I do like thinking through other perspectives and was trying to explore yours, but if all you want to do is play games and avoid talking about it, I have plenty of other things to do.
Carry on. :)
Explore it and stop whining....or don't.
I've met many like you on here who love to play games and you can carry that on if that's your modus operandi...or you can actually take notice.
It's up to you but I'm far from desperate to play games. I have enough of that with Jackblack's attempts...etc.
I've tried to explore it, have even spent time with a sketch book and an online drawing program trying to sort some of it out. Ive asked questions, tried to adjust according to answers given, requested further clarification. And been met with nothing substantial from your side in trying to improve understanding. Actually less than nothing - tangents, and diversions, and outright obscufuration. It seems deliberate, like you are desperate to not better explore your thoughts and ideas. Thats fine, you are welcome to that, but it seems strange to rail and moan and whine about how nobody understands you when you are deliberately and actively preventing people from doing so.
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
No
Please explain why.
You've been given enough hints at it. Try a bit harder.
No
Youve provided no justification for why it has to be "eye level"
It is a theoretical line where you cease to see water/ground and start to see sky.
No where does it say "must be eye level".
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
-
Feel free to use whatever excuses ways you need to avoid describing your model.
You can claim I am a demon pretender trying to mind control bait you and you need to keep the details safe to preserve your sanity, or you can just say you do not want to talk about it. The truth though it is really not a big deal and no one cares that much.
If it's no big deal then stop worrying about it.
Done!
I do like thinking through other perspectives and was trying to explore yours, but if all you want to do is play games and avoid talking about it, I have plenty of other things to do.
Carry on. :)
Explore it and stop whining....or don't.
I've met many like you on here who love to play games and you can carry that on if that's your modus operandi...or you can actually take notice.
It's up to you but I'm far from desperate to play games. I have enough of that with Jackblack's attempts...etc.
I've tried to explore it, have even spent time with a sketch book and an online drawing program trying to sort some of it out. Ive asked questions, tried to adjust according to answers given, requested further clarification. And been met with nothing substantial from your side in trying to improve understanding. Actually less than nothing - tangents, and diversions, and outright obscufuration. It seems deliberate, like you are desperate to not better explore your thoughts and ideas. Thats fine, you are welcome to that, but it seems strange to rail and moan and whine about how nobody understands you when you are deliberately and actively preventing people from doing so.
If you're not learning anything then how is it you are managing to gain more of a diagram.
It's only yourself that stopping you from getting more of a grip on it.
Spend more time trying to grasp it and less time trying to have a pop.
-
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
-
Feel free to use whatever excuses ways you need to avoid describing your model.
You can claim I am a demon pretender trying to mind control bait you and you need to keep the details safe to preserve your sanity, or you can just say you do not want to talk about it. The truth though it is really not a big deal and no one cares that much.
If it's no big deal then stop worrying about it.
Done!
I do like thinking through other perspectives and was trying to explore yours, but if all you want to do is play games and avoid talking about it, I have plenty of other things to do.
Carry on. :)
Explore it and stop whining....or don't.
I've met many like you on here who love to play games and you can carry that on if that's your modus operandi...or you can actually take notice.
It's up to you but I'm far from desperate to play games. I have enough of that with Jackblack's attempts...etc.
I've tried to explore it, have even spent time with a sketch book and an online drawing program trying to sort some of it out. Ive asked questions, tried to adjust according to answers given, requested further clarification. And been met with nothing substantial from your side in trying to improve understanding. Actually less than nothing - tangents, and diversions, and outright obscufuration. It seems deliberate, like you are desperate to not better explore your thoughts and ideas. Thats fine, you are welcome to that, but it seems strange to rail and moan and whine about how nobody understands you when you are deliberately and actively preventing people from doing so.
If you're not learning anything then how is it you are managing to gain more of a diagram.
More of a diagram? What are you talking about? I still have no very little idea what you think - and I don't even know what's broadly right and what's broadly wrong my multiple attempts at a diagram. You dont' help at all in clarifying what is going and I'm still at the most simple, basic of concepts.
It's only yourself that stopping you from getting more of a grip on it.
As I've said, use whatever excuse you want. Doesn't matter to me why you dont want to go into details, feel free to blame me if it makes you feel better.
-
I've done plenty of work and your only response has been 'nu-uh'.
I think making faces is the appropriate reply to your empty posts with nothing more than saying everyone else is wrong.
You have zero evidence here, you can't even take a picture or look through a tube. It would be funny if... well... I suppose it is funny. ;D
You've done nothing worth anything.
Said by the guy who can't take a picture, look through a tube or draw a line.
All you have done is say everyone else is wrong with no evidence, no proof, no thing but head in the sand denial of reality... that is the definition of doing nothing.
I know you can't figure out how to look in a tube, but try looking in a mirror before you accuse someone of not doing anything. :)
Are you Jackblack in disguise?
I think you just get a kick out of arguing.
Put some effort in.
LOL. Are you describing yourself now? Did you get confused?
Here, have some effort. This shows how you can see the ground through a level tube.
Why don't you draw your own diagram showing how you think lines work. Or at least explain what you think is wrong.
It's a simple diagram. You have an eyeball, a tube, the sky, and the ground. You can draw a red line from the eyeball to the ground and sky, so how can you claim you can't see it? What blocks it?
Use your words. Don't just say it's wrong. Don't just say it's wrong say WHY it's wrong. Draw the correct one. Point out what specific parts are incorrect, and show how it really works in your mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
It's very simple. You do not see by fluted vision.
Your tube is 1 inch diameter (as an instance) and it's 1 inch from front eye to tube end.
Inside that tube your eye sees what is sees in the distance in that diameter, only.
It does not magically flute outwards unless you have something to make it do that, like a curved lens.
So basically, all you said is my diagram is wrong because the tube is not 'fluted'.
Draw a picture. Show an eye and a tube and how you think light comes into it.
You need to explain why the red lines in my picture are blocked. What is blocking it? Can you not see the line going from the eye to the ground?
You really need to draw a picture, because you are not actually explaining anything, just using different variations of "you're wrong".
Or explain what is blocking the red line. How can the eye not see along that line? There isn't anything in the way.
It's pretty self explanatory.
Let me make this a bit more clear and you'll likely understand.
You know how a torch has a reflective fluted end with the bulb sat in the middle, right?
You know when you shine it your lights diverges, just like you mention.
Take away the reflective and the fluted end and what do you have?
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
2. You drawing a diagram of however you imagine light behaves.
You have yet to explain why the red lines in my diagram are blocked. Please show us what is getting in the way between the eye and the ground in my diagram. Load up my diagram in Paint and draw what you think is happening instead. Circle what part of that tube is blocking light from getting to the eye.
-
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
Then by your own admission the reflected converging light to the back of your eye is irrelevant as everyones eye level is different.
Therefore the horizon on a round earth does not require it to be "eye level" as that is, by your admission, a generic term
Please confirm or refute.
-
Concerning the discussion about the horizon and eye level, I found this link from the National Portait Galllery which supports Sceptis view about the horizon rising to meet the observers eye line.
https://www.npg.org.uk/index.php?id=1535#:~:text=You%20always%20see%20the%20horizon,is%20at%20your%20eye%20level.
See the section about the horizon and eye line.
Equally though it also mentions about the horizon being a line (which all the online dictionaries also say) rather than being a gradient as per Sceptis claim. The word line appears on this page 25 times. The word gradient zero.
Here is a quote from the same page:
If you go to the seaside, you will sometimes see ships disappearing over the edge of the horizon. If you are higher up you still see the horizon, you are just looking a bit further over the edge of the world. Because the world is round, the horizon line is really a curve, but the world is huge, so this curve is so big that it looks like a straight line.
I am all for being fair so I thought this might be of interest.
-
Concerning the discussion about the horizon and eye level, I found this link from the National Portait Galllery which supports Sceptis view about the horizon rising to meet the observers eye line.
https://www.npg.org.uk/index.php?id=1535#:~:text=You%20always%20see%20the%20horizon,is%20at%20your%20eye%20level.
See the section about the horizon and eye line.
Equally though it also mentions about the horizon being a line (which all the online dictionaries also say) rather than being a gradient as per Sceptis claim. The word line appears on this page 25 times. The word gradient zero.
Here is a quote from the same page:
If you go to the seaside, you will sometimes see ships disappearing over the edge of the horizon. If you are higher up you still see the horizon, you are just looking a bit further over the edge of the world. Because the world is round, the horizon line is really a curve, but the world is huge, so this curve is so big that it looks like a straight line.
I am all for being fair so I thought this might be of interest.
I should write to them and let them know their website is incorrect and they should fix it. :)
But interesting, yes.
-
Ok so what do you get out of being part of this forum then?
I doubt very much whether you care what I get out of it. So why ask?
-
It's called severe indoctrination to not see reality.
And that is what you are suffering from.
So severe that you have repeatedly contradicted yourself in your attempts to reject reality.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
There is no reason at all, and you have been unable to provide any. All you have done is repeat the same pathetic lie.
The only reason at all for it to be magically kept at eye level is if it was infinitely far away with a flat Earth. But neither of those are true.
Observations show it is below eye level. The fact that it is only a finite distance away shows it cannot be the case.
And again, that would be entirely circular reasoning.
You dismiss Earth being round because you claim the horizon must be at eye level, which is based upon your claim that Earth isn't round.
Without that circular reasoning, you have no basis to claim that the horizon must be at eye level.
No, we see the edge of the table.
No you don't.
So again you just outright reject reality.
Are you blind?
Have you seen anything at all?
If I look at a table, I see the edge, unless something is blocking the view to the edge.
And of course, yet again you ignore simple questions which clearly show you are wrong, and how you have repeatedly contradicted yourself.
Once more, what magic causes the light rays to magically turn so you only see parallel lines like the following image?
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
If that is the case, how do you magically see more than 1 inch of any object?
If you continue this to a plane you just end up seeing 1 inch of the plane.
In order to see more of the plane you need to have light coming in in straight lines, like the following diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye?
Again, this is what is needed to see more than 1 inch of the plane.
And seeing more than 1 inch of the plane, regardless of if it is because you accept the light is coming in in straight lines and thus you have an angular FOV, or because you want to appeal to magic compression, that would also apply to seeing the ground, where either the angular FOV allows you to see the ground, or magic compression causes the distance from your eye-line to the ground to be less than the half inch required to fit in your view.
Either way, accepting that you see more than 1 inch of a distant object (as you have done to try to have any semblance of reality in your nonsense) means the ground being more than .5 inches below your line of sight won't prevent it from being in your view.
You've been given enough hints at it. Try a bit harder.
No, we haven't. We have been provided plenty of outright lies from you, which have been refuted. You have provided no justification at all for why the horizon must be at eye level.
Perhaps you should try harder rather than pretending everyone else is the problem?
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
No, why would converged light demand it comes back centred? Especially when it is a finite distance away. Do you understand convergence at all?
I've met many like you on here who love to play games
You mean that genuinely care about the truth who try to understand your model but are intelligent enough to realise it doesn't work and ask you simple questions which expose the fact that your model cannot match reality?
So you then need to repeatedly insult them to pretend your model is fine as you are completely incapable of rationally and honestly defending your model?
You are the one playing games here.
-
Reflective wise, yes. At least the known parts. Maybe not half the Earth.
Try not to think of your globe when you absorb this bit.
I don't need to think about a globe when I ask this question. It is a fact that at any one time half the surface area of the Earth is illuminated by the Sun. The other half isn't. How do you explain that in your model?
No physical proof...no.
So what sort of proof is there? If there is no physical proof that something exists then there is probably a reason for that. So are you saying that if you - as in you alone - believe it exists then that is good enough evidence for you that it really does exist?
-
Page 69.......your all-time favourite number, sceptimatic? ;)
I've learned something very important from this thread.
In perspective drawing as it is taught everywhere, the eyeline equaling the horizon line, in reality is false. All those years in art school, I failed to recognize the difference. It is subtle and almost negligible, and for the most part inconsequential for scenes depicting immediate surrounds, where for all intents and purposes the earth is flat. But not when you use a scene including the horizon out at sea.
For this I am eternally grateful, sceptimatic.
In the coming week i will post up photos of my table at the beach experiment for you to digest the results. Someone much earlier here did something similar.
I would say you are far more indoctrinated now, than you ever were before, when you believed the earth to be a globe. I think something happened in your life to send you spiralling down this dead end path you are trodding.
You haven't been objective with your toilet roll experiment, and have fallen prey to confirmation bias and quite literally - TUNNEL VISION. A potent mix.
Sceptimatic, I think you are seeking deeper meaning to life than is offered by either science or any religion, and on your quest have unfortunately taken a wrong turn and fallen down a rabbit hole. Shit happens.
I for one, would like to see you get back on track.
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
And yet it does. There are observations that show this. Are you a professional photographer? Why don't you get some pictures or video to back your claim?
-
Concerning the discussion about the horizon and eye level, I found this link from the National Portait Galllery which supports Sceptis view about the horizon rising to meet the observers eye line.
https://www.npg.org.uk/index.php?id=1535#:~:text=You%20always%20see%20the%20horizon,is%20at%20your%20eye%20level.
See the section about the horizon and eye line.
Equally though it also mentions about the horizon being a line (which all the online dictionaries also say) rather than being a gradient as per Sceptis claim. The word line appears on this page 25 times. The word gradient zero.
Here is a quote from the same page:
If you go to the seaside, you will sometimes see ships disappearing over the edge of the horizon. If you are higher up you still see the horizon, you are just looking a bit further over the edge of the world. Because the world is round, the horizon line is really a curve, but the world is huge, so this curve is so big that it looks like a straight line.
I am all for being fair so I thought this might be of interest.
I should write to them and let them know their website is incorrect and they should fix it. :)
But interesting, yes.
In perspective drawing/art, the horizon is always at eye level, 99.9999% of the time. It's literally the first thing you learn in art school 101. That's where the likes of Rowbotham and modern FEr's got the notion from. And coopted "The Laws of Perspective Drawing" into a new paradigm and simply named it the "Laws of Perspective". Essentially taking a several 100 years old artistic rendering technique used to outstrip the ultimate 2D nature of visual art and applying it to all terrestrial observations.
Granted, the way the National Portrait Gallery words it, it seems to be a phenomenon always applied within and outside the art world. But in reality, it literally is a law applied to the visual arts and, as well, most often reflected in reality, but not always. Perhaps because the effect is so subtle and matters little in 99% of circumstances, both real and hanging on a museum wall.
-
Ok, lets try this one more time, with feeling!
Here are some pictures in case the diagram was too complicated.
There is a tube.
It is level.
I am using a straight metal rod to show that there is a direct path from the 'eyeball' to both below, and above the tube.
You can see very clearly that the eye can see beyond both the 'ground' and the 'sky'. No lens needed to see beyond the diameter of a tube. No fluting needed. No reflective material.
This is how lines work. They go from one point to another. If there is nothing in the way of those two points, you can see it.
Sceptimatic, can you agree from my real world example that you can see things that are both below and above a tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/jkQCXgM.png)
-
I linked to this website to demonstrate that there situations where the horizon - as in our limit of visibility into the distance will behave in a certain way under certain condition which will suit the claims of flat Earth believers. They will naturally interpret those ways and conditions to suit.
Geometrically if you draw a circle and then draw a tangent line to that circle (top image), then that tangent line will represent the line of sight of a level tube at ground level. If the line and the circle are in contact with each other at the scale of the Earth and a human standing on Earth then it follows that you will see a very small part (arc) of the circumference of the circle because for that very small distance the circle will be seen as a straight line which is parallel with the line of sight. This forms the basis of this tube experiment which has been the main discussion point for too long now.
If you now move that tangent line away from the circle so it is no longer touching then the part of the circumference which is directly ahead of the former intercept point will 'fall away' from the line of sight and hence the horizon from the observers point of view will drop (lower image). The original intersection point will become an extension of the radius line of the circle. If we now tilt the tangent line until a second point on it touches the circle further ahead, this second point will now represent the new horizon line. It will be further away which explains why the distance of the horizon increases as we gain altitude. This effect is well observed from an aircraft.
Eventually when we gain enough altitude (say 50,000ft plus) then we can see a large enough area of the surface of the Earth that the horizon starts to appear slightly curved. Below is a diagram of what I mean and shows how the horizon appears to fall away from the intial, surface level line of sight as we gain altitude.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JyDMrfv/Image1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/JGLhZ8Lr)
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
2. You drawing a diagram of however you imagine light behaves.
You can see how it behaves.
You have yet to explain why the red lines in my diagram are blocked. Please show us what is getting in the way between the eye and the ground in my diagram. Load up my diagram in Paint and draw what you think is happening instead. Circle what part of that tube is blocking light from getting to the eye.
Ok, put up your diagram.
-
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
Then by your own admission the reflected converging light to the back of your eye is irrelevant as everyones eye level is different.
Therefore the horizon on a round earth does not require it to be "eye level" as that is, by your admission, a generic term
Please confirm or refute.
Eye level is exactly that. It's the convergence of light back to the eye...any eye and each persons view is their own horizon.
Playing games won't gain you anything.
-
It's called severe indoctrination to not see reality.
And that is what you are suffering from.
You're entitled to that opinion, just as I am.
-
Reflective wise, yes. At least the known parts. Maybe not half the Earth.
Try not to think of your globe when you absorb this bit.
I don't need to think about a globe when I ask this question. It is a fact that at any one time half the surface area of the Earth is illuminated by the Sun. The other half isn't. How do you explain that in your model?
No physical proof...no.
So what sort of proof is there? If there is no physical proof that something exists then there is probably a reason for that. So are you saying that if you - as in you alone - believe it exists then that is good enough evidence for you that it really does exist?
Like I've said time and time and time, again. When I start dishing out facts, then you can argue against them in this vein.
Doing it now as some kind of argument that I don;t know what Earth is, is pointless.
I could argue this with just about everything you're told about your Earth that you rely on as fact but physically cannot prove.
Reference this part when you feel the need to try and use this weak effort.
-
Page 69.......your all-time favourite number, sceptimatic? ;)
I've learned something very important from this thread.
In perspective drawing as it is taught everywhere, the eyeline equaling the horizon line, in reality is false. All those years in art school, I failed to recognize the difference. It is subtle and almost negligible, and for the most part inconsequential for scenes depicting immediate surrounds, where for all intents and purposes the earth is flat. But not when you use a scene including the horizon out at sea.
For this I am eternally grateful, sceptimatic.
In the coming week i will post up photos of my table at the beach experiment for you to digest the results. Someone much earlier here did something similar.
I would say you are far more indoctrinated now, than you ever were before, when you believed the earth to be a globe. I think something happened in your life to send you spiralling down this dead end path you are trodding.
You haven't been objective with your toilet roll experiment, and have fallen prey to confirmation bias and quite literally - TUNNEL VISION. A potent mix.
Sceptimatic, I think you are seeking deeper meaning to life than is offered by either science or any religion, and on your quest have unfortunately taken a wrong turn and fallen down a rabbit hole. Shit happens.
I for one, would like to see you get back on track.
I hope you feel better, soon.
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
And yet it does. There are observations that show this. Are you a professional photographer? Why don't you get some pictures or video to back your claim?
Your horizon is always level to the eye.
If you don't set up a genuine level scope to the sea and sky and then level your horizontal to it on the part of the crosshair then you will be conning yourself. You won't need to con me because I know the reality.
You see, if you move your eye to any angle above or below the crosshair then naturally you will create a movement up or down of the horizontal line of that crosshair along the horizon theoretical horizon.
That is conning yourself.
If you're happy to do that then who am I to stop you?
-
Ok, lets try this one more time, with feeling!
Here are some pictures in case the diagram was too complicated.
There is a tube.
It is level.
I am using a straight metal rod to show that there is a direct path from the 'eyeball' to both below, and above the tube.
You can see very clearly that the eye can see beyond both the 'ground' and the 'sky'. No lens needed to see beyond the diameter of a tube. No fluting needed. No reflective material.
This is how lines work. They go from one point to another. If there is nothing in the way of those two points, you can see it.
Sceptimatic, can you agree from my real world example that you can see things that are both below and above a tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/jkQCXgM.png)
What in the hell are you trying to prove with this?
-
The higher you are in elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level.
Your horizon can never drop. It has to be at eye level. try and fathom out why.
And yet it does. There are observations that show this. Are you a professional photographer? Why don't you get some pictures or video to back your claim?
Your horizon is always level to the eye.
If you don't set up a genuine level scope to the sea and sky and then level your horizontal to it on the part of the crosshair then you will be conning yourself. You won't need to con me because I know the reality.
You see, if you move your eye to any angle above or below the crosshair then naturally you will create a movement up or down of the horizontal line of that crosshair along the horizon theoretical horizon.
That is conning yourself.
If you're happy to do that then who am I to stop you?
The horizon drops below eye level as elevation is increased. That's just the way it is, and there is plenty of footage showing this. Will a water-level suffice for this observation? The level of water at each end of a curved length of tubing will be equal, so a line of sight in-line with the water surface will be level. Will the horizon always rise up to be in-line with the water in the tube?
You are a professional with a lot of equipment correct? Why haven't you photographed this yourself?
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
-
It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
A phone camera? Hardly. Scepti has stated in the past that he is a professional with equipment costing tens of thousands of pounds. Now, that does seem odd for someone who has been confused about simple exposure effects, but I'm sure there are plenty of professional photographers who are completely baffled by what exposure settings can do to the resulting image.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
It's strange how he will spend weeks of time and hundreds of posts arguing for something he could conclusively demonstrate in less than 2 minutes of effort.
-
Like I've said time and time and time, again. When I start dishing out facts, then you can argue against them in this vein.
Doing it now as some kind of argument that I don;t know what Earth is, is pointless.
I could argue this with just about everything you're told about your Earth that you rely on as fact but physically cannot prove.
Reference this part when you feel the need to try and use this weak effort.
So if this 'model' of yours exists only in your mind and nowhere else, physically or otherwise could you tell me exactly how anyone else other than you is supposed to know anything about it?
Otherwise you are literally just asking us to take your word for it without proof which is also exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing re RE. Except of course on the RE side there is at least some evidence!
-
The horizon drops below eye level as elevation is increased.
No it doesn't. It can't.
That's just the way it is, and there is plenty of footage showing this.
No there isn't. Not in any genuine way like I've put forward.
Will a water-level suffice for this observation? The level of water at each end of a curved length of tubing will be equal, so a line of sight in-line with the water surface will be level. Will the horizon always rise up to be in-line with the water in the tube?
You need a scope. Two would be preferable for genuine clarity to show no cheating.
You are a professional with a lot of equipment correct? Why haven't you photographed this yourself?
Why haven't you?
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
Why haven't you done it?
-
Like I've said time and time and time, again. When I start dishing out facts, then you can argue against them in this vein.
Doing it now as some kind of argument that I don;t know what Earth is, is pointless.
I could argue this with just about everything you're told about your Earth that you rely on as fact but physically cannot prove.
Reference this part when you feel the need to try and use this weak effort.
So if this 'model' of yours exists only in your mind and nowhere else, physically or otherwise could you tell me exactly how anyone else other than you is supposed to know anything about it?
Otherwise you are literally just asking us to take your word for it without proof which is also exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing re RE. Except of course on the RE side there is at least some evidence!
By learning how I got to this point.
It's well documented.
-
Where exactly is it well documented?
I just Googled 'Sceptimatics model of the Earth' and it didn't get me very far.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
Why haven't you done it?
I have. I looked through a tube, level, saw the ground and the sky. Crazy that it worked out that way contrary to what you claim. But I didn't photograph my experience because others have and you just say, "It's a con, it's not level...blah, blah, blah..." Not really helpful. That's why we ask you do it and post it. So you can assuredly say, "It's not a con, it's level, etc." How do you not get this? And why are you so resistant to doing it? Suspicious.
Secondly, I'm still working on the eye level experience. I've got a rig I'm putting together, camera, tube, levels. I'm still working out the necessity and application of a 'crosshair'. As well, I just ordered a gimbal so I can do a sweep pan showing the entire rig as level through several attached spirit levels, and glide around to show the view through the camera to tube set-up and show exactly what is in view: Horizon below eye-level at altitude in one, uncut take. It's a little complicated.
Even if my event is irrefutably perfect, I'm utterly convinced that you will just come back with more words, no experiments of your own, and say, "You're conning yourself, you indoctrinated sheep, looks like CGI, you're disingenuous because the horizon can never be below eye level no matter what your fake experiment showed..."
I can guarantee you will never accept any evidence that is contrary to what you think.
So I'll get around to it once I pull it all together. And just post it for others to see, show you are wrong, once again, not matter your whining about it. Others will see the proof and merit and see that you lack both.
I mean, we've already shown you are wrong 10 times over and you still won't accept it. Just one of the many experiments you've been shown:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
And still, a no-go from you. Just astounding.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
Why haven't you done it?
I have. I looked through a tube, level, saw the ground and the sky. Crazy that it worked out that way contrary to what you claim. But I didn't photograph my experience because others have and you just say, "It's a con, it's not level...blah, blah, blah..." Not really helpful. That's why we ask you do it and post it. So you can assuredly say, "It's not a con, it's level, etc." How do you not get this? And why are you so resistant to doing it? Suspicious.
Secondly, I'm still working on the eye level experience. I've got a rig I'm putting together, camera, tube, levels. I'm still working out the necessity and application of a 'crosshair'. As well, I just ordered a gimbal so I can do a sweep pan showing the entire rig as level through several attached spirit levels, and glide around to show the view through the camera to tube set-up and show exactly what is in view: Horizon below eye-level at altitude in one, uncut take. It's a little complicated.
Even if my event is irrefutably perfect, I'm utterly convinced that you will just come back with more words, no experiments of your own, and say, "You're conning yourself, you indoctrinated sheep, looks like CGI, you're disingenuous because the horizon can never be below eye level no matter what your fake experiment showed..."
I can guarantee you will never accept any evidence that is contrary to what you think.
So I'll get around to it once I pull it all together. And just post it for others to see, show you are wrong, once again, not matter your whining about it. Others will see the proof and merit and see that you lack both.
I mean, we've already shown you are wrong 10 times over and you still won't accept it. Just one of the many experiments you've been shown:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
And still, a no-go from you. Just astounding.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
-
Ok, lets try this one more time, with feeling!
Here are some pictures in case the diagram was too complicated.
There is a tube.
It is level.
I am using a straight metal rod to show that there is a direct path from the 'eyeball' to both below, and above the tube.
You can see very clearly that the eye can see beyond both the 'ground' and the 'sky'. No lens needed to see beyond the diameter of a tube. No fluting needed. No reflective material.
This is how lines work. They go from one point to another. If there is nothing in the way of those two points, you can see it.
Sceptimatic, can you agree from my real world example that you can see things that are both below and above a tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/jkQCXgM.png)
What in the hell are you trying to prove with this?
I'm proving that you can see the ground through a level tube.
I apparently am also proving that you are simply incapable of understanding how tubes work. ::)
I thought that an actual, physical picture might help since you can't understand diagrams, but that's STILL too complicated for you. Oh well.
How do you even function in day to day life? If someone asks you to look out a window do you start ranting that you can't see anything because the level window tube isn't fluted? Truly baffling.
-
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
The only issue anyone has is you ignoring every picture anyone takes or provides.
So you do it first. Otherwise you will just make up more excuses, or simply ignore the pictures and claim 'I don't understand what this is!?!?!?' like you just did with mine.
Why can't you take a picture through a tube? I'd think a pro photographer could figure THAT out.
-
Ok, lets try this one more time, with feeling!
Here are some pictures in case the diagram was too complicated.
There is a tube.
It is level.
I am using a straight metal rod to show that there is a direct path from the 'eyeball' to both below, and above the tube.
You can see very clearly that the eye can see beyond both the 'ground' and the 'sky'. No lens needed to see beyond the diameter of a tube. No fluting needed. No reflective material.
This is how lines work. They go from one point to another. If there is nothing in the way of those two points, you can see it.
Sceptimatic, can you agree from my real world example that you can see things that are both below and above a tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/jkQCXgM.png)
What in the hell are you trying to prove with this?
I'm proving that you can see the ground through a level tube.
I apparently am also proving that you are simply incapable of understanding how tubes work. ::)
I thought that an actual, physical picture might help since you can't understand diagrams, but that's STILL too complicated for you. Oh well.
How do you even function in day to day life? If someone asks you to look out a window do you start ranting that you can't see anything because the level window tube isn't fluted? Truly baffling.
You have no clue what's going on.
Do you not know what I'm saying?
Ask some of your forum pals.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Uh, no. A laser and a flashlight are completely different things. A tube is not a laser, it doesn't work that way. You are so very confused over simple objects.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would help because you haven't actually explained anything. You just repeat that you can't see through a tube and when offered pictures showing exactly that, just ignore them or claim they are fake somehow.
Take a picture or admit that no, what you are describing doesn't happen in reality.
We all know the real reason you won't take pictures is you know they won't show what you imagine they would. You just can't admit it to anyone, probably not even yourself.
2. You drawing a diagram of however you imagine light behaves.
You can see how it behaves.
Yes I can see how it behaves, and I prove what I am seeing by taking pictures and posting them here. Something you are incapable of doing.
You claim both are wrong, so draw what you imagine is happening.
If you can't put your fantasy world onto paper, maybe the problem is with your ideas?
You have yet to explain why the red lines in my diagram are blocked. Please show us what is getting in the way between the eye and the ground in my diagram. Load up my diagram in Paint and draw what you think is happening instead. Circle what part of that tube is blocking light from getting to the eye.
Ok, put up your diagram.
What is wrong with you? Are you blind? I put up my diagram half a dozen times. It was even in the message you just quoted.
Here is is AGAIN.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Sigh. ::)
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Uh, no. A laser and a flashlight are completely different things. A tube is not a laser, it doesn't work that way. You are so very confused over simple objects.
I think you're overcomplicating certain things.
The laser perfectly explains why your line of sight does not diverge.
This is why a tube is used to illustrate this and not a curved scope.
What is wrong with you? Are you blind? I put up my diagram half a dozen times. It was even in the message you just quoted.
Here is is AGAIN.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Sigh. ::)
Make the diagram fit the page and also explain what's happening, with pointers.
-
You have no clue what's going on.
Do you not know what I'm saying?
Ask some of your forum pals.
It's very clear what you are saying, and what you are saying is nonsense. Here is what you are saying.
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You are saying you can't see the ground thorough a level tube.
You have been shown many pictures showing exactly that.
Baffling.
But go on, keep making excuses why you can't draw a diagram proving your view, or take a picture of a tube.
-
You have no clue what's going on.
Do you not know what I'm saying?
Ask some of your forum pals.
It's very clear what you are saying, and what you are saying is nonsense. Here is what you are saying.
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You are saying you can't see the ground thorough a level tube.
You have been shown many pictures showing exactly that.
Baffling.
But go on, keep making excuses why you can't draw a diagram proving your view, or take a picture of a tube.
No I'm not saying that.
I'm saying you cannot see level ground through a level tube that is above the level ground under you and if this was you looking over a globe then your level ground would not be really level...it would be curving away and down from you, ensuring that you would never see any ground unless you used a curved lens.
This is the very reason I promote the simple tube, because it does not offer any curved sight after the eye.
-
You have no clue what's going on.
Do you not know what I'm saying?
Ask some of your forum pals.
It's very clear what you are saying, and what you are saying is nonsense. Here is what you are saying.
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You are saying you can't see the ground thorough a level tube.
You have been shown many pictures showing exactly that.
Baffling.
But go on, keep making excuses why you can't draw a diagram proving your view, or take a picture of a tube.
No I'm not saying that.
I'm saying you cannot see level ground through a level tube that is above the level ground under you and if this was you looking over a globe then your level ground would not be really level...it would be curving away and down from you, ensuring that you would never see any ground unless you used a curved lens.
This is the very reason I promote the simple tube, because it does not offer any curved sight after the eye.
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
-
You have no clue what's going on.
Do you not know what I'm saying?
Ask some of your forum pals.
It's very clear what you are saying, and what you are saying is nonsense. Here is what you are saying.
It baffles me why you think you would see any edge to a ball if you were stood on it with a level tube at your eye height.
You can clearly understand that you would never see what is at your feet or directly under that farther tube end from your eye. Yet you still believe that a ball which would be curving away and down from that point would stiff offer you a horizon.
You are saying you can't see the ground thorough a level tube.
You have been shown many pictures showing exactly that.
Baffling.
But go on, keep making excuses why you can't draw a diagram proving your view, or take a picture of a tube.
No I'm not saying that.
I'm saying you cannot see level ground through a level tube that is above the level ground under you and if this was you looking over a globe then your level ground would not be really level...it would be curving away and down from you, ensuring that you would never see any ground unless you used a curved lens.
This is the very reason I promote the simple tube, because it does not offer any curved sight after the eye.
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
Where is the curve?
-
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
Where is the curve?
Yes, the orange line which is not pointed down does not hit things below it. That is how lines work. It wouldn't hit the ground on a flat or round Earth.
The red lines are the limits to what you can see through the tube, seeing both the ground and the sky.
Where is the curve? Find a ruler or something straight and measure the top of the green area. It's curved. Just like the Earth. Kind of fitting that you can't find either of them. :)
-
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
Where is the curve?
Yes, the orange line which is not pointed down does not hit things below it. That is how lines work. It wouldn't hit the ground on a flat or round Earth.
Correct, it wouldn't.
The red lines are the limits to what you can see through the tube, seeing both the ground and the sky.
Those red lines will not exist outside of that tube and back to your eye. They do not diverge. They converge.
Where is the curve? Find a ruler or something straight and measure the top of the green area. It's curved. Just like the Earth. Kind of fitting that you can't find either of them. :)
There's no curve.
-
Toilet rolls are not the best tubes to use. Try Christmas wrapping paper cardboard tubes. (They reduce the angle of vision and are less smelly than sceptimatic's preferred tubes of use, too! :)
Sceptimatic's toilet roll experiment is so impressive you could literally achieve the same result, looking through a hula hoop, or a finger ring. Don't be coy, sceptimatic, we all know you enjoy a good "finger ring." You're a flat earther afterall.
-
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
Where is the curve?
Yes, the orange line which is not pointed down does not hit things below it. That is how lines work. It wouldn't hit the ground on a flat or round Earth.
Correct, it wouldn't.
The red lines are the limits to what you can see through the tube, seeing both the ground and the sky.
Those red lines will not exist outside of that tube and back to your eye. They do not diverge. They converge.
Where is the curve? Find a ruler or something straight and measure the top of the green area. It's curved. Just like the Earth. Kind of fitting that you can't find either of them. :)
There's no curve.
Hahahahah. Siiiiiiiigh. Yes the green line does curve. Try and measure the top of the green area, it curves. Do I need to teach you how to tell if an object curves? Hint, use something straight to compare it with. ::)
If you didn't put so much time into all of this, I'd assume you are trolling now, because a flat earther denying a clearly curving object is flat is just... well it's just too absurd. Classic.
Again, what the heck is going on inside your head that you think those red lines "don't exist outside the tube". What is blocking them?
I even showed you with real objects, a tube and a metal rod. If the straight metal rod can go from an eye to the ground, how can light be blocked? What gets in the way?
And once more... care to draw what YOU think happens?
-
Toilet rolls are not the best tubes to use. Try Christmas wrapping paper cardboard tubes. (They reduce the angle of vision and are less smelly than sceptimatic's preferred tubes of use, too! :)
Most people unroll the tissue to wipe. Try it sometime before you use the end roll.
Sceptimatic's toilet roll experiment is so impressive you could literally achieve the same result, looking through a hula hoop, or a finger ring. Don't be coy, sceptimatic, we all know you enjoy a good "finger ring." You're a flat earther afterall.
Pick any tube you want to. The result is just the same, as long as you have no curved lens in it.
-
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
Where is the curve?
Yes, the orange line which is not pointed down does not hit things below it. That is how lines work. It wouldn't hit the ground on a flat or round Earth.
Correct, it wouldn't.
The red lines are the limits to what you can see through the tube, seeing both the ground and the sky.
Those red lines will not exist outside of that tube and back to your eye. They do not diverge. They converge.
Where is the curve? Find a ruler or something straight and measure the top of the green area. It's curved. Just like the Earth. Kind of fitting that you can't find either of them. :)
There's no curve.
Hahahahah. Siiiiiiiigh. Yes the green line does curve. Try and measure the top of the green area, it curves. Do I need to teach you how to tell if an object curves? Hint, use something straight to compare it with. ::)
If you didn't put so much time into all of this, I'd assume you are trolling now, because a flat earther denying a clearly curving object is flat is just... well it's just too absurd. Classic.
Again, what the heck is going on inside your head that you think those red lines "don't exist outside the tube". What is blocking them?
I even showed you with real objects, a tube and a metal rod. If the straight metal rod can go from an eye to the ground, how can light be blocked? What gets in the way?
And once more... care to draw what YOU think happens?
There's no curve.
-
You are saying you can't see the curved ground thorough a level tube.
There, is that better? That still makes no sense. Here is my diagram again. It shows a level tube. It shows a curved ground. It shows how you can look directly at the ground that curves away downward through the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Disagree? Draw your own version of what you imagine is happening.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
Where is the curve?
Yes, the orange line which is not pointed down does not hit things below it. That is how lines work. It wouldn't hit the ground on a flat or round Earth.
Correct, it wouldn't.
The red lines are the limits to what you can see through the tube, seeing both the ground and the sky.
Those red lines will not exist outside of that tube and back to your eye. They do not diverge. They converge.
Where is the curve? Find a ruler or something straight and measure the top of the green area. It's curved. Just like the Earth. Kind of fitting that you can't find either of them. :)
There's no curve.
Hahahahah. Siiiiiiiigh. Yes the green line does curve. Try and measure the top of the green area, it curves. Do I need to teach you how to tell if an object curves? Hint, use something straight to compare it with. ::)
If you didn't put so much time into all of this, I'd assume you are trolling now, because a flat earther denying a clearly curving object is flat is just... well it's just too absurd. Classic.
Again, what the heck is going on inside your head that you think those red lines "don't exist outside the tube". What is blocking them?
I even showed you with real objects, a tube and a metal rod. If the straight metal rod can go from an eye to the ground, how can light be blocked? What gets in the way?
And once more... care to draw what YOU think happens?
There's no curve.
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
Highlight of the thread so far to me.
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
The green shape is in no way a round shape. It is not a curve.
If you know it to be a curve then point it out.
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
The green shape is in no way a round shape. It is not a curve.
If you know it to be a curve then point it out.
lol. Maybe we find out the whole round vs flat earth argument on this thread is just based on a misunderstanding of Sceptimatic on what 'round' and 'curve' mean.
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
The green shape is in no way a round shape. It is not a curve.
If you know it to be a curve then point it out.
I don't even.
Ok, let me point it out.
See the green shape? That's curved. I'm not sure how else to point it out to you. I know it's curved because I drew it, then measured it just to be sure.
Have you tried taking a sheet of paper and lining it up with the top of green shape? Do you see how it's NOT straight? Have you done anything other than just look at it and declare it's not curved? Have you actually measured it? Please explain how you proved it's straight. That should be good.
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
The green shape is in no way a round shape. It is not a curve.
If you know it to be a curve then point it out.
lol. Maybe we find out the whole round vs flat earth argument on this thread is just based on a misunderstanding of Sceptimatic on what 'round' and 'curve' mean.
How about you show me where the curve is on that diagram.
-
lol. Maybe we find out the whole round vs flat earth argument on this thread is just based on a misunderstanding of Sceptimatic on what 'round' and 'curve' mean.
I think every non-flat earther is thinking the same thing.
Maybe they all just don't understand the difference between curved and straight. Did they all miss that day in kindergarten?
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
The green shape is in no way a round shape. It is not a curve.
If you know it to be a curve then point it out.
I don't even.
Ok, let me point it out.
See the green shape? That's curved. I'm not sure how else to point it out to you. I know it's curved because I drew it, then measured it just to be sure.
Have you tried taking a sheet of paper and lining it up with the top of green shape? Do you see how it's NOT straight? Have you done anything other than just look at it and declare it's not curved? Have you actually measured it? Please explain how you proved it's straight. That should be good.
How about you make the diagram fit the post and I can have another look at it.
-
This has gone way beyond the general absurdity of arguing with sceptimatic at this point. Just when I thought I saw it all.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say. Congrats, I'm nearly speechless.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Do you actually know what a curve is?
I have now moved beyond laughing and am now crying.
So what is confusing you now. Do you not understand colors or curves?
See the green shape? See how the top isn't straight. That is called a curve. Things that are round have curves.
The green shape is in no way a round shape. It is not a curve.
If you know it to be a curve then point it out.
I don't even.
Ok, let me point it out.
See the green shape? That's curved. I'm not sure how else to point it out to you. I know it's curved because I drew it, then measured it just to be sure.
Have you tried taking a sheet of paper and lining it up with the top of green shape? Do you see how it's NOT straight? Have you done anything other than just look at it and declare it's not curved? Have you actually measured it? Please explain how you proved it's straight. That should be good.
How about you make the diagram fit the post and I can have another look at it.
Nah, I jump through enough hoops as it is. I'm not going to post 20 versions of it until you end up just ignoring it anyway.
Why don't you learn how to look at a picture? Aren't you a pro photographer?
You have to be the laziest person I've ever met. Put a LITTLE effort into something for once.
-
Nah, I jump through enough hoops as it is. I'm not going to post 20 versions of it until you end up just ignoring it anyway.
Why don't you learn how to look at a picture? Aren't you a pro photographer?
You have to be the laziest person I've ever met. Put a LITTLE effort into something for once.
I think the least you can do is to make your picture fit the post instead of me having to scroll along in order to try and see a curve, which I can't.
So let's have it all on the post, or are you worried you'll be found out?
-
Nah, I jump through enough hoops as it is. I'm not going to post 20 versions of it until you end up just ignoring it anyway.
Why don't you learn how to look at a picture? Aren't you a pro photographer?
You have to be the laziest person I've ever met. Put a LITTLE effort into something for once.
I think the least you can do is to make your picture fit the post instead of me having to scroll along in order to try and see a curve, which I can't.
So let's have it all on the post, or are you worried you'll be found out?
You are unbelievable. Are you using a Commodore 64 to view this forum?
A 6 year old could figure out how to look at a picture on the internet. You are either the laziest or dumbest person on the forum if you need my help to look at a picture correctly.
Fine, I'll help you again since you are incapable of operating modern technology.
Take your pick.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Am I dreaming, or am I being accused of doing... something nefarious because sceptimatic can't figure out how to zoom? What exactly will I be 'found out' by shrinking an image that literally ANYONE other than sceptimatic could resize to any dimensions they wanted in 2 seconds?
Paranoid.
Still, I haven't been this amused in a long time.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Uh, no. A laser and a flashlight are completely different things. A tube is not a laser, it doesn't work that way. You are so very confused over simple objects.
I think you're overcomplicating certain things.
The laser perfectly explains why your line of sight does not diverge.
This is why a tube is used to illustrate this and not a curved scope.
What is wrong with you? Are you blind? I put up my diagram half a dozen times. It was even in the message you just quoted.
Here is is AGAIN.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Sigh. ::)
Make the diagram fit the page and also explain what's happening, with pointers.
sceppy is clearly trolling you...
tell us what's wrong sceppy
the picture is clear as your obvious dodging of direct questions you refuse to answer.
-
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
Then by your own admission the reflected converging light to the back of your eye is irrelevant as everyones eye level is different.
Therefore the horizon on a round earth does not require it to be "eye level" as that is, by your admission, a generic term
Please confirm or refute.
Eye level is exactly that. It's the convergence of light back to the eye...any eye and each persons view is their own horizon.
Playing games won't gain you anything.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
can you manage to not contradict yourself within posting minutes appart?
if his eye moves up and down apparently he's cheating.
however, at the same time, people at different height and elevation can apparently still see the same eye level.
do they see it?
or are REQUIRED to see it if the earth is a ball?
Is eye level is a requirement of a ball?
please confirm.
and
these guys have gone to the effort to take some photos for you and draw some diagrams for you
FOR YOU.
you have yet to take a photo of YOUR tube setup to verify to us what you're seeing.
you claim to see something by description, we have told you you're nuts, yet you continue on insisting.
Please prove us all wrong
Show us your photo.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
Why haven't you done it?
I have. I looked through a tube, level, saw the ground and the sky. Crazy that it worked out that way contrary to what you claim. But I didn't photograph my experience because others have and you just say, "It's a con, it's not level...blah, blah, blah..." Not really helpful. That's why we ask you do it and post it. So you can assuredly say, "It's not a con, it's level, etc." How do you not get this? And why are you so resistant to doing it? Suspicious.
Secondly, I'm still working on the eye level experience. I've got a rig I'm putting together, camera, tube, levels. I'm still working out the necessity and application of a 'crosshair'. As well, I just ordered a gimbal so I can do a sweep pan showing the entire rig as level through several attached spirit levels, and glide around to show the view through the camera to tube set-up and show exactly what is in view: Horizon below eye-level at altitude in one, uncut take. It's a little complicated.
Even if my event is irrefutably perfect, I'm utterly convinced that you will just come back with more words, no experiments of your own, and say, "You're conning yourself, you indoctrinated sheep, looks like CGI, you're disingenuous because the horizon can never be below eye level no matter what your fake experiment showed..."
I can guarantee you will never accept any evidence that is contrary to what you think.
So I'll get around to it once I pull it all together. And just post it for others to see, show you are wrong, once again, not matter your whining about it. Others will see the proof and merit and see that you lack both.
I mean, we've already shown you are wrong 10 times over and you still won't accept it. Just one of the many experiments you've been shown:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
And still, a no-go from you. Just astounding.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
This is exactly what you're asking for only even better - The tubes of water are positioned about a foot from each other, one in front of the other. Just like your two tubes with crosshairs. When the levels of water in the two tubes are level with each other, that is eye level. Just like if your two tubes crosshairs lined up. Notice in the gif how when moving up or down, the levels of water in the tubes go out of alignment. When they are aligned, like your crosshairs, they are at eye level and then look at the horizon through the cage. Wow, at altitude, it is below eye level. Can you see that?
(https://i.imgur.com/sS7mNC5.gif)
Same with this, the water tubes, one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs, the levels are aligned. Meaning at eye level. Notice the horizon. Is it above, below or even with the aligned water tube levels?
(https://i.imgur.com/YbmznS7.png)
These are not "cheats" or "fakes" or "dupes", it's the real deal and is exactly like your tubes one in front of the other with aligned cross hairs experiment. You seem to think you know a lot about optics, how do your eyes not see the reality here?
-
Seventy-one pages for the big reveal.
Sceptimatic has special needs.
Oh, and those tube photos perfectly depict what my table on the beach photo will also show. The true horizon is lower than the level eyeline.
-
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Again, what magic causes the light to bend to stop it diverging?
As for a laser, if you have ever used one you know it only illuminates a dot, roughly the same size, regardless of distance, which would bring us back to only seeing 1 inch of the plane, rather than the full plane as repeatedly observed.
And lasers also typically use lens setups, so nothing like the tube.
Again, this diagram is all you need:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
The orange line is stopped by the wall of the tube, as it would need to pass through it.
But what is there to stop the blue line? NOTHING!
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
You taking a picture of this magic tube would show everyone this magic tube of yours which only allows you to see 1 inch.
In reality this is being asked because your claim is pure BS, and your inability to provide any evidence to back up your claim shows this.
2. You drawing a diagram of however you imagine light behaves.
You can see how it behaves.
Yes, and it is nothing like you claim.
It's called severe indoctrination to not see reality.
And that is what you are suffering from.
You're entitled to that opinion, just as I am.
It isn't just my opinion. It is a conclusion based upon how you act. Meanwhile, yours is just a pathetic insult to dismiss those who show you are wrong.
Again you ignore simple arguments that show you are wrong.
Care to respond to the rest of the post? Or have you realised there is no chance for you to rationally deal with these massive issues for your blatant lies?
Your horizon is always level to the eye.
Again, the evidence provided has clearly shown that is a blatant lie.
The fact that it is only a finite distance away shows that that is a blatant lie.
You are yet to provide any justification for what magically causes this phenomenon which is never observed in reality.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
Or, why don't you just do it yourself? Or will you be cheating yourself as well?
Again, a simple water level is a way to do it without cheating, and that shows you are wrong as well.
And again, until you back yourself into a corner and commit, stating quite clearly that when your ridiculous demands are met you will simply admit that you are wrong; why would anyone bother wasting their time just for you to dismiss as fake or a con job like you dismiss all the evidence that shows you are wrong?
Especially when you repeatedly refuse to do it yourself, likely because you know that what you are stating is pure BS.
Your orange line is not hitting any ground.
So you are back to claiming we see with a FOV of 0 again?
The orange line is not your FOV. It is merely the centre of it.
You can see things that aren't on that orange line.
Do you actually know what a curve is?
Do you?
Is this why you think your non-flat model is flat? Because you don't understand what a curve is?
Is this why you think Earth isn't round, because you don't know what a curve is?
Here, does this help you:
(https://i.imgur.com/UOnsSx3.png)
See the purple line just above the green curve?
On the left of the image, it is the very pixel above the green shape.
On the right, it is quite a bit above.
I think the least you can do is to make your picture fit the post
You mean like they already do, with the pictures resizing based upon how wide the screen is?
It even does that on my phone.
Without modifying the styles on the page, I cannot get the picture to not fit on the screen.
So there we have more lies from you to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Dude, if you can't agree that the green line curves... I don't know what to say.
He won't even agree it's a line.
-
Nah, I jump through enough hoops as it is. I'm not going to post 20 versions of it until you end up just ignoring it anyway.
Why don't you learn how to look at a picture? Aren't you a pro photographer?
You have to be the laziest person I've ever met. Put a LITTLE effort into something for once.
I think the least you can do is to make your picture fit the post instead of me having to scroll along in order to try and see a curve, which I can't.
So let's have it all on the post, or are you worried you'll be found out?
You are unbelievable. Are you using a Commodore 64 to view this forum?
A 6 year old could figure out how to look at a picture on the internet. You are either the laziest or dumbest person on the forum if you need my help to look at a picture correctly.
Fine, I'll help you again since you are incapable of operating modern technology.
Take your pick.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Am I dreaming, or am I being accused of doing... something nefarious because sceptimatic can't figure out how to zoom? What exactly will I be 'found out' by shrinking an image that literally ANYONE other than sceptimatic could resize to any dimensions they wanted in 2 seconds?
Paranoid.
Still, I haven't been this amused in a long time.
Ok I sort of see it.
Soooo, your orange sight line through the tube rises from that tube as it goes horizontally over your curve..
You would see no ground on this level.
Why you have the other lines diverging like a torch beam....well.....why?
-
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
Then by your own admission the reflected converging light to the back of your eye is irrelevant as everyones eye level is different.
Therefore the horizon on a round earth does not require it to be "eye level" as that is, by your admission, a generic term
Please confirm or refute.
Eye level is exactly that. It's the convergence of light back to the eye...any eye and each persons view is their own horizon.
Playing games won't gain you anything.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
can you manage to not contradict yourself within posting minutes appart?
if his eye moves up and down apparently he's cheating.
however, at the same time, people at different height and elevation can apparently still see the same eye level.
do they see it?
or are REQUIRED to see it if the earth is a ball?
Is eye level is a requirement of a ball?
please confirm.
and
these guys have gone to the effort to take some photos for you and draw some diagrams for you
FOR YOU.
you have yet to take a photo of YOUR tube setup to verify to us what you're seeing.
you claim to see something by description, we have told you you're nuts, yet you continue on insisting.
Please prove us all wrong
Show us your photo.
There's no contradiction, at all.
There seems to be avoidance of the issues by you people.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
Why haven't you done it?
I have. I looked through a tube, level, saw the ground and the sky. Crazy that it worked out that way contrary to what you claim. But I didn't photograph my experience because others have and you just say, "It's a con, it's not level...blah, blah, blah..." Not really helpful. That's why we ask you do it and post it. So you can assuredly say, "It's not a con, it's level, etc." How do you not get this? And why are you so resistant to doing it? Suspicious.
Secondly, I'm still working on the eye level experience. I've got a rig I'm putting together, camera, tube, levels. I'm still working out the necessity and application of a 'crosshair'. As well, I just ordered a gimbal so I can do a sweep pan showing the entire rig as level through several attached spirit levels, and glide around to show the view through the camera to tube set-up and show exactly what is in view: Horizon below eye-level at altitude in one, uncut take. It's a little complicated.
Even if my event is irrefutably perfect, I'm utterly convinced that you will just come back with more words, no experiments of your own, and say, "You're conning yourself, you indoctrinated sheep, looks like CGI, you're disingenuous because the horizon can never be below eye level no matter what your fake experiment showed..."
I can guarantee you will never accept any evidence that is contrary to what you think.
So I'll get around to it once I pull it all together. And just post it for others to see, show you are wrong, once again, not matter your whining about it. Others will see the proof and merit and see that you lack both.
I mean, we've already shown you are wrong 10 times over and you still won't accept it. Just one of the many experiments you've been shown:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
And still, a no-go from you. Just astounding.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
This is exactly what you're asking for only even better - The tubes of water are positioned about a foot from each other, one in front of the other. Just like your two tubes with crosshairs. When the levels of water in the two tubes are level with each other, that is eye level. Just like if your two tubes crosshairs lined up. Notice in the gif how when moving up or down, the levels of water in the tubes go out of alignment. When they are aligned, like your crosshairs, they are at eye level and then look at the horizon through the cage. Wow, at altitude, it is below eye level. Can you see that?
(https://i.imgur.com/sS7mNC5.gif)
Same with this, the water tubes, one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs, the levels are aligned. Meaning at eye level. Notice the horizon. Is it above, below or even with the aligned water tube levels?
(https://i.imgur.com/YbmznS7.png)
These are not "cheats" or "fakes" or "dupes", it's the real deal and is exactly like your tubes one in front of the other with aligned cross hairs experiment. You seem to think you know a lot about optics, how do your eyes not see the reality here?
If you can't see how that's a con job then fair enough. If you can then it's one of the reasons why I can't trust you people.
The con is with the water in the tubes and their position.
It's not even a clever con but a con all the same.
Why in the hell you want to go along with this...well.....ahhh, never mind.
-
Seventy-one pages for the big reveal.
Sceptimatic has special needs.
Oh, and those tube photos perfectly depict what my table on the beach photo will also show. The true horizon is lower than the level eyeline.
No idea what the horizon is. That's clear to me, with you.
-
Nah, I jump through enough hoops as it is. I'm not going to post 20 versions of it until you end up just ignoring it anyway.
Why don't you learn how to look at a picture? Aren't you a pro photographer?
You have to be the laziest person I've ever met. Put a LITTLE effort into something for once.
I think the least you can do is to make your picture fit the post instead of me having to scroll along in order to try and see a curve, which I can't.
So let's have it all on the post, or are you worried you'll be found out?
You are unbelievable. Are you using a Commodore 64 to view this forum?
A 6 year old could figure out how to look at a picture on the internet. You are either the laziest or dumbest person on the forum if you need my help to look at a picture correctly.
Fine, I'll help you again since you are incapable of operating modern technology.
Take your pick.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Am I dreaming, or am I being accused of doing... something nefarious because sceptimatic can't figure out how to zoom? What exactly will I be 'found out' by shrinking an image that literally ANYONE other than sceptimatic could resize to any dimensions they wanted in 2 seconds?
Paranoid.
Still, I haven't been this amused in a long time.
Ok I sort of see it.
Soooo, your orange sight line through the tube rises from that tube as it goes horizontally over your curve..
You would see no ground on this level.
Why you have the other lines diverging like a torch beam....well.....why?
Do you know what a light ray is?
Simplified diagram?
What a dimension is?
Troll on
-
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
Then by your own admission the reflected converging light to the back of your eye is irrelevant as everyones eye level is different.
Therefore the horizon on a round earth does not require it to be "eye level" as that is, by your admission, a generic term
Please confirm or refute.
Eye level is exactly that. It's the convergence of light back to the eye...any eye and each persons view is their own horizon.
Playing games won't gain you anything.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
can you manage to not contradict yourself within posting minutes appart?
if his eye moves up and down apparently he's cheating.
however, at the same time, people at different height and elevation can apparently still see the same eye level.
do they see it?
or are REQUIRED to see it if the earth is a ball?
Is eye level is a requirement of a ball?
please confirm.
and
these guys have gone to the effort to take some photos for you and draw some diagrams for you
FOR YOU.
you have yet to take a photo of YOUR tube setup to verify to us what you're seeing.
you claim to see something by description, we have told you you're nuts, yet you continue on insisting.
Please prove us all wrong
Show us your photo.
There's no contradiction, at all.
There seems to be avoidance of the issues by you people.
Wheres your photo?
And yes, it is a contradiction because on one hand people are allowed to move up and down, but on the other, when looking through a level scope, they are not.
Which is it?
-
Soooo, your orange sight line through the tube rises from that tube as it goes horizontally over your curve..
You would see no ground on this level.
Why you have the other lines diverging like a torch beam....well.....why?
Again, do you want to pretend that you have a FOV of 0?
Because that is what you need to pretend that you only see along that orange line.
Back in reality, the orange line is merely the centre of your FOV.
Those red lines are the limits of the NON-ZERO FOV created by the tube. They just miss the wall of the tube.
They are like the blue line in my diagram.
What magic is there to stop them from reaching the eye?
The reason they diverge is because you see based upon angles, and they represent travelling in a straight line, just missing the tube, reaching your eyes. However note that they are technically converging. They represent light coming from the right hand side of the diagram to the eye.
The reason they are not parallel is because there is no lens to stop them.
Again, if you want them to go out parallel you need a lens like in the following diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
Notice how on the right hand side, where the light rays are coming from, they are all running parallel.
But then, they pass through the grey lens.
This lens has the light refract and thus change direction.
After passing through the lens they are now converging towards the eye.
This also works in reverse, like in some torches, and light houses.
You have a point source, with light radiating outwards. But if you pass it through a lens, you can focus into a linear beam.
Either way, without that lens (or something else to cause the light to bend), the light would travel in a straight line, and that means that the only way to have them parallel is to have a FOV of 0.
In fact, I don't know of any scopes which act to make the light "diverge", such that they cover a larger angular span on the outside. The only comparable thing would be a fish-eye or wide angle lens on a camera. All the scopes I know of are designed to do the exact opposite, and make it cover a smaller angular span on the outside, effectively magnifying the objects on the outside.
This means the simple tube can see the ground, but if you take a level scope, depending on what that scope is, you might be able to, but might not be.
There seems to be avoidance of the issues by you people.
Projecting again I see.
You are the one repeatedly avoiding simple issues which show quite clearly that you are wrong.
Once more, in the following diagram, what magic stops the blue ray of light from reaching the eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Unless there is something to stop it, then the light can come from below the height of the tube, up at an angle, and go into the tube and hit your eye.
i.e. YOU CAN SEE THE GROUND THROUGH A LEVEL TUBE!
It being below you doesn't prevent that.
Likewise, you ignore the massive contradictions in your claims.
You claim that the plane is converged so you can see more than 1 inch of the plane, yet you magically claim the distance to the ground remains unchanged, preventing it from being seen through the tube.
Again, the simplest, and most honest way to approach this is to use angles, where the angle of dip to the ground gets smaller, the further away the ground is, meaning you eventually get to see it through a level tube (unless you are high enough with a small enough FOV such that the curvature of Earth starts winning before then); for example, with the tube I described with a FOV of ~10 degrees, 2 m above the ground, you can see the ground some where between 20 and 30 m.
The more convoluted way is to decide to scale everything, such that instead of dealing with the actual size of the plane you decide to report its size scaled down to what that angle corresponds to at the end of the tube. But the same works for the distance to the ground, where at 30 m that is much less than half an inch and thus it can easily be seen through the tube.
What if this plane is touching the ground? Can you still see the entire plane, or now does it magically switch to only being able to see 1 inch of the plane?
-
Ok I sort of see it.
How come you can only sort of see it while it is blatantly obvious to everyone else. Is your understanding of what a curve is different to everyone elses?
-
Well, since septicmatic has nothing, what else is there?... Any flat Earther make a map that works yet or figure out how high the sun really is? I saw some pretty convincing proof that it's about 80 feet up.
-
Seventy-one pages for the big reveal.
Sceptimatic has special needs.
Oh, and those tube photos perfectly depict what my table on the beach photo will also show. The true horizon is lower than the level eyeline.
No idea what the horizon is. That's clear to me, with you.
You're secretly hanging out for my table at the beach experiment, aren't you, sceptimatic? ;D
I'll bet you didn't think your horizon explanation could be so easily destroyed in so many easy ways? But Mark Sargent said............ :'( :'( :'( :'(
Keep living in denial. I think what you believe in is complete and utter shit, but hey, don't let me or the truth about the horizon stop you in your quest for the truth. ::)
I suppose you also believe in the power of black magic and voodoo?
-
Do you know what a light ray is?
Simplified diagram?
What a dimension is?
Troll on
How about you tell me what you're talking about instead of your usual "amazing" and "he's a troll".....etc.
-
because of converged lighting back to the eye. It can only come back centred, nothing else.
If i stood there beside my grandfather (who sits in a wheel chair) and yao ming (the basket ball player) whos eye level would we be using?
You would all be using your own eyes to see your own horizon. That's the whole point. Your horizon is yours, from your own vantage point.
If i were on top of hawaiis highest volcano vs someone on the beach, whos eye level would we be using?
Both...but your horizon would be much farther than the person on the beach.
Horizons are specific to the observer.
Then by your own admission the reflected converging light to the back of your eye is irrelevant as everyones eye level is different.
Therefore the horizon on a round earth does not require it to be "eye level" as that is, by your admission, a generic term
Please confirm or refute.
Eye level is exactly that. It's the convergence of light back to the eye...any eye and each persons view is their own horizon.
Playing games won't gain you anything.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
can you manage to not contradict yourself within posting minutes appart?
if his eye moves up and down apparently he's cheating.
however, at the same time, people at different height and elevation can apparently still see the same eye level.
do they see it?
or are REQUIRED to see it if the earth is a ball?
Is eye level is a requirement of a ball?
please confirm.
and
these guys have gone to the effort to take some photos for you and draw some diagrams for you
FOR YOU.
you have yet to take a photo of YOUR tube setup to verify to us what you're seeing.
you claim to see something by description, we have told you you're nuts, yet you continue on insisting.
Please prove us all wrong
Show us your photo.
There's no contradiction, at all.
There seems to be avoidance of the issues by you people.
Wheres your photo?
And yes, it is a contradiction because on one hand people are allowed to move up and down, but on the other, when looking through a level scope, they are not.
Which is it?
Do you understand what looking level through a level scope is?
I've given you an easy way to do it without the con job. Go and do it. Two scopes as I mentioned.
-
Again, do you want to pretend that you have a FOV of 0?
Because that is what you need to pretend that you only see along that orange line.
No I'm not.
Your field of vision is compressed due to the diameter of the tube you're looking through, as anything moves away from that vision.
-
Ok I sort of see it.
How come you can only sort of see it while it is blatantly obvious to everyone else. Is your understanding of what a curve is different to everyone elses?
Maybe you people have been looking at it through something else different to what I am looking through.
Try thinking a little.
-
You're secretly hanging out for my table at the beach experiment, aren't you, sceptimatic? ;D
Not sure what this means. Maybe you can enlighten me.
I'll bet you didn't think your horizon explanation could be so easily destroyed in so many easy ways? But Mark Sargent said............ :'( :'( :'( :'(
I found it easy to show how you're not living on a spinning globe.
These arguments just make my position stronger and stronger.
The fact that a posse of you lot cannot think of a genuine way to show your globe, shows me just how subservient you are to the mainstream ideals that provide zero proof in these cases.
Keep living in denial. I think what you believe in is complete and utter shit, but hey, don't let me or the truth about the horizon stop you in your quest for the truth. ::)
I won't.
I suppose you also believe in the power of black magic and voodoo?
I'm sure you can think up better stuff than that for having a pop. Stop being weak and have a real go.
-
Lol, sceptimatic! Ok, then!
Your position is weaker than the toilet paper in your experiments - soaking wet.
The posse found it easy to effortlessly disprove your toilet roll hypothesis and to prove your eyeline does not equal the horizon line. If the horizon is proven to be lower than your eyeline (which it has), it can only mean the surface of the earth is not flat and level as you constantly have pretended it is, and is curved to create a globe.
Welcome back to planet earth, sceptimatic!
The globe and it's worldly truth has been proven by a bunch of amateurs like us, thanks to little old you. We proved it for ourselves, just like the true truth seekers we are. Thanks again!
So, tell us the recipe for how many flat earth books, videos, and podcasts it takes to create a sceptimatic?
-
Nah, I jump through enough hoops as it is. I'm not going to post 20 versions of it until you end up just ignoring it anyway.
Why don't you learn how to look at a picture? Aren't you a pro photographer?
You have to be the laziest person I've ever met. Put a LITTLE effort into something for once.
I think the least you can do is to make your picture fit the post instead of me having to scroll along in order to try and see a curve, which I can't.
So let's have it all on the post, or are you worried you'll be found out?
You are unbelievable. Are you using a Commodore 64 to view this forum?
A 6 year old could figure out how to look at a picture on the internet. You are either the laziest or dumbest person on the forum if you need my help to look at a picture correctly.
Fine, I'll help you again since you are incapable of operating modern technology.
Take your pick.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
Am I dreaming, or am I being accused of doing... something nefarious because sceptimatic can't figure out how to zoom? What exactly will I be 'found out' by shrinking an image that literally ANYONE other than sceptimatic could resize to any dimensions they wanted in 2 seconds?
Paranoid.
Still, I haven't been this amused in a long time.
Ok I sort of see it.
Soooo, your orange sight line through the tube rises from that tube as it goes horizontally over your curve..
You would see no ground on this level.
Why you have the other lines diverging like a torch beam....well.....why?
Progress, you can 'kinda' see an obviously curving line that everyone else could see without any problems.
You still seem to think humans see in only 1 dimension though.
You really don't understand what the red lines are?
Look through a tube. Notice you can look up and down, not just straight ahead? You can move you eye to look at the bottom edge of the end of the tube, then move it up to see the top edge. Those are the red lines, you are angling your eyeball up and down, thus changing the angle of where you are looking.
Your eyes see what they point at, and they can point in different directions. I'll try not to confuse you with having a field of view as well. Just try and understand your eyes can move, and look in more than one direction. Not just straight ahead.
How can you not understand this?
-
Ok I sort of see it.
How come you can only sort of see it while it is blatantly obvious to everyone else. Is your understanding of what a curve is different to everyone elses?
Maybe you people have been looking at it through something else different to what I am looking through.
Try thinking a little.
Aaaah maybe time for you to take a photo of what youre talking about then.
Remove doubt.
Show us.
-
Again, do you want to pretend that you have a FOV of 0?
Because that is what you need to pretend that you only see along that orange line.
No I'm not.
Yes, you are.
If you just have a single straight line like that orange line in the diagram, you are appealing to a FOV of 0.
Any FOV other than 0, unless you have a lens setup, will have light rays come in from a range of angles.
As you have specifically appealed to a tube without a lens, your only options are a FOV of 0, such as the orange line, or a range of angles which include those red lines.
So which is it?
Again, what stops the blue ray of light from reaching the eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Try thinking a little.
Follow your own advice. You are the one continually refusing to think, as shown by your repeatedly avoidance of simple questions.
I found it easy to show how you're not living on a spinning globe.
No, you only believe you did, because you don't think.
This made it easy to refute that outright lie of yours.
You haven't come close to showing that we don't live on a globe.
Your entire argument for it is destroyed both by logic which shows your claim doesn't match the globe, and by actual evidence, showing the claim is wrong.
Not only can you see the horizon through a level scope on the RE, we can clearly observe that it is BELOW eye level.
But rather than think and be honest and admit you are wrong, you repeatedly contradicted yourself.
The fact that a posse of you lot cannot think of a genuine way to show your globe
Except all the evidence you just dismiss as fake because it shows you are wrong.
What this really does is show just how weak your position is.
-
If you take away the lens and reflector on a flashlight, the light still diverges. What do you think happens, it turns into a laser?
No...but... try thinking of a laser and that may help you massively.
Know what would make it more clear? Let me give you two options.
1. You taking a picture through a tube and posting it.
I fail to see how that would show anything that I've not already explained.
It would show everything. It would be an image taken by YOU and to YOUR exact specifications as to what you are describing. That way you can't say of someone else's image, "You're conning yourself...How do I know it's level? You're playing games..." etc. Because it would be YOUR image that matches YOUR description/explanation. How do you not see the intrinsic value in that? And why would you be resistant to it? It's literally just you with a phone camera, a paper towel roll tube and snapping the photo.
Why haven't you done it?
I have. I looked through a tube, level, saw the ground and the sky. Crazy that it worked out that way contrary to what you claim. But I didn't photograph my experience because others have and you just say, "It's a con, it's not level...blah, blah, blah..." Not really helpful. That's why we ask you do it and post it. So you can assuredly say, "It's not a con, it's level, etc." How do you not get this? And why are you so resistant to doing it? Suspicious.
Secondly, I'm still working on the eye level experience. I've got a rig I'm putting together, camera, tube, levels. I'm still working out the necessity and application of a 'crosshair'. As well, I just ordered a gimbal so I can do a sweep pan showing the entire rig as level through several attached spirit levels, and glide around to show the view through the camera to tube set-up and show exactly what is in view: Horizon below eye-level at altitude in one, uncut take. It's a little complicated.
Even if my event is irrefutably perfect, I'm utterly convinced that you will just come back with more words, no experiments of your own, and say, "You're conning yourself, you indoctrinated sheep, looks like CGI, you're disingenuous because the horizon can never be below eye level no matter what your fake experiment showed..."
I can guarantee you will never accept any evidence that is contrary to what you think.
So I'll get around to it once I pull it all together. And just post it for others to see, show you are wrong, once again, not matter your whining about it. Others will see the proof and merit and see that you lack both.
I mean, we've already shown you are wrong 10 times over and you still won't accept it. Just one of the many experiments you've been shown:
(https://i.imgur.com/AVdwj5A.jpg)
And still, a no-go from you. Just astounding.
Here's the issue you have. I'm sure you'll know this but maybe you genuinely don't.
You can show as many tubes and holes as you want.
You can point them higher or lower than the horizon if you want. Or you can level the scope and level your eye dead centre of that scope.
I've been thinking of a way you can't cheat.
I managed to think of one.
You need two scopes with crosshairs.
You level your fist scope and then set your oher scope up behind it and level the cross hairs.
This way you cannot drop your eye line to make it appear the horizon is higher or lower.
All you have to do is show the front tube as horizontally level then you cannot cheat with the rear tube.
Can you manage this?
This is exactly what you're asking for only even better - The tubes of water are positioned about a foot from each other, one in front of the other. Just like your two tubes with crosshairs. When the levels of water in the two tubes are level with each other, that is eye level. Just like if your two tubes crosshairs lined up. Notice in the gif how when moving up or down, the levels of water in the tubes go out of alignment. When they are aligned, like your crosshairs, they are at eye level and then look at the horizon through the cage. Wow, at altitude, it is below eye level. Can you see that?
(https://i.imgur.com/sS7mNC5.gif)
Same with this, the water tubes, one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs, the levels are aligned. Meaning at eye level. Notice the horizon. Is it above, below or even with the aligned water tube levels?
(https://i.imgur.com/YbmznS7.png)
These are not "cheats" or "fakes" or "dupes", it's the real deal and is exactly like your tubes one in front of the other with aligned cross hairs experiment. You seem to think you know a lot about optics, how do your eyes not see the reality here?
If you can't see how that's a con job then fair enough. If you can then it's one of the reasons why I can't trust you people.
The con is with the water in the tubes and their position.
It's not even a clever con but a con all the same.
Why in the hell you want to go along with this...well.....ahhh, never mind.
What specifically is the con with the water tubes and their position? Their water levels aligning show level, eye-level. And their position is one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs would be. I don't get where the "con" is.
-
Progress, you can 'kinda' see an obviously curving line that everyone else could see without any problems.
You still seem to think humans see in only 1 dimension though.
You really don't understand what the red lines are?
Look through a tube. Notice you can look up and down, not just straight ahead?
Looking up and down inside a tube with your eye, is fine. I have zero issue with that.
It's the end of the tube with what light is reflected through that and back to your eye.
Your naked eye sees light reflected to a point...meaning...the light converges as that light fades, leaving you with your vanishing point....or theoretical horizon line.
You can move you eye to look at the bottom edge of the end of the tube, then move it up to see the top edge. Those are the red lines, you are angling your eyeball up and down, thus changing the angle of where you are looking.
This isn't about moving the eye, it's about focusing the eye on the crosshair, or basically looking level through a levelled tube. Centred.
Your eyes see what they point at, and they can point in different directions. I'll try not to confuse you with having a field of view as well. Just try and understand your eyes can move, and look in more than one direction. Not just straight ahead.
How can you not understand this?
I can understand it but you seem to struggle with what I'm saying.
Get back to the tube and never mind what the naked eye can see without a scope/tube.
.
-
Looking up and down inside a tube with your eye, is fine. I have zero issue with that.
It's the end of the tube with what light is reflected through that and back to your eye.
And it is that latter part that you have serious issues with.
Your naked eye sees light reflected to a point...meaning...the light converges as that light fades, leaving you with your vanishing point....or theoretical horizon line.
And that vanishing point and "theoretical horizon" is infinitely far away. Quite different to the very real horizon which is observed, and observed to be below eye level.
Get back to the tube and never mind what the naked eye can see without a scope/tube.
We are still at the tube.
Again, what stops the light ray indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
NOTHING!
That means when looking through a level tube, you can easily see the ground (depending on the size of the tube and how high you are above the round Earth)
-
I can understand it but you seem to struggle with what I'm saying.
Get back to the tube and never mind what the naked eye can see without a scope/tube.
.
Probably because your word salad is nonsensical.
Try taking your own photo
Highlight what we re supposed to be seeing so we can understand.
-
What specifically is the con with the water tubes and their position? Their water levels aligning show level, eye-level. And their position is one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs would be. I don't get where the "con" is.
Ok, tell me something.
Could you easily have lowered your camera to make the tube lines level the horizon.
And, could you easily raise or lower the water levels in the tubes.
The answer to both would be, yes.
So don't ask me where the con is.
-
And that vanishing point and "theoretical horizon" is infinitely far away. Quite different to the very real horizon which is observed, and observed to be below eye level.
You're struggling now. Grasping at straws.
-
I can understand it but you seem to struggle with what I'm saying.
Get back to the tube and never mind what the naked eye can see without a scope/tube.
.
Probably because your word salad is nonsensical.
Try taking your own photo
Highlight what we re supposed to be seeing so we can understand.
You know fine well what you're supposed to be seeing. I've mentioned it so many times.
I know you like to go back to square on all the time but...well....come on, put some effort in to the thought.
-
What specifically is the con with the water tubes and their position? Their water levels aligning show level, eye-level. And their position is one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs would be. I don't get where the "con" is.
Ok, tell me something.
Could you easily have lowered your camera to make the tube lines level the horizon.
No. That's the point of the gif. As you can see, raising or lowering the camera makes the tube levels not align. The camera is set where the tube levels align, ie., at eye-level.
And, could you easily raise or lower the water levels in the tubes.
No. And maybe you think yes because you don't understand the rig, granted, it's not entirely clear from the image. The tubes are connected to one another by elbows and a horizontal tube attached to the bottoms of the vertical tubes. You pour water into the top of one tube and it flows to the other. They are connected. They are not two separated tubes filled to a point individually.
The answer to both would be, yes.
So don't ask me where the con is.
There is no con, sorry.
-
I can understand it but you seem to struggle with what I'm saying.
Get back to the tube and never mind what the naked eye can see without a scope/tube.
.
Probably because your word salad is nonsensical.
Try taking your own photo
Highlight what we re supposed to be seeing so we can understand.
You know fine well what you're supposed to be seeing. I've mentioned it so many times.
I know you like to go back to square on all the time but...well....come on, put some effort in to the thought.
Reciprocate
Theyve given you many diagrams and pictures.
Wheres yours?
-
Progress, you can 'kinda' see an obviously curving line that everyone else could see without any problems.
You still seem to think humans see in only 1 dimension though.
You really don't understand what the red lines are?
Look through a tube. Notice you can look up and down, not just straight ahead?
Looking up and down inside a tube with your eye, is fine. I have zero issue with that.
It's the end of the tube with what light is reflected through that and back to your eye.
Your naked eye sees light reflected to a point...meaning...the light converges as that light fades, leaving you with your vanishing point....or theoretical horizon line.
Light isn't being reflected off anything at the end of a tube. You really have absolutely no idea how light works, do you?
Again, another description of your weird concept of 1 dimensional vision.
Want to make a diagram of how you think this works?
You can move you eye to look at the bottom edge of the end of the tube, then move it up to see the top edge. Those are the red lines, you are angling your eyeball up and down, thus changing the angle of where you are looking.
This isn't about moving the eye, it's about focusing the eye on the crosshair, or basically looking level through a levelled tube. Centred.
No, it's all about moving your eye. You can rotate your eye up to see the sky, and down to see the ground. Putting a tube in front of you doesn't block you from being able to look up and down.
Want to make a diagram of how you think this works?
Your eyes see what they point at, and they can point in different directions. I'll try not to confuse you with having a field of view as well. Just try and understand your eyes can move, and look in more than one direction. Not just straight ahead.
How can you not understand this?
I can understand it but you seem to struggle with what I'm saying.
Get back to the tube and never mind what the naked eye can see without a scope/tube..
I have no idea what confused you here. You can look up and down through a tube and see things below and above the tube.
Why won't you take any pictures to back up your claim? Just find a tube, point the camera at it and push the button. It can't be THAT hard, can it?
Here, more examples I'm sure you will just claim confuse you and that you don't understand them. But I'll try.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
This is your favorite object, a toilet paper tube. It's got a ruler in front of it.
Now, in the bottom left image the ruler is right up against the end of the tube and you can see 4cm of the ruler.
On the bottom right image the ruler has been moved back, and surprise! You can now see 6cm of the ruler.
See what is going on here? You are seeing both below, and above the level tube.
Now use your imagination and keep moving that ruler back. What happens? You keep seeing further above and below (and to the sides) until you can see the ground or sky through that level tube.
Just what I described here.
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
If you disagree with these pictures, take your own showing reality working differently for you. Provide some evidence for your claims for once.
-
What specifically is the con with the water tubes and their position? Their water levels aligning show level, eye-level. And their position is one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs would be. I don't get where the "con" is.
Ok, tell me something.
Could you easily have lowered your camera to make the tube lines level the horizon.
And, could you easily raise or lower the water levels in the tubes.
The answer to both would be, yes.
So don't ask me where the con is.
Back to the conflicting statment i mentioned earlier
If people can be of different height and still see?, why is the camera height a con?
-
What specifically is the con with the water tubes and their position? Their water levels aligning show level, eye-level. And their position is one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs would be. I don't get where the "con" is.
Ok, tell me something.
Could you easily have lowered your camera to make the tube lines level the horizon.
No. That's the point of the gif. As you can see, raising or lowering the camera makes the tube levels not align. The camera is set where the tube levels align, ie., at eye-level.
You know better than this.
And, could you easily raise or lower the water levels in the tubes.
No. And maybe you think yes because you don't understand the rig, granted, it's not entirely clear from the image. The tubes are connected to one another by elbows and a horizontal tube attached to the bottoms of the vertical tubes. You pour water into the top of one tube and it flows to the other. They are connected. They are not two separated tubes filled to a point individually.
I understand that rig to be a big con job.
I'll await your real attempt with what I asked for.
Remember to use two crosshairs on the scopes.
The answer to both would be, yes.
So don't ask me where the con is.
There is no con, sorry.
Absolutely, there is.
-
I have no idea what confused you here. You can look up and down through a tube and see things below and above the tube.
Why won't you take any pictures to back up your claim? Just find a tube, point the camera at it and push the button. It can't be THAT hard, can it?
Here, more examples I'm sure you will just claim confuse you and that you don't understand them. But I'll try.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
This is your favorite object, a toilet paper tube. It's got a ruler in front of it.
Now, in the bottom left image the ruler is right up against the end of the tube and you can see 4cm of the ruler.
On the bottom right image the ruler has been moved back, and surprise! You can now see 6cm of the ruler.
See what is going on here? You are seeing both below, and above the level tube.
Now use your imagination and keep moving that ruler back. What happens? You keep seeing further above and below (and to the sides) until you can see the ground or sky through that level tube.
Just what I described here.
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
If you disagree with these pictures, take your own showing reality working differently for you. Provide some evidence for your claims for once.
I don't disagree with the pictures. That's what I expect to see and do see.
But you see the picture compress to fit the tube as you move away from the object or the object moves away from you....on a level surface.
Now keep the roll level and put the ruler on a slope then move it away from the tube.
Let's see what you got.
-
I have no idea what confused you here. You can look up and down through a tube and see things below and above the tube.
Why won't you take any pictures to back up your claim? Just find a tube, point the camera at it and push the button. It can't be THAT hard, can it?
Here, more examples I'm sure you will just claim confuse you and that you don't understand them. But I'll try.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
This is your favorite object, a toilet paper tube. It's got a ruler in front of it.
Now, in the bottom left image the ruler is right up against the end of the tube and you can see 4cm of the ruler.
On the bottom right image the ruler has been moved back, and surprise! You can now see 6cm of the ruler.
See what is going on here? You are seeing both below, and above the level tube.
Now use your imagination and keep moving that ruler back. What happens? You keep seeing further above and below (and to the sides) until you can see the ground or sky through that level tube.
Just what I described here.
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
If you disagree with these pictures, take your own showing reality working differently for you. Provide some evidence for your claims for once.
I don't disagree with the pictures. That's what I expect to see and do see.
But you see the picture compress to fit the tube as you move away from the object or the object moves away from you....on a level surface.
Now keep the roll level and put the ruler on a slope then move it away from the tube.
Let's see what you got.
So you expect to see below the tube, but somehow imagine you magically can't see the ground? For no reason other than you say so?
I already took a picture through a tube showing the ground. Why don't you imagine the ruler sitting on the pavement in the picture below. Do I really need to re-take that photo after dropping a ruler on the street for you to understand how tubes work?
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Why don't YOU take some pictures showing the impossibility of seeing the ground from a tube. Lets see what YOU got, which so far is a grand total of nothing, a lot of talk but zero examples or demonstrations of what you imagine happens. Maybe you should try that experiment yourself before claiming you have any idea about it's results.
-
I have no idea what confused you here. You can look up and down through a tube and see things below and above the tube.
Why won't you take any pictures to back up your claim? Just find a tube, point the camera at it and push the button. It can't be THAT hard, can it?
Here, more examples I'm sure you will just claim confuse you and that you don't understand them. But I'll try.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
This is your favorite object, a toilet paper tube. It's got a ruler in front of it.
Now, in the bottom left image the ruler is right up against the end of the tube and you can see 4cm of the ruler.
On the bottom right image the ruler has been moved back, and surprise! You can now see 6cm of the ruler.
See what is going on here? You are seeing both below, and above the level tube.
Now use your imagination and keep moving that ruler back. What happens? You keep seeing further above and below (and to the sides) until you can see the ground or sky through that level tube.
Just what I described here.
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
If you disagree with these pictures, take your own showing reality working differently for you. Provide some evidence for your claims for once.
I don't disagree with the pictures. That's what I expect to see and do see.
But you see the picture compress to fit the tube as you move away from the object or the object moves away from you....on a level surface.
Now keep the roll level and put the ruler on a slope then move it away from the tube.
Let's see what you got.
So you expect to see below the tube, but somehow imagine you magically can't see the ground? For no reason other than you say so?
I already took a picture through a tube showing the ground. Why don't you imagine the ruler sitting on the pavement in the picture below. Do I really need to re-take that photo after dropping a ruler on the street for you to understand how tubes work?
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Why don't YOU take some pictures showing the impossibility of seeing the ground from a tube. Lets see what YOU got, which so far is a grand total of nothing, a lot of talk but zero examples or demonstrations of what you imagine happens. Maybe you should try that experiment yourself before claiming you have any idea about it's results.
I'm quite happy with the experiments I've done. It's you lot that need to look a little bit deeper into what the truth is.
-
I have no idea what confused you here. You can look up and down through a tube and see things below and above the tube.
Why won't you take any pictures to back up your claim? Just find a tube, point the camera at it and push the button. It can't be THAT hard, can it?
Here, more examples I'm sure you will just claim confuse you and that you don't understand them. But I'll try.
(https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
This is your favorite object, a toilet paper tube. It's got a ruler in front of it.
Now, in the bottom left image the ruler is right up against the end of the tube and you can see 4cm of the ruler.
On the bottom right image the ruler has been moved back, and surprise! You can now see 6cm of the ruler.
See what is going on here? You are seeing both below, and above the level tube.
Now use your imagination and keep moving that ruler back. What happens? You keep seeing further above and below (and to the sides) until you can see the ground or sky through that level tube.
Just what I described here.
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
If you disagree with these pictures, take your own showing reality working differently for you. Provide some evidence for your claims for once.
I don't disagree with the pictures. That's what I expect to see and do see.
But you see the picture compress to fit the tube as you move away from the object or the object moves away from you....on a level surface.
Now keep the roll level and put the ruler on a slope then move it away from the tube.
Let's see what you got.
So you expect to see below the tube, but somehow imagine you magically can't see the ground? For no reason other than you say so?
I already took a picture through a tube showing the ground. Why don't you imagine the ruler sitting on the pavement in the picture below. Do I really need to re-take that photo after dropping a ruler on the street for you to understand how tubes work?
(https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
Why don't YOU take some pictures showing the impossibility of seeing the ground from a tube. Lets see what YOU got, which so far is a grand total of nothing, a lot of talk but zero examples or demonstrations of what you imagine happens. Maybe you should try that experiment yourself before claiming you have any idea about it's results.
I'm quite happy with the experiments I've done. It's you lot that need to look a little bit deeper into what the truth is.
Yes, a great fact-filled and informative reply. So, you have nothing as usual except a low-quality and content-free denial of reality.
You Flat Earthers love to tout all the experiments you have done, but won't show anyone because reasons. So many amazing experiments you have performed, I'm sure. We all believe you. Have a headpat and a gold star. It's a bad meme with you folk at this point.
Just because I'm feeling generous with my time, here is a tube, a ruler, and a downward curving slope. What happens? Exactly what everyone else in the world expects, you can see the ruler.
Again, have you ever looked through a tube? The way you expect them to work I seriously doubt it.
(https://i.imgur.com/jbXC5tf.jpg)
-
What specifically is the con with the water tubes and their position? Their water levels aligning show level, eye-level. And their position is one in front of the other, just like your two tubes with crosshairs would be. I don't get where the "con" is.
Ok, tell me something.
Could you easily have lowered your camera to make the tube lines level the horizon.
No. That's the point of the gif. As you can see, raising or lowering the camera makes the tube levels not align. The camera is set where the tube levels align, ie., at eye-level.
You know better than this.
And, could you easily raise or lower the water levels in the tubes.
No. And maybe you think yes because you don't understand the rig, granted, it's not entirely clear from the image. The tubes are connected to one another by elbows and a horizontal tube attached to the bottoms of the vertical tubes. You pour water into the top of one tube and it flows to the other. They are connected. They are not two separated tubes filled to a point individually.
I understand that rig to be a big con job.
I'll await your real attempt with what I asked for.
Remember to use two crosshairs on the scopes.
The answer to both would be, yes.
So don't ask me where the con is.
There is no con, sorry.
Absolutely, there is.
You haven't explained exactly how the rig is a con job. One tube is in front of the other, just like your crosshairs are one in front of the other. How is it any different than your two crosshairs?
-
1. (https://i.imgur.com/dHMWkIX.png)
2. (https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
3. (https://i.imgur.com/0Kov2Sf.png)
4. (https://i.imgur.com/jbXC5tf.jpg)
hey sceppy
image 4
what's that hill line there?
why do we see this theortetical line where the road disappears and we see hill and more road coming back up behind it.
clearly the road has "curved" away?
where's your photo?
where's your one inch reflected eye?
-
Septic will never back any of his claims. A professional with plenty of equipment? And he can't even take a simple picture or understand camera exposure? Sure. What happens when a few people here use two rolls in the picture? We'll see.
-
Could you easily have lowered your camera to make the tube lines level the horizon.
No.
You could make one of the tubes have the water level with the horizon, but not both. The only way to have both level with the horizon is if the horizon was actually at eye-level.
And, could you easily raise or lower the water levels in the tubes.
Not in the sense you mean.
The 2 tubes are connected.
By tilting the apparatus you will lower the water level in on tube and raise it in the other, but that is relative to the tube. They will remain level with each other.
If you attempt to add water to one tube, it will flow through the connection and into the other tube.
That is the whole point of the setup. It doesn't matter how you position it, the interface between the water and air in each tube will be level.
And due to how perspective actually works, you will only be able to line up the water level with something that is at that level.
The answer to both would be, yes.
So don't ask me where the con is.
Unless you can justify that "yes" I think it is perfectly acceptable to continue to ask where the con is.
You're struggling now. Grasping at straws.
No, that would be you, right from the start.
As you are yet to honestly engage with anything I have said, I have no need at all to grasp at straws.
Again, what magic stops the blue line of light from reaching the eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Unless you can explain that you have no justification for how a tube magically blocks out the ground.
You know fine well what you're supposed to be seeing. I've mentioned it so many times.
The problem is you repeatedly contradict yourself, taking it back before square 1.
You can't decide if we only see 1 inch regardless of how far away the object is, or if we should see more than that 1 inch.
You do this because you know we can see more, such as when a plane or any large object in the distance is observed through it; but you also know that completely kills your argument so you pretend we only see 1 inch in straight lines from the tube to pretend we can't see the ground.
Perhaps when you stop dragging everyone back to before square 1 you can actually make some progress.
As for putting in effort, the only one not doing that here is you. You continually use whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss all that which shows you are wrong. You refuse to provide any diagrams or photos yourself, because you know as soon as you do you will be shown to be wrong, with no excuses of them being con-jobs.
Meanwhile, you have been provided with plenty of diagrams and photos which clearly show you are wrong.
So stop projecting your own inadequacies and start thinking and putting in the effort yourself.
I don't disagree with the pictures. That's what I expect to see and do see.
Then by logic you should expect to see the ground, but you lie and say we can't.
You also say we only see 1 inch, when we can clearly see more the further away the object is.
Again, the logical conclusion is that you may be able to see the ground through a level tube.
-
You Flat Earthers love to tout all the experiments you have done, but won't show anyone because reasons. So many amazing experiments you have performed, I'm sure. We all believe you. Have a headpat and a gold star. It's a bad meme with you folk at this point.
Just because I'm feeling generous with my time, here is a tube, a ruler, and a downward curving slope. What happens? Exactly what everyone else in the world expects, you can see the ruler.
Again, have you ever looked through a tube? The way you expect them to work I seriously doubt it.
(https://i.imgur.com/jbXC5tf.jpg)
A downward curving slope?
Try and be honest about this stuff. What the hell is your issue?
Don't you want the truth?
Set your tube to your height. Level it over a downward slope and show me the results.
Let's see some honestly.
-
You haven't explained exactly how the rig is a con job. One tube is in front of the other, just like your crosshairs are one in front of the other. How is it any different than your two crosshairs?
You can move into all kinds of positions to make levels appear to skew. You know this so why are you even trying to argue it.
Do the experiment I set out for you and we'll tweak it as we go.
If I can't find fault I'll be honest about it.
Let's see.
-
hey sceppy
image 4
what's that hill line there?
why do we see this theortetical line where the road disappears and we see hill and more road coming back up behind it.
clearly the road has "curved" away?
where's your photo?
where's your one inch reflected eye?
I'm sure you can work out what's wrong with it.
-
You also say we only see 1 inch, when we can clearly see more the further away the object is.
Again, the logical conclusion is that you may be able to see the ground through a level tube.
I said you would not see the ground under foot or at the end of the tube.
I also said, if you looked out over a curve you would never see ground...only sky, if you were on a globe.
If you were stood on any curve you would never see the ground over distance as it would curve away.
Also on a perfectly level surface with a perfectly level tube you would see convergence of what is in that tube diameter to a point.
-
hey sceppy
image 4
what's that hill line there?
why do we see this theortetical line where the road disappears and we see hill and more road coming back up behind it.
clearly the road has "curved" away?
where's your photo?
where's your one inch reflected eye?
I'm sure you can work out what's wrong with it.
Dodgy mcdodger reporting for duty
-
You also say we only see 1 inch, when we can clearly see more the further away the object is.
Again, the logical conclusion is that you may be able to see the ground through a level tube.
1.
I said you would not see the ground under foot or at the end of the tube.
2.
I also said, if you looked out over a curve you would never see ground...only sky, if you were on a globe.
If you were stood on any curve you would never see the ground over distance as it would curve away.
3.
Also on a perfectly level surface with a perfectly level tube you would see convergence of what is in that tube diameter to a point.
1.
You were asked for a photo so we dont have to guess what you mean.
You contiue to refuse.
Youve been provided with many photos which somehow are cons????
semantically and technically speaking
No, the tube obstructed field of view will not allow you to see your feet, and some distance of ground directly below you.
However, youve been told the horizon is very very far forward away from you.
2
And we told you that is literally what the horizon is
Youve even been given a video 3d simulation which matches what is observed reality whcih you refuse to watch.
Keep on dodging.
3.
Back to 1.
-
Try and be honest about this stuff. What the hell is your issue?
Don't you want the truth?
Again, follow your own advice.
Be honest. Start thinking. Start addressing the issues raised against your blatant lies.
Or just keep up the same childish BS and show everyone that you will do your best to bury the truth so you can pretend Earth is flat.
Again, what magic stops the blue line reaching the eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
You can move into all kinds of positions to make levels appear to skew.
Which is fundamentally different to what you are suggesting.
What you can't do is move it so the water level doesn't line up with something at the same level.
This is quite unlike simple crosshairs on tubes, where you could simply tilt the tube and have it point somewhere else.
Do the experiment I set out for you and we'll tweak it as we go.
You mean you will continue to make up whatever pathetic excuses you can to dismiss it and have no intention of being honest about it at all.
Again, why don't YOU do the experiment?
You also say we only see 1 inch, when we can clearly see more the further away the object is.
Again, the logical conclusion is that you may be able to see the ground through a level tube.
I said you would not see the ground under foot or at the end of the tube.
You said you wouldn't see the ground at all. Not simply that you don't see the ground directly below the end of the tube.
If you were stood on any curve you would never see the ground over distance as it would curve away.
Also on a perfectly level surface with a perfectly level tube you would see convergence of what is in that tube diameter to a point.
Again, if you wish to appeal to convergence you need to deal with the 2 competing effects for a RE.
The only way you can dismiss seeing it on a RE in general is if you dismiss seeing it in general because it is below you, which applies equally to a flat surface. And that is exactly what you tried to do. But now that it is untenable, you seem to be back to claiming that perspective can bring it back into view for a FE, but for a RE it magically stop working.
Again, as soon as you accept the fact that perspective can allow something physically below the tube to appear in the FOV of the tube, you need to deal with the competing effects of perspective and curvature.
And that means you need to deal with how high above the curved surface you are, the FOV of the tube, and the radius of the Earth.
That means it doesn't just apply to a round surface in general.
Again, this is a to-scale diagram of what you can expect to see through a tube with a FOV of 10 degrees:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Again, this diagram works equally well for a FE, and for the RE model you are trying to dismiss with an observer with an eye at 2 m above the level surface.
The surface doesn't appear curved because of just how insignificant the curve is over that distance. It is much less than a pixel, yet the ground is already back in view.
And this is a diagram for a much larger distance, showing the physical and angular position of the ground relative to a straight line, initially level at the observers eye sight (2 m above the Earth), showing how a RE actually produces a horizon, and how small a FOV is required to see the ground:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
-
Scepti claims that his model of what he thinks the Earth and the Universe is like is 'well documented' (reply #2091).
However all that seems to be well documented as he puts it are his opinions. Opinions count for nothing when it comes to evidence since opinions are a personal thing while evidence can be measured, observed and checked by anyone. We are simply expected to accept whatever he says which is exactly what he accuses us of doing when it comes to science. Scepti has come up with his very own, unique and known only to him alternative model of the Earth and Universe and in doing so he has (again in his opinion) escaped being tarnished with the brush of indoctrination.
What is being documented by everyone apart from Scepti are the experiments and photos of what you can see through tubes. All of which have just been met with the usual trademark shrug of the shoulders by Scepti along with a 'bovvered?' attitude as if to say it doesn't matter what you post it won't change what I think. JB has even shown Scepti (as he asked ) what a curved line looks like and he still can barely muster himself to accept it is curved.
In the meantime Scepti is 'quite happy with the experiments I've done' althought we don't know anything about those experiments, what he did, how he did it or indeed the results. In other words he hasn't 'documented' his experiments anywhere which is accessible to anyone else but him.
This applied equally to the other discussion which seems to be dedicated to Sceptis so-called model. Again there are several pages of nothing but opinions. I got a few pages in and then switched off before I lost the will to live.
So yes Scepti your opinions, as bizarre as they are have been very well documented. What we lack from you is anything else other than your opinions.
OK.. back over to the others again now and carry on with your discussion about what you can see through tubes.
-
hey sceppy
image 4
what's that hill line there?
why do we see this theortetical line where the road disappears and we see hill and more road coming back up behind it.
clearly the road has "curved" away?
where's your photo?
where's your one inch reflected eye?
I'm sure you can work out what's wrong with it.
Dodgy mcdodger reporting for duty
Welcome back to duty, Dodgy.
-
1.
You were asked for a photo so we dont have to guess what you mean.
You contiue to refuse.
Youve been provided with many photos which somehow are cons????
semantically and technically speaking
No, the tube obstructed field of view will not allow you to see your feet, and some distance of ground directly below you.
However, youve been told the horizon is very very far forward away from you.
And you've been told the horizon is a theoretical line. You've been told it's a convergence.
Get to grips with it.
2
And we told you that is literally what the horizon is
Youve even been given a video 3d simulation which matches what is observed reality whcih you refuse to watch.
Keep on dodging.
It isn't what is observed...not in the way you lot are doing it.
3.
Back to 1.
Ditto.
-
Be honest. Start thinking. Start addressing the issues raised against your blatant lies.
No...you start addressing your blatant twists and lies.
-
And you've been told the horizon is a theoretical line. You've been told it's a convergence.
By you yes. Again isn't this exactly the same as what you say about us (RE) and science. We've been told this and we've been told that. Why should we take any more notice of what you say over anything else? I will happily change my mind if you can provide a more compelling case that you are right than science can about Earth being a globe etc.
No...you start addressing your blatant twists and lies.
Have you got teflon fingers or something? Everything someone says about you is deflected straight back.
-
Scepti claims that his model of what he thinks the Earth and the Universe is like is 'well documented' (reply #2091).
However all that seems to be well documented as he puts it are his opinions. Opinions count for nothing when it comes to evidence since opinions are a personal thing while evidence can be measured, observed and checked by anyone.
Opinions to you but legitimate experiments by myself and conclusions that tell me a lot more potential evidence than any indoctrination farm could ever achieve.
We are simply expected to accept whatever he says which is exactly what he accuses us of doing when it comes to science.
No you're not. That's just the thing. You are not obliged to accept anything as you clearly know...as you clearly do not, along with your posse....soooo....you know, try and pay a bit of attention.
Scepti has come up with his very own, unique and known only to him alternative model of the Earth and Universe and in doing so he has (again in his opinion) escaped being tarnished with the brush of indoctrination.
If nobody has the same thought then, of course it's unique, as anything would be.
What is being documented by everyone apart from Scepti are the experiments and photos of what you can see through tubes.
A lot of things are being documented and are scrutinised by me. I see far too many discrepancies and have asked specific changes. To date I've received none that match what I've asked for.
However, nobody is obliged to give me anything I ask for but nor should they expect me to accept their version.
A posse of egged on opinions does not make anything a truth. Understand that.
All of which have just been met with the usual trademark shrug of the shoulders by Scepti along with a 'bovvered?' attitude as if to say it doesn't matter what you post it won't change what I think.
I want the truth.
JB has even shown Scepti (as he asked ) what a curved line looks like and he still can barely muster himself to accept it is curved.
No he hasn't.
In the meantime Scepti is 'quite happy with the experiments I've done' althought we don't know anything about those experiments, what he did, how he did it or indeed the results. In other words he hasn't 'documented' his experiments anywhere which is accessible to anyone else but him.
You don't even know what you're looking for.
In your mind you think you can have a horizon on a consistent (in your mind) downward global curve.
You are then trying to put that horizon forward as a physical line as you see it in real time, as if you're looking out to sea on a globe when you clearly are not.
This applied equally to the other discussion which seems to be dedicated to Sceptis so-called model. Again there are several pages of nothing but opinions.
And you people have....what?
All I see from you people is massive appeals to authority and backp[atting between each other. It means nothing...and you know it....otherwise you would not be bothering writing like this and consistently coming in to try and prove me wrong.
If you knew the truth you'd leave me alone and just accept me for a dunce and be ashamed to even deal with me......but here you are.......again.
I got a few pages in and then switched off before I lost the will to live.
Of course you did.
So yes Scepti your opinions, as bizarre as they are have been very well documented.
Yep.
What we lack from you is anything else other than your opinions.
That all depends on what you want to accept.
OK.. back over to the others again now and carry on with your discussion about what you can see through tubes.
Until you come back again with another one of these.
You carry on.
-
Opinions to you but legitimate experiments by myself and conclusions that tell me a lot more potential evidence than any indoctrination farm could ever achieve.
Ok what are these experiments? Describe them. What did you do, how did you do it, what equipment did you use. How did you document your results and what were your margins of error?
Or are these simply 'thought experiments' a bit like a modern day Einstein? Who then went on to publish his thoughts in two of the most famous and well documented scientific papers in the history of physics?
That all depends on what you want to accept.
I'm willing to accept anything if there is sufficient evidence to support it. For example I can look up the positions of the planets and then go outside and find those planets exactly where they were predicted to be. For the last few months all the tables on planetary positions have been predicting that Jupiter and Saturn will move closer together in the sky until they are just 6' arc apart on the 21st (Monday). That's exactly what the planets have been doing these last few months in the sky.
How do you predict planetary positions in your model?
-
And you've been told the horizon is a theoretical line. You've been told it's a convergence.
By you yes. Again isn't this exactly the same as what you say about us (RE) and science. We've been told this and we've been told that. Why should we take any more notice of what you say over anything else? I will happily change my mind if you can provide a more compelling case that you are right than science can about Earth being a globe etc.
No...you start addressing your blatant twists and lies.
Have you got teflon fingers or something? Everything someone says about you is deflected straight back.
If you can't apply logical thought to level water and understand how absolutely stupid it would be to have that adhering to a spinning ball in a vacuum, then...well....well.......I just honestly don't know. It baffles the hell out of me how grown people can accept the nonsense of it.
Having said that, I once accepted it myself for long enough. Why?.....Because I had too little time on my hands to give it any thought and just went with the flow.
To ordinary people like me out there who actually just go with the flow because they don't have the time nor the inclination to question what they were indoctrinated into....I say, fair enough.
To people like you who have the time and are consistently having the opportunities to check stuff out, I say, I'm baffled as to how you can still believe the silliness of the spinning globe.
-
Opinions to you but legitimate experiments by myself and conclusions that tell me a lot more potential evidence than any indoctrination farm could ever achieve.
Ok what are these experiments? Describe them. What did you do, how did you do it, what equipment did you use. How did you document your results and what were your margins of error?
Or are these simply 'thought experiments' a bit like a modern day Einstein? Who then went on to publish his thoughts in two of the most famous and well documented scientific papers in the history of physics?
What difference does it make to you. Your mind is set in stone. You adhere to the Einsteins and the Newton's and Eratosthenes....etc.
Nothing will change your mind so you carry on. I'm fine with it, even if it does baffle me.
-
Ok I will ask you again...
What are these experiments? Describe them. What did you do, how did you do it, what equipment did you use. How did you document your results and what were your margins of error?
You do seem to like avoiding providing a direct answers to questions don't you. The questions are not hard to answer if you have actually done these experiments. You are very good at telling other people what to do but so far, despite telling us that you have done some experiments which support your model, you have told us and shown us precious little else.
Your mind is set in stone.
Again a somewhat hypocritical comment from you.
I'm fine with it, even if it does baffle me
Have a read back through the last several pages and note the reactions that people have towards everything you say. It seems everyone else is even more baffled by what you tell us we should be believing over science.
Having said that, I once accepted it myself for long enough. Why?.....Because I had too little time on my hands to give it any thought and just went with the flow.
To ordinary people like me out there who actually just go with the flow because they don't have the time nor the inclination to question what they were indoctrinated into....I say, fair enough.
To people like you who have the time and are consistently having the opportunities to check stuff out, I say, I'm baffled as to how you can still believe the silliness of the spinning globe.
You seem to have a very disleveled understanding of what true science is about. The last thing science is about is accepting. Science is constantly asking questions about nature. That's what science is. Underlying all your misgivings about science is a single, simple truth. You don't like science and don't agree with science because it shows without any element of doubt whatsoever that you are wrong. That is why you are so disparaging about science.
-
Have a read back through the last several pages and the reactions that people have towards everything you say. It seems everyone else is even more baffled by what you tell is.
You're all globalists on a flat Earth forum having a pop at an alternative thinker. I wouldn't expect you lot to act any differently than the way you regularly react.
Usually its a mixture of attempted ridicule until you realise it doesn't work. Then it's frustration because I won't back down. Then it's name calling, like troll and tin foil hat...etc.....etc.
When all of this has no effect, some go complaining to the mods about me being a mean person who won't let them bully me.
And so on and so on.
Just another day at the office with you lot.
Then when the usual suspects get into a pattern it becomes a posse of " we don't understand you."
I trust none of you.
-
It doesn't matter to me one iota whether you back down or not. By all means be an 'alternative thinker' if it suits you. But that doesn't make your alternative model any more true does it. I understand that everything that modern astronomy, cosmology and physics tells us about the Earth and the Unvierse is complete baloney to you. But if you were right and all of science has got it wrong as you insist it has, then believe me you would live in a very different world to the one we know.
Many alternative models to what we have today have been put on the table in the past. For one reason or another, based on new evidence and new data that has become available those alternative models have been rejected.
-
And you've been told the horizon is a theoretical line. You've been told it's a convergence.
Get to grips with it.
Yes, you have continually repeated the same pathetic lie many times. Perhaps you should get to grips with reality.
Again, if it was convergence, it would be infinitely far away and always at eye level.
The fact it is easily observed to be a finite distance away and below eye level shows that isn't the case.
No...you start addressing your blatant twists and lies.
What twists and lies would that be?
Do you mean the logical arguments repeatedly showing you are wrong?
There is no twisting nor lies there.
Again, what magic stops the blue line hitting the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Again, what magic stops perspective/convergence working on a RE to easily allow the ground to be seen as shown by these images:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
Again, stop deflecting/projecting and instead deal with these massive issues.
If you want to lie and pretend I am twisting things and lying, try to actually support that blatant lie rather than making it just another of your blatant lies with no support at all.
To date I've received none that match what I've asked for.
You mean you have had it provided and then come up with some excuse for you to dismiss it.
I want the truth.
Pure BS!
You have shown repeatedly that you do not give a damn about the truth; dismissing evidence whenever it shows you are wrong; completely ignoring logical arguments that show you are wrong, or just coming up with whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss them; and outright rejecting obvious facts.
If you can't apply logical thought to level water and understand how absolutely stupid it would be to have that adhering to a spinning ball in a vacuum
And there you go with more pathetic deflection and insults.
This topic has nothing at all to do with that.
Perhaps when you accept that the horizon supports a RE rather than refutes it we can move onto that.
And of course, even with that, there is no justification at all, just dismissing it as stupid.
To people like you who have the time and are consistently having the opportunities to check stuff out, I say, I'm baffled as to how you can still believe the silliness of the spinning globe.
You mean the reality of the spinning globe, which is supported by mountains of evidence?
It is quite easy to understand why we believe it. We believe/accept it because it is what all the evidence shows and no one can point out any actual issue with it.
Even you, instead of pointing out actual issues you just repeat the same set of pathetic lies and refuse to defend them, with these lies easily being refuted.
With the only people objecting to the RE having no case at all, it shouldn't be surprising that people continue to accept the reality of the RE.
Usually its a mixture of attempted ridicule until you realise it doesn't work. Then it's frustration because I won't back down. Then it's name calling, like troll and tin foil hat...etc.....etc.
Projecting again I see.
That is what you have been doing this whole time.
Meanwhile, the RE side has been providing rational arguments and evidence, which you simply dismiss or ignore.
-
I want the truth.
Originally said by TC of course, I can't let an opportunity like that to go by...I believe the next line in the script was something like 'SON...YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!' wasn't it?
-
It doesn't matter to me one iota whether you back down or not. By all means be an 'alternative thinker' if it suits you. But that doesn't make your alternative model any more true does it. I understand that everything that modern astronomy, cosmology and physics tells us about the Earth and the Unvierse is complete baloney to you. But if you were right and all of science has got it wrong as you insist it has, then believe me you would live in a very different world to the one we know.
Many alternative models to what we have today have been put on the table in the past. For one reason or another, based on new evidence and new data that has become available those alternative models have been rejected.
Clearly I wouldn't live in a different world. I'd live in the world that is the factual one.
What that is in its entirety is up for debate.
One thing it isn't. It's not a spinning globe in a vacuum.
-
Yes, you have continually repeated the same pathetic lie many times. Perhaps you should get to grips with reality.
I'm trying to but I'm being impeded by people like you who are trying to make me believe your spinning globe is reality when it clearly is not.
-
I want the truth.
Originally said by TC of course, I can't let an opportunity like that to go by...I believe the next line in the script was something like 'SON...YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!' wasn't it?
No.
-
So we ve collapsed into a battle of yahaa vs nahaa.
The amazing sceppy has successfully avoided addressing the
3d simulation that he said was impossible,
The easily refutable field of view through a tube
And
What a basket ball looks like
70pg of thread...
-
So we ve collapsed into a battle of yahaa vs nahaa.
It generally ends up like this, with everything.
The amazing sceppy has successfully avoided addressing the
3d simulation that he said was impossible,
The easily refutable field of view through a tube
I addressed it.
And
What a basket ball looks like
It seems you don't klnow the difference between looking at a basket ball on a table and being stood on a ball.
That's your issue, not mine.
70pg of thread...
Yep. This is what happens when you go backwards like you regularly do.
-
You Flat Earthers love to tout all the experiments you have done, but won't show anyone because reasons. So many amazing experiments you have performed, I'm sure. We all believe you. Have a headpat and a gold star. It's a bad meme with you folk at this point.
Just because I'm feeling generous with my time, here is a tube, a ruler, and a downward curving slope. What happens? Exactly what everyone else in the world expects, you can see the ruler.
Again, have you ever looked through a tube? The way you expect them to work I seriously doubt it.
(https://i.imgur.com/jbXC5tf.jpg)
A downward curving slope?
Try and be honest about this stuff. What the hell is your issue?
Don't you want the truth?
Set your tube to your height. Level it over a downward slope and show me the results.
Let's see some honestly.
Ahahahahah. You're certified.
That is at eye height, it's level, that is a downward slope. I'm showing you exactly what you asked.
I'm re-evaluating my life after being accused of being a dishonest lying liar by a flat earth believer because I took a picture of a toilet paper roll.
How did I end up here? :o
Anyway. How can you not see that the road slopes down? You can even see where the road makes a horizon as it dips down drastically. Do you not understand what down is?
Why don't you take a picture and show us how it's done? You can prove to yourself you're not being a dirty rotten liar and it's a level tube and the ground isn't fake and you can be sure whatever bullshit excuses you have are all covered and everything.
It's a picture of a tube, and yet somehow I've faked it all and am lying... it's just insane to think that.
What the hell is YOUR problem? Well, it's pretty obvious but I'll let you figure that part out for yourself. Jeesh.
-
Ahahahahah. You're certified.
That is at eye height, it's level, that is a downward slope. I'm showing you exactly what you asked.
Eye height?
What does eye height mean?
How do I know it's level?
And yes, I can see it's a downward slope. It's also an upward slope after it.
I'm re-evaluating my life after being accused of being a dishonest lying liar by a flat earth believer because I took a picture of a toilet paper roll.
How did I end up here? :o
You ended up here because you thought you could find a way to prove a globe by using all kinds of ways to not show what I asked for.
Anyway. How can you not see that the road slopes down?
I can.
You can even see where the road makes a horizon as it dips down drastically. Do you not understand what down is?
What horizon?
Why don't you take a picture and show us how it's done? You can prove to yourself you're not being a dirty rotten liar and it's a level tube and the ground isn't fake and you can be sure whatever bullshit excuses you have are all covered and everything.
No need to take a picture. I know what I know. You people also know it but you are hell bent on ensuring you do not show the true picture.
It's a picture of a tube, and yet somehow I've faked it all and am lying... it's just insane to think that.
You've faked nothing. You've put up a picture of a tube and told me what you see with it.
That's not fake.
I'll let you figure the rest out of what I've been asking for.
What the hell is YOUR problem? Well, it's pretty obvious but I'll let you figure that part out for yourself. Jeesh.
I don't actually have a problem. I think you do.
You won't follow the instructions to the letter because you know fine well what they show.
-
Ahahahahah. You're certified.
That is at eye height, it's level, that is a downward slope. I'm showing you exactly what you asked.
Eye height?
What does eye height mean?
How do I know it's level?
And yes, I can see it's a downward slope. It's also an upward slope after it.
You are the one demanding eye height. Why don't you tell me what you think it means?
It's at the level of my eye when I'm standing up. That's what it means to a normal person.
Anyway. How can you not see that the road slopes down?
I can.
So now you can. Why couldn't you before? "A downward curving slope?" You seemed so confused.
But you seem to have trouble with seeing curves in general. Do I need to make this picture smaller or bigger? :P
You can even see where the road makes a horizon as it dips down drastically. Do you not understand what down is?
What horizon?
See the line along the road before it dips down out of view? That's called a horizon.
Why don't you take a picture and show us how it's done? You can prove to yourself you're not being a dirty rotten liar and it's a level tube and the ground isn't fake and you can be sure whatever bullshit excuses you have are all covered and everything.
No need to take a picture. I know what I know. You people also know it but you are hell bent on ensuring you do not show the true picture.
Yeahhhh... that excuse stopped working a long time ago. You won't take a picture because you know it won't show what you think it will. Or you don't understand how to operate a camera. Who knows with you.
Pretty funny the one guy here who isn't contributing actual evidence is also the one who is blindly convinced they are right, that they think they don't need to actually look through a tube.
You know what you know, so no need to actually verify it. LOL. That's the words of a true believer all right, no facts needed.
Funny, you claim we are hell bent on not showing the true picture... but you refuse to even post any pictures at all. We do all the work, you just whine about things being done wrong. Do it yourself!
You won't follow the instructions to the letter because you know fine well what they show.
I showed you exactly what you asked. Not my fault you keep adding conditions and changing your demands and outright denying what you see.
You clearly are unable to articulate whatever weird setup is in your head. You could just.. perform the experiment yourself and show us what you mean, but you don't want to be backed into a corner by actually taking a photo and not having any room to make up new excuses or change your conditions.
Truly dishonest. No surprise here.
-
Opinions to you but legitimate experiments by myself and conclusions that tell me a lot more potential evidence than any indoctrination farm could ever achieve.
I shall ask again as you still don't seem to be able to come up with any answers..
Describe these experiments. What did you do, what equipment did you use, what results did you get and how did you document your results? If you share your results with us then we something to compare with what the 'indoctrination farm' has come up with. That's how things work in the real world. If someone thinks there is something wrong with an accepted theory they come up with an alternative and explain fully why theirs resolves the problem.
In your case you have come up with your alternative theory. Or at least you say you have. But you haven't explained it to anyone so basically you are just asking us to accept that you have. So you continually accuse everyone else of simply 'accepting what we as 'globalists' are told'. Yet at the same time you are also asking us to simply accept what you say when you tell us that you have come up with your alternative model because you say you have. Can you see the problem there?!?
It's pretty obvious why you don't like science. Because science shows very very clearly why your model ain't worth the paper it's written on. Actually no, it's not even worth that is it because your 'alternative model' which you are so clearly proud of isn't actually written down on any paper. It exists only in your head. That's probably why you are so full of contradictions because your model changes all the time in order to circumnavigate the holes as they are revealed.
I have just flicked back a few pages and noted the number of times you say 'show me'...
Now now your turn.. show us how you did these experiments. In a forum 'show me' can only mean provide a diagram or photo. We have done that so where are your diagrams of your experiments?
-
You Flat Earthers love to tout all the experiments you have done, but won't show anyone because reasons. So many amazing experiments you have performed, I'm sure. We all believe you. Have a headpat and a gold star. It's a bad meme with you folk at this point.
Just because I'm feeling generous with my time, here is a tube, a ruler, and a downward curving slope. What happens? Exactly what everyone else in the world expects, you can see the ruler.
Again, have you ever looked through a tube? The way you expect them to work I seriously doubt it.
(https://i.imgur.com/jbXC5tf.jpg)
A downward curving slope?
Try and be honest about this stuff. What the hell is your issue?
Don't you want the truth?
Set your tube to your height. Level it over a downward slope and show me the results.
Let's see some honestly.
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
-
You Flat Earthers love to tout all the experiments you have done, but won't show anyone because reasons. So many amazing experiments you have performed, I'm sure. We all believe you. Have a headpat and a gold star. It's a bad meme with you folk at this point.
Just because I'm feeling generous with my time, here is a tube, a ruler, and a downward curving slope. What happens? Exactly what everyone else in the world expects, you can see the ruler.
Again, have you ever looked through a tube? The way you expect them to work I seriously doubt it.
(https://i.imgur.com/jbXC5tf.jpg)
A downward curving slope?
Try and be honest about this stuff. What the hell is your issue?
Don't you want the truth?
Set your tube to your height. Level it over a downward slope and show me the results.
Let's see some honestly.
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
It doesn't matter how the camera is angled. Up, down or centered. You get the same field of view through the tube.
When you say eyeline, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean the center of the camera lens?
-
I'm trying to but I'm being impeded by people like you who are trying to make me believe your spinning globe is reality when it clearly is not.
No, you aren't.
You are doing whatever you can to dismiss reality.
Even there you are doing it again. You don't want to accept the fact that Earth is a spinning globe, even though you can find no fault with that.
Again, if you were actually interested in the truth you would stop with the outright, stop just dismissing all the evidence and honestly and rationally engage.
Once more, what stops the blue line from reaching the eye?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
You continually ignore this simple question, because you know it demolishes your lies.
I addressed it.
No, you dismissed it, using whatever pathetic BS you could.
It seems you don't klnow the difference between looking at a basket ball on a table and being stood on a ball.
That's your issue, not mine.
No, it is your issue, as you don't seem to understand that looking at a ball is looking at a ball.
You can even see where the road makes a horizon as it dips down drastically. Do you not understand what down is?
What horizon?
Really?
This BS again, just like last time with the photo of a hill?
Everyone can see it, except you. I wonder why?
Is it because you are looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss reality?
No need to take a picture. I know what I know. You people also know it
Yes, we know that Earth is round, that the horizon is visible through a level tube and that you are spouting pure BS to try to hide the truth, because you don't like the truth.
You won't follow the instructions to the letter because you know fine well what they show.
You won't give instructions to the letter that would make you commit. You will always demand a way out so when the evidence is provided that clearly shows you are wrong, you can come up with some BS excuse to dismiss it and go on rejecting reality.
Perhaps if you backed yourself into a corner, making a clear list of exactly what is required for you to admit you are wrong, so that when the evidence is provided, you stop with all the BS and just plainly admit that you are wrong; then people would be more willing to follow your insane list of demands.
-
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
Ok, ok!
You made me feel bad about my shoddy experiment. :'(
So I re-did it with a longer, thicker, sturdier shipping tube and a professional level. The tube has a 4cm radius and is 64cm long. It is placed 180cm from the road. Far superior to a toilet paper roll.
Even with the longer tube, you can still clearly see the ground FAR below the level of the tube as it descends into a small dip and then back up.
The center of the camera lens (eyeline) is as close to centered as I can manage by hand in the cold, I didn't get that exact as the margin of error here is huge and even with the camera near the bottom you still see the road.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
-
I asked you previously what the diameter of the Earth in your model is and you said 'I don't know'. I then pointed out that I could give you three different and independent ways by which the Earths actual diameter has been determined. You also asked whether I had got my own giant tape measure out and measured it for myself.
Well I did an internet search for long tape measures that would allow me to measure for myself the diameter of the Earth but sadly everywhere was fresh out of stock of 8000 mile tape measures.. Bummer I thought. So I used the next best thing that was available to me. Sometimes you just have to make do with the best of what you have. My SatNav. I went away for a weeks break recently and I took a note of the Lat/Long coordinates of my home location. I then took a note of my Lat/Long when I arrived at my destination. I worked out that I had travelled about 2.5 degrees in latitude and the vertical (N/S) distance was equivalent of 172 miles. Now 2.5 degrees is 1/144 part of a circle and so 172 miles x 144 = 24,768 miles. That is my calculated circumference of Earth. The accepted value is 24,901.55 miles. So my margin of error is less than 0,5%
Diameter is C/pi so 24,768/3.141592 = 7883.9 miles. Actual figure is 7926 miles so again not bad.
So how would you calculate the diameter of the Earth according to Sceptimatic?
Erathosthenes carried out the same method just over 2000 years ago. He used shadows rather than Sat Nav to determine the distance and angle between two locations. He didn't have an existing, already accepted value to compare his result with so he had no means of verifying his result. He trusted his intuition and his hypothesis and so he reasoned that given all the evidence available to him there was no reason to doubt the result. With modern equipment at our disposal now we have been able to confirm that Eratosthenes figure was very close to the true value.
-
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
Ok, ok!
You made me feel bad about my shoddy experiment. :'(
So I re-did it with a longer, thicker, sturdier shipping tube and a professional level. The tube has a 4cm radius and is 64cm long. It is placed 180cm from the road. Far superior to a toilet paper roll.
Even with the longer tube, you can still clearly see the ground FAR below the level of the tube as it descends into a small dip and then back up.
The center of the camera lens (eyeline) is as close to centered as I can manage by hand in the cold, I didn't get that exact as the margin of error here is huge and even with the camera near the bottom you still see the road.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
So to sum, you see in a tube what you already see, just a smaller field ofnview.
Nothing else changed or makes anything else relevant.
Scepy was told the ball earth jorizon does NOT NEED TO BE EYE LEVEL and has already confirmed hinself that eye level is meaningless to begin with since people can be at different hieghts.
Soo
As asked for 70some pg now - what are you on about?!
Maube you could show us a picture and point to what we should be lookiny at?
Teach us something
-
Don't underestimate the simplistic power of my table at the beach with levels experiment.
I'm heading to the beach today or tomorrow to conduct the experiment and post up the resulting photos. This experiment is totally in line with the KISS principle.
Sceptimatic is chasing the truth, so it's only fair the truth is delivered!
Imagine the entire flat earth debate totally destroyed by one simplistic experiment and the resulting photos......... ;D
-
I thought Sceptimatic had already found the truth. He keeps on telling us he 'knows' we do not live on a spinning globe so quite obviously whatever experiments he keeps on saying to us he has done but won't describe to us have already shown him the truth.
So what else is there to do?
-
Ahahahahah. You're certified.
That is at eye height, it's level, that is a downward slope. I'm showing you exactly what you asked.
Eye height?
What does eye height mean?
How do I know it's level?
And yes, I can see it's a downward slope. It's also an upward slope after it.
You are the one demanding eye height. Why don't you tell me what you think it means?
It's at the level of my eye when I'm standing up. That's what it means to a normal person.
Thanks for clarifying.
-
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
Ok, ok!
You made me feel bad about my shoddy experiment. :'(
So I re-did it with a longer, thicker, sturdier shipping tube and a professional level. The tube has a 4cm radius and is 64cm long. It is placed 180cm from the road. Far superior to a toilet paper roll.
Even with the longer tube, you can still clearly see the ground FAR below the level of the tube as it descends into a small dip and then back up.
The center of the camera lens (eyeline) is as close to centered as I can manage by hand in the cold, I didn't get that exact as the margin of error here is huge and even with the camera near the bottom you still see the road.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?
-
I thought Sceptimatic had already found the truth. He keeps on telling us he 'knows' we do not live on a spinning globe so quite obviously whatever experiments he keeps on saying to us he has done but won't describe to us have already shown him the truth.
So what else is there to do?
Be honest with yourself.
-
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
Ok, ok!
You made me feel bad about my shoddy experiment. :'(
So I re-did it with a longer, thicker, sturdier shipping tube and a professional level. The tube has a 4cm radius and is 64cm long. It is placed 180cm from the road. Far superior to a toilet paper roll.
Even with the longer tube, you can still clearly see the ground FAR below the level of the tube as it descends into a small dip and then back up.
The center of the camera lens (eyeline) is as close to centered as I can manage by hand in the cold, I didn't get that exact as the margin of error here is huge and even with the camera near the bottom you still see the road.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?
Wow, your responses are getting worse and worse. So... your entire response to those images is I need to be 'honest'.
Care to clarify? What am I not being honest about? Did I not take those pictures? Is that not a tube? What?
My issue is... I took some pictures and am getting absolutely insane and crazy responses to it. It would be nice if you could actually form an actual argument here. Use your words. ::)
-
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
Ok, ok!
You made me feel bad about my shoddy experiment. :'(
So I re-did it with a longer, thicker, sturdier shipping tube and a professional level. The tube has a 4cm radius and is 64cm long. It is placed 180cm from the road. Far superior to a toilet paper roll.
Even with the longer tube, you can still clearly see the ground FAR below the level of the tube as it descends into a small dip and then back up.
The center of the camera lens (eyeline) is as close to centered as I can manage by hand in the cold, I didn't get that exact as the margin of error here is huge and even with the camera near the bottom you still see the road.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?
Wow, your responses are getting worse and worse. So... your entire response to those images is I need to be 'honest'.
Care to clarify? What am I not being honest about? Did I not take those pictures? Is that not a tube? What?
My issue is... I took some pictures and am getting absolutely insane and crazy responses to it. It would be nice if you could actually form an actual argument here. Use your words. ::)
1. It's not eye height as you stand up, like you mentioned.
2. You show me a supposed level by holding it. What's wrong....won't it balance?
3. You then show me through the tube with no crosshair and no reference to the actual level.
Basically nothing.
Why?
-
And what will that show to.you?
What is your big reveal?
Youve yet to get to the point or apply any relevance.
Its just dicking him.around
Why not YOU post YOUR "PROPER" set up and highlight what we re supposed to tale notice of?
Teach us something
Or else this is another deflection on your part to troll poor jja into endless running around with toilet tubes.
Jja neighbours must think hes nuts.
-
The eyeline is supposed to be centre of the toilet roll and also level. I get the impression due to how much downward slope is visible in the photo, the eyeline is either not level, and is angled down, or is high in the top half of the near end of the toilet roll.
If the eyeline aligned with the bottom of the near end of the toilet roll and the bottom of the far end of the toilet roll, you wouldn't see the downward slope at all.
Ok, ok!
You made me feel bad about my shoddy experiment. :'(
So I re-did it with a longer, thicker, sturdier shipping tube and a professional level. The tube has a 4cm radius and is 64cm long. It is placed 180cm from the road. Far superior to a toilet paper roll.
Even with the longer tube, you can still clearly see the ground FAR below the level of the tube as it descends into a small dip and then back up.
The center of the camera lens (eyeline) is as close to centered as I can manage by hand in the cold, I didn't get that exact as the margin of error here is huge and even with the camera near the bottom you still see the road.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?
Wow, your responses are getting worse and worse. So... your entire response to those images is I need to be 'honest'.
Care to clarify? What am I not being honest about? Did I not take those pictures? Is that not a tube? What?
My issue is... I took some pictures and am getting absolutely insane and crazy responses to it. It would be nice if you could actually form an actual argument here. Use your words. ::)
1. It's not eye height as you stand up, like you mentioned.
2. You show me a supposed level by holding it. What's wrong....won't it balance?
3. You then show me through the tube with no crosshair and no reference to the actual level.
Basically nothing.
Why?
1. Wrong. It is eye height. Do you not understand what 180cm is? That is eye height for me. Why does this continue to confuse you?
2. This is your problem? I didn't want it to fall off, is that so nefarious? You're really reaching here. Yet another brand new objection, I can't touch the equipment?
3. My not catering to your every whim is not "Basically nothing". What do you even mean no reference to the actual level?
So all of your objections are... you don't understand what eye level means, you think I might be somehow cheating because I'm touching the level, and... something about needing crosshairs because you want them for some reason.
So basically... nothing.
And as usual, where are YOUR pictures? You still haven't even come close to explaining what the hell you think these pictures should be showing. So take a picture.
I could do all the things you asked, and you still wouldn't believe me. You will just keep coming up with excuses, and insisting your experiments are way better but... you won't show us cause, reasons. LOL.
-
Or else this is another deflection on your part to troll poor jja into endless running around with toilet tubes.
Jja neighbours must think hes nuts.
They think I'm nuts already. Looking through a toilet paper tube is just par for this course at this point. :)
It's a deflection but I don't really mind. I enjoy doing experiments especially when it comes to photography and optics, so this is enjoyable. Maybe I'll add crosshairs, maybe not. Depends on my mood and if I feel inspired to improve the setup. Plus I get to point out all his bullshit.
I certainly don't expect scepti to ever actually agree with any of it, he's clearly off in his own world.
-
1. Wrong. It is eye height. Do you not understand what 180cm is? That is eye height for me. Why does this continue to confuse you?
If it was eye height as you say then you would not be seeing over it like you see here.
2. This is your problem? I didn't want it to fall off, is that so nefarious? You're really reaching here. Yet another brand new objection, I can't touch the equipment?
If you're trying to convince me then you need to stop with the shenanigans.
Use a simple level laid on the tube so I can see it to be truly level and that is still shows level as you look through the tube, along with a crosshair at the front of the tube.
3. My not catering to your every whim is not "Basically nothing". What do you even mean no reference to the actual level?
Meaning there's one picture showing you holding a level and a picture showing you looking through a tube with no level showing...meaning no real reference to it.
I'm sure you're well aware of that.
So all of your objections are... you don't understand what eye level means, you think I might be somehow cheating because I'm touching the level, and... something about needing crosshairs because you want them for some reason.
So basically... nothing.
So basically make sure I can't nit pick...and if I can then ensure that you cover all angles so I can't.
You've got the set up so it's not difficult.
I could do all the things you asked, and you still wouldn't believe me. You will just keep coming up with excuses, and insisting your experiments are way better but... you won't show us cause, reasons. LOL.
I will come up with them every time you do not show what I'm asking for.
-
Or else this is another deflection on your part to troll poor jja into endless running around with toilet tubes.
Jja neighbours must think hes nuts.
They think I'm nuts already. Looking through a toilet paper tube is just par for this course at this point. :)
It's a deflection but I don't really mind. I enjoy doing experiments especially when it comes to photography and optics, so this is enjoyable. Maybe I'll add crosshairs, maybe not. Depends on my mood and if I feel inspired to improve the setup. Plus I get to point out all his bullshit.
I certainly don't expect scepti to ever actually agree with any of it, he's clearly off in his own world.
You've come this far, why not just follow what I say and see where it lands.
There doesn't have to be any malice involved. It can be internet friendly.
We may disagree and have a dig but remember we are both after finding realities, or potentials.
-
1. Wrong. It is eye height. Do you not understand what 180cm is? That is eye height for me. Why does this continue to confuse you?
If it was eye height as you say then you would not be seeing over it like you see here.
I have the amazing ability to hold my camera over my head. ::)
I suppose to you this must be astounding, as you clearly think it's impossible to take a picture of something at eye level.
But I assure you, I am quite capable of this incredible feat. Do you need me to show you a picture of me holding my arms over my head to prove this superhuman ability?
This has to be one of the dumbest things you have said in this entire conversation. Congrats.
2. This is your problem? I didn't want it to fall off, is that so nefarious? You're really reaching here. Yet another brand new objection, I can't touch the equipment?
If you're trying to convince me then you need to stop with the shenanigans.
Use a simple level laid on the tube so I can see it to be truly level and that is still shows level as you look through the tube, along with a crosshair at the front of the tube.
I know I won't convince you to leave whatever fantasy world you live in.
I could do all that and you would demand I get a friend to take a picture of me doing it to prove no shenanigans. Then demand their friend video my friend taking pictures of me, then demand the friend of their friend use multiple 360 cameras to prove... see where this goes?
It's never ending with you.
Now... lets look at your demanding more detail.
You want a picture looking through the crosshairs that shows the level on top of the tube. This is impossible. If I'm looking through teh tube, how can I show what is on top of it?
You really have NO idea how pictures, tubes, or reality works, do you? Lets see YOU take a picture through a tube that shows a level on top of it. I'd love to see you try.
3. My not catering to your every whim is not "Basically nothing". What do you even mean no reference to the actual level?
Meaning there's one picture showing you holding a level and a picture showing you looking through a tube with no level showing...meaning no real reference to it.
I'm sure you're well aware of that.
As I said before, how do you expect me to take a picture of a level and look through the tube at the same time?
Care to draw a diagram of how that works?
And if I did, you would just claim I photoshopped it.
So all of your objections are... you don't understand what eye level means, you think I might be somehow cheating because I'm touching the level, and... something about needing crosshairs because you want them for some reason.
So basically... nothing.
So basically make sure I can't nit pick...and if I can then ensure that you cover all angles so I can't.
You've got the set up so it's not difficult.
There is no way to make sure you can't nit-pick. You make up more excuses and demands no matter what.
The only way is to get you to agree that if I do all those things, you will accept the results. But this has been asked before and you whined you didn't want to get backed into a corner, so no... you will just keep up with your dishonest complaints forever.
That's fine, it's not like I expected anything else 70 pages ago. You gotta do you.
I could do all the things you asked, and you still wouldn't believe me. You will just keep coming up with excuses, and insisting your experiments are way better but... you won't show us cause, reasons. LOL.
I will come up with them every time you do not show what I'm asking for.
No, you come up with them every time I show what you ask for. You just add new (and impossible) conditions every time.
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
-
Or else this is another deflection on your part to troll poor jja into endless running around with toilet tubes.
Jja neighbours must think hes nuts.
They think I'm nuts already. Looking through a toilet paper tube is just par for this course at this point. :)
It's a deflection but I don't really mind. I enjoy doing experiments especially when it comes to photography and optics, so this is enjoyable. Maybe I'll add crosshairs, maybe not. Depends on my mood and if I feel inspired to improve the setup. Plus I get to point out all his bullshit.
I certainly don't expect scepti to ever actually agree with any of it, he's clearly off in his own world.
You've come this far, why not just follow what I say and see where it lands.
There doesn't have to be any malice involved. It can be internet friendly.
We may disagree and have a dig but remember we are both after finding realities, or potentials.
Because every time I or anyone follows your conditions, you add more.
We all know it's never ending. And if you don't want malice, don't accuse people of lying and faking pictures.
Call people liars and they get defensive.
And so far, you have not shown your reality. Where are your pictures?
-
Here, have some crosshairs for whatever reason you think they are needed. Doesn't change anything. You can still see the ground.
You can even still see the edge of the road where it dips down to form a line. How curious, eh? When the ground dips down far enough you see a line. Where have I seen that before? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
-
Or else this is another deflection on your part to troll poor jja into endless running around with toilet tubes.
Jja neighbours must think hes nuts.
They think I'm nuts already. Looking through a toilet paper tube is just par for this course at this point. :)
It's a deflection but I don't really mind. I enjoy doing experiments especially when it comes to photography and optics, so this is enjoyable. Maybe I'll add crosshairs, maybe not. Depends on my mood and if I feel inspired to improve the setup. Plus I get to point out all his bullshit.
I certainly don't expect scepti to ever actually agree with any of it, he's clearly off in his own world.
You've come this far, why not just follow what I say and see where it lands.
There doesn't have to be any malice involved. It can be internet friendly.
We may disagree and have a dig but remember we are both after finding realities, or potentials.
How about helping out with finding these realities and potentials and take a picture just like JJA did?
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Here, have some crosshairs for whatever reason you think they are needed. Doesn't change anything. You can still see the ground.
You can even still see the edge of the road where it dips down to form a line. How curious, eh? When the ground dips down far enough you see a line. Where have I seen that before? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Does it scare you to level stuff out?
-
Or else this is another deflection on your part to troll poor jja into endless running around with toilet tubes.
Jja neighbours must think hes nuts.
They think I'm nuts already. Looking through a toilet paper tube is just par for this course at this point. :)
It's a deflection but I don't really mind. I enjoy doing experiments especially when it comes to photography and optics, so this is enjoyable. Maybe I'll add crosshairs, maybe not. Depends on my mood and if I feel inspired to improve the setup. Plus I get to point out all his bullshit.
I certainly don't expect scepti to ever actually agree with any of it, he's clearly off in his own world.
You've come this far, why not just follow what I say and see where it lands.
There doesn't have to be any malice involved. It can be internet friendly.
We may disagree and have a dig but remember we are both after finding realities, or potentials.
How about helping out with finding these realities and potentials and take a picture just like JJA did?
Let's see you lot show some honesty.
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Why do you need two tubes?
There is no difference between that and what I did, with crosshairs at each end.
Why do I need to saw my tube in half?
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Why do you need two tubes?
There is no difference between that and what I did, with crosshairs at each end.
Why do I need to saw my tube in half?
Because it makes dipping one tube much harder, meaning you're forced to level it or spend an awful lot of time trying to angle both to make them both look level.
You know what I'm talking about.
-
Here, have some crosshairs for whatever reason you think they are needed. Doesn't change anything. You can still see the ground.
You can even still see the edge of the road where it dips down to form a line. How curious, eh? When the ground dips down far enough you see a line. Where have I seen that before? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Does it scare you to level stuff out?
Are you a moron?
I posted the picture on the left to show that there are two crosshairs. I did this because I knew you would ask "where is the other crosshair?" if I only posted the one on the right. Seriously. ::)
The one on the right has them lined up.
You need to find a tube and look through it, and you will see exactly what I'm showing. If you see something else, take a picture and show it.
It's amazing you think people are going through all this trouble to fake pictures for you, with something SO SIMPLE anyone could run their own experiment. Except you. Too complicated to figure out how to look through a tube? Hint.. look through the open side.
-
Here, have some crosshairs for whatever reason you think they are needed. Doesn't change anything. You can still see the ground.
You can even still see the edge of the road where it dips down to form a line. How curious, eh? When the ground dips down far enough you see a line. Where have I seen that before? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Does it scare you to level stuff out?
Are you a moron?
I posted the picture on the left to show that there are two crosshairs. I did this because I knew you would ask "where is the other crosshair?" if I only posted the one on the right. Seriously. ::)
The one on the right has them lined up.
You need to find a tube and look through it, and you will see exactly what I'm showing. If you see something else, take a picture and show it.
It's amazing you think people are going through all this trouble to fake pictures for you, with something SO SIMPLE anyone could run their own experiment. Except you. Too complicated to figure out how to look through a tube? Hint.. look through the open side.
I'm sure you're not as naive as you're making out.
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Why do you need two tubes?
There is no difference between that and what I did, with crosshairs at each end.
Why do I need to saw my tube in half?
Because it makes dipping one tube much harder, meaning you're forced to level it or spend an awful lot of time trying to angle both to make them both look level.
You know what I'm talking about.
So.. it would be harder to cheat, which would make you suddenly believe I'm not cheating?
Sure, I could do that.
But then you would just ask for three tubes. Then four.
Look through your own tube. You still have yet to show anyone what you imagine it should look like.
Anyone else could just look through a tube, why is this beyond you? Do you need help? Maybe you can ask a friend to explain how to look through tubes. :)
-
Here, have some crosshairs for whatever reason you think they are needed. Doesn't change anything. You can still see the ground.
You can even still see the edge of the road where it dips down to form a line. How curious, eh? When the ground dips down far enough you see a line. Where have I seen that before? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Does it scare you to level stuff out?
Are you a moron?
I posted the picture on the left to show that there are two crosshairs. I did this because I knew you would ask "where is the other crosshair?" if I only posted the one on the right. Seriously. ::)
The one on the right has them lined up.
You need to find a tube and look through it, and you will see exactly what I'm showing. If you see something else, take a picture and show it.
It's amazing you think people are going through all this trouble to fake pictures for you, with something SO SIMPLE anyone could run their own experiment. Except you. Too complicated to figure out how to look through a tube? Hint.. look through the open side.
I'm sure you're not as naive as you're making out.
I'm pretty sure your ability to understand simple concepts like looking through a tube is as limited as you're making out.
Yes... you are convinced that no matter what I show, somehow I'm tilting the tube to point down into the ground.
Anyone can repeat this experiment in 5 minutes. Except you I guess.
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Why do you need two tubes?
There is no difference between that and what I did, with crosshairs at each end.
Why do I need to saw my tube in half?
Because it makes dipping one tube much harder, meaning you're forced to level it or spend an awful lot of time trying to angle both to make them both look level.
You know what I'm talking about.
So.. it would be harder to cheat, which would make you suddenly believe I'm not cheating?
Sure, I could do that.
But then you would just ask for three tubes. Then four.
Look through your own tube. You still have yet to show anyone what you imagine it should look like.
Anyone else could just look through a tube, why is this beyond you? Do you need help? Maybe you can ask a friend to explain how to look through tubes. :)
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
-
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
And if someone were to do this, and it showed the ground, would you accept that you are wrong and you can see downward curving ground through a level tube?
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
-
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
And if someone were to do this, and it showed the ground, would you accept that you are wrong and you can see downward curving ground through a level tube?
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
Let's see your set up and then I'll decide. If I can pick at it I will. If I can't, I'll tell you I can't.
-
Be honest with yourself.
What do you mean be honest with myself exactly?
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Why two tubes? Wouldn't one tube with crosshairs on either end achieve the same "leveling" effect? I have like 5 tripods because I need them for work. But most people have 1 or none. Using one tripod and one tube with crosshairs at either end should be enough.
Thanks for the diagram and the effort. Now how about you making a rig and shooting a picture? What's stopping YOU from doing so?
-
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
And if someone were to do this, and it showed the ground, would you accept that you are wrong and you can see downward curving ground through a level tube?
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
Let's see your set up and then I'll decide. If I can pick at it I will. If I can't, I'll tell you I can't.
LOL. Figures.
So that's a hard no from you. You won't promise not to add more conditions and demands. So my doing any of that is pointless because you will just come up with new restrictions.
No thanks. This isn't like I'm claiming to have invented cold fusion with my unique alien technology that nobody else can verify. It's a tube. If you think I'm lying about it you can just look through a tube yourself.
It's not rocket science, I don't have to jump through hoops to prove it because you, or anyone reading this can do it themselves.
The fact that you won't is telling. Why are you afraid to look through a tube?
-
More BS and mpving goal posts
You havent even explained the basic reasoning for all this other than the supposedly seeing only 1in.
Which any set up immediately refutes regardless of eye or level or number of tubes
Get to the point or SHOW US WIH YOUR OWN PERFECT SETUP SO WE DONT HAVE TO KEEP BLINDLY GUESSING.
Keep trolling on.
-
I think we can put this one to bed boys.
Sea level thread has devolved a few days ago already
Jja efforts resulted ina predictable dodge here as well
-
Scepticmatic is so full of BS it's amazing. Makes up excuses to deny results of his experiment, changes parameters, more denial, and won't do it himself, even though he says he is a professional with lots of equipment.
Keep moving those goalposts Sceptic and follow that flat Earther SOP.
I'm surprised sceptic hasn't had a another tantrum since his first one and tried deleting all his posts again. That was great. Even some of the other flat Earthers here were annoyed by him when he did that. Some of you newer posters probably don't remember that one.
-
Scepticmatic is so full of BS it's amazing. Makes up excuses to deny results of his experiment, changes parameters, more denial, and won't do it himself, even though he says he is a professional with lots of equipment.
Keep moving those goalposts Sceptic and follow that flat Earther SOP.
I'm surprised sceptic hasn't had a another tantrum since his first one and tried deleting all his posts again. That was great. Even some of the other flat Earthers here were annoyed by him when he did that. Some of you newer posters probably don't remember that one.
That annoys me just on principle.
But in his case, I can make an exception. :)
-
What was this tantrum?
Ive heard about it before
-
What was this tantrum?
Ive heard about it before
I don't remember just what he was butt-hurt about. He started deleting all his posts though. The first 2 and a half pages of his post history are almost nothing but "...". One of the mods I recall posting that he found it annoying because it made several threads annoying to read through. Unless someone replying actually quoted him, no one knew what the person was replying about.
-
You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?
Projecting again I see.
What is your issue? Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same pathetic lies and dismiss all the evidence showing you are wrong?
Again, considering you trust no one, and will come up with some pathetic excuse (even if it is just dismissing it as a con) for whatever evidence is provided, WHERE IS YOUR PICTURE?
What is the point in asking us for anything when you just dismiss it as fake.
Do you think the power poles you see in the distance are less than 1 inch? Yet you can see from top to bottom.
That alone is enough to show you are wrong.
If the nonsense you were spouting was correct, then tilting it towards the ground should hide the top of the poles.
If the nonsense you were spouting was correct, then you would only see a tiny portion of the pole.
The fact that you see far more shows you are wrong.
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE REACHING THE EYE?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Start being honest for once.
You've come this far, why not just follow what I say and see where it lands.
Because we all know where it will land.
You will yet again be shown to be wrong, and then you will come up with more pathetic excuses to dismiss it.
Again, why don't you follow your own demands and provide a photo along with everything you have wanted?
Or failing that, if you really don't want to provide a photo to show you are wrong, then provide a full list of demands for what is required such that when that is provided you don't try to make up any excuses, instead you just accept that you are wrong and admit it.
There doesn't have to be any malice involved. It can be internet friendly.
We may disagree and have a dig but remember we are both after finding realities, or potentials.
Yes, there doesn't have to be, so why do you repeatedly dismiss everything that shows you are wrong as a con-job. You continually show your malice by continually appealing to malice and continually dismissing or outright ignoring things with no justification.
Because it makes dipping one tube much harder
No it doesn't. It makes alignment much harder.
If you think the tube isn't being level then you can easily have both tubes not level, pointing either up or down.
It does nothing to make making them not level harder.
So no, no one knows what you are talking about. You are just looking for whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss all the evidence showing you are wrong.
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
Let's see your set up and then I'll decide. If I can pick at it I will. If I can't, I'll tell you I can't.
So that's a no.
You will dismiss it as a con job and look for more pathetic excuses.
But your excuses simply don't hold.
It is clear we can see more than 1 inch, so the sole "justification" you have is WRONG!
It is clear that your vision doesn't magically only show you 1 inch of any distant object.
Instead, just like any sane person would expect, you can see that the rays of light travel in a straight line, allowing you to see more than 1 inch of the distant object.
And that means that from a level tube, over flat ground that is level at your location, you can see the ground, regardless of how high the tube is and what the FOV is. If instead the ground is sloped, then your ability to see it or not depends on the gradient of that slope and the FOV of the tube If the gradient is less than half the FOV, you see the ground.
And for the RE, it depends on the radius of the Earth, the height of the tube and the FOV.
This also shows that your claim that the horizon will be magically missing or the RE would be invisible, is outright false.
Unless you are going to claim the tube is actually as tall as the power pole?
-
Does sceppy beleive that papertowel tubes are real telescopes?
Maybe...
-
Does sceppy beleive that papertowel tubes are real telescopes?
Maybe...
No, he thinks they are better.
He thinks they magically make it so you see 1 inch of any object, regardless of how far away it is, with the light travelling parallel.
Not even the best telescopes manage that.
-
Does sceppy beleive that papertowel tubes are real telescopes?
Maybe...
No, he thinks they are better.
He thinks they magically make it so you see 1 inch of any object, regardless of how far away it is, with the light travelling parallel.
Not even the best telescopes manage that.
When shown proof that you see more than an inch, he just deflects and cries that you didn't use enough tubes and crosshairs.
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
-
Should I just skip some 'steps' and use 5 tubes. Won't matter really... we'll be told he will only accept 6 tubes.
-
"Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same pathetic lies"
Multiple choice:
A. American English.
B. British English.
C. Jackish English. ^_^
-
"Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same pathetic lies"
Good question. I await Sceptimatic's response.
-
Sceptimatic's toilet roll experiment is his way of proving the eyeline equals the horizon line, and ofcourse the horizon is just a theoretical line.
On a flat earth, sceptimatic would be correct.
But, the Earth is not flat, so it's important for sceptimatic's radicalisation recovery, that he see proof the eyeline from a flat and level scenario, does not line up anywhere near the actual horizon (which is a line).
Introducing: The table at the beach experiment.
-
No
On a flat warth he is still incorrect.
Eye level changes for each person and depends on their altitude above sea level as he already self admitted to.
This tube experiment is pointless as his only claim is that people see on 1dimension and that things dont get smaller due to perspective which he contradicts himself over and over again,
Unt he shows us what he sees, we will kever know.
-
Maybe I'll add a crosshair, just because. But it's not needed. You are demanding it without explaining why it's required. How does it prevent cheating? No matter where I hold the camera, I'm still looking through the tube. It doesn't change the tube or the ground in any way.
It's just one of your insane conditions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Qf4m2qL/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Why two tubes? Wouldn't one tube with crosshairs on either end achieve the same "leveling" effect? I have like 5 tripods because I need them for work. But most people have 1 or none. Using one tripod and one tube with crosshairs at either end should be enough.
Thanks for the diagram and the effort. Now how about you making a rig and shooting a picture? What's stopping YOU from doing so?
Because, with one tube you can angle it and still merge two crosshairs.
With two and shown how I explained, it's not quite as easy to do anything of the sort without it looking, clearly dipped.
-
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
And if someone were to do this, and it showed the ground, would you accept that you are wrong and you can see downward curving ground through a level tube?
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
Let's see your set up and then I'll decide. If I can pick at it I will. If I can't, I'll tell you I can't.
LOL. Figures.
So that's a hard no from you. You won't promise not to add more conditions and demands. So my doing any of that is pointless because you will just come up with new restrictions.
No thanks. This isn't like I'm claiming to have invented cold fusion with my unique alien technology that nobody else can verify. It's a tube. If you think I'm lying about it you can just look through a tube yourself.
It's not rocket science, I don't have to jump through hoops to prove it because you, or anyone reading this can do it themselves.
The fact that you won't is telling. Why are you afraid to look through a tube?
If you don't want to follow instructions and try and back me into a corner, then fine.
You took a bit of effort to start it off, so show me and shut me up.
-
No
On a flat warth he is still incorrect.
Eye level changes for each person and depends on their altitude above sea level as he already self admitted to.
This tube experiment is pointless as his only claim is that people see on 1dimension and that things dont get smaller due to perspective which he contradicts himself over and over again,
Unt he shows us what he sees, we will kever know.
The tube experiment is pertinent.
The double tube and crosshair is also very pertinent in showing what I'm explaining on this gradient that JJA is using.
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
I can only think of two reasons.
1. Dishonesty.
2. Simple adherence to a fellow globalist against a flat/alternate Earth mindset.
Which one can it be for some?
-
How far apart would you like the tubes to be during the experiment because obviously that would have a bearing on the result.
-
How far apart would you like the tubes to be during the experiment because obviously that would have a bearing on the result.
I've already explained it to JJA.
5 feet apart on that gradient he's using.
I've upgraded the diagram for better clarity.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
And this is going to prove what exactly compared to say a theodolite?
I could use that set up on any old slope and make it work. How would that prove the Earth is not a globe as you keep insisting.
-
And this is going to prove what exactly compared to say a theodolite?
No cheating.
-
How is a theodolite cheating? All I can see so far in this experiment is you dictating exactly how it should be done so you get the result you want.
I asked what it is going to prove. Not whether it is cheating or not. Architects use theodolites to get an exact measure of level. They are designed for the purpose. I wouldn't want to build anything based on what I could see through a couple of simple tubes. Would you?
Come on.. I thought you were a 'scientist'. What are the control variables in this experiment? The only controlling element to this experiment that I can see so far is you. And that's not a great start is it.
-
How is a theodolite cheating? All I can see so far in this experiment is you dictating exactly how it should be done so you get the result you want.
I asked what it is going to prove. Not whether it is cheating or not. Architects use theodolites to get an exact measure of level. They are designed for the purpose. I wouldn't want to build anything based on what I could see through a couple of simple tubes. Would you?
Come on.. I thought you were a 'scientist'. What are the control variables in this experiment? The only controlling element to this experiment that I can see so far is you. And that's not a great start is it.
He can use a theodolite of he wants to and we can go from there. Or he (JJA) or you can use the tubes that are already easy to get and set up, as he's proving.
-
So what would you say are the possible sources of errors that you would expect to get from using tubes as per your preference and how could they affect the results of the experiment?
-
So what would you say are the possible sources of errors that you would expect to get from using tubes as per your preference and how could they affect the results of the experiment?
No errors from using tubes if used correctly, as in the diagram.
Any person can set one tube slightly off level, towards the ground and set up a crosshair on both ends of the level to make it look like they match up, as if it was level...like JJA ried to do and realised I'm not as stupid as I am cabbage looking.
-
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
And if someone were to do this, and it showed the ground, would you accept that you are wrong and you can see downward curving ground through a level tube?
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
Let's see your set up and then I'll decide. If I can pick at it I will. If I can't, I'll tell you I can't.
LOL. Figures.
So that's a hard no from you. You won't promise not to add more conditions and demands. So my doing any of that is pointless because you will just come up with new restrictions.
No thanks. This isn't like I'm claiming to have invented cold fusion with my unique alien technology that nobody else can verify. It's a tube. If you think I'm lying about it you can just look through a tube yourself.
It's not rocket science, I don't have to jump through hoops to prove it because you, or anyone reading this can do it themselves.
The fact that you won't is telling. Why are you afraid to look through a tube?
If you don't want to follow instructions and try and back me into a corner, then fine.
You took a bit of effort to start it off, so show me and shut me up.
So far I've done ALL the effort in this 'debate' with you.
You are demanding impossible photos, like showing the top of the tube and the inside of the tube at the same time. You do not understand how reality works. Take a single picture of a tube from the top and the inside, go ahead.
Your only objection is you think I'm cheating, and want more proof that I'm not. But no amount of proof will make you change your mind, you can always continue claiming I'm cheating somehow. Adding two tubes, or three, or ten won't change anything. You will still just sayin I'm tilting the tube down for whatever bizarre reason the voices in your head tell you.
So what would you say are the possible sources of errors that you would expect to get from using tubes as per your preference and how could they affect the results of the experiment?
No errors from using tubes if used correctly, as in the diagram.
Any person can set one tube slightly off level, towards the ground and set up a crosshair on both ends of the level to make it look like they match up, as if it was level...like JJA ried to do and realised I'm not as stupid as I am cabbage looking.
The fact that you can't look through a tube or operate a camera in fact does prove the level of your stupidity.
Thinking that several people on the internet are faking pictures to try and fool you makes you look even dumber, especially with such a simple experiment. But simply claiming everyone is lying is your only defense.
Once again... why not show us these experiments YOU did that showed... something? You keep claiming all our pictures are faked and don't show reality, but can't provide ONE picture to show what you think reality should look like through a tube.
Seriously.. you have NEVER looked through a tube, right? You just imagine you know what happens. The liar here is you, because ANYONE can look through a 'level tube' and see the ground. So anyone with 5 minutes of spare time can see you're the liar here. Or insane. Hard to tell.
-
No errors from using tubes if used correctly, as in the diagram.
Well that must be the first experiment in history to be carried out where all possible sources of errors have been eliminated. What is the detector in this experiment? The human eye or a static camera?
JJA ried to do and realised I'm not as stupid as I am cabbage looking.
Well I guess we'll all just have to take your word for that won't we. If you think this tube experiment is scientifically accurate then I would have to question your judgement on that. Just as you question everything else that doesn't comply with your beliefs.
Would you be willing to carry out an experiment yourself where everyone else tells you exactly how to carry it out? If not then why should we bow to the demands that you are giving out on what we should do?
-
Just get another tube and centre your crosshair to it and set them up as I've shown.
Set both tubes at 5 feet apart.
You'll need to set the front one higher than the back due to you being on a gradient.
This should show up on your sideway view in the picture you'll take.
The crosshair on the end of the front tube and the cross hair on the end of the nearest tube (note: do not put the crosshairs on the eye piece ends of the tubes). need to line up as in my diagram.
I'm sure you'll have no issue with this....right?
And if someone were to do this, and it showed the ground, would you accept that you are wrong and you can see downward curving ground through a level tube?
Would you commit to this, and promise not to add more demands and rules?
You would have no issue with this....right?
Let's see your set up and then I'll decide. If I can pick at it I will. If I can't, I'll tell you I can't.
LOL. Figures.
So that's a hard no from you. You won't promise not to add more conditions and demands. So my doing any of that is pointless because you will just come up with new restrictions.
No thanks. This isn't like I'm claiming to have invented cold fusion with my unique alien technology that nobody else can verify. It's a tube. If you think I'm lying about it you can just look through a tube yourself.
It's not rocket science, I don't have to jump through hoops to prove it because you, or anyone reading this can do it themselves.
The fact that you won't is telling. Why are you afraid to look through a tube?
If you don't want to follow instructions and try and back me into a corner, then fine.
You took a bit of effort to start it off, so show me and shut me up.
So far I've done ALL the effort in this 'debate' with you.
You are demanding impossible photos, like showing the top of the tube and the inside of the tube at the same time. You do not understand how reality works. Take a single picture of a tube from the top and the inside, go ahead.
Your only objection is you think I'm cheating, and want more proof that I'm not. But no amount of proof will make you change your mind, you can always continue claiming I'm cheating somehow. Adding two tubes, or three, or ten won't change anything. You will still just sayin I'm tilting the tube down for whatever bizarre reason the voices in your head tell you.
So what would you say are the possible sources of errors that you would expect to get from using tubes as per your preference and how could they affect the results of the experiment?
No errors from using tubes if used correctly, as in the diagram.
Any person can set one tube slightly off level, towards the ground and set up a crosshair on both ends of the level to make it look like they match up, as if it was level...like JJA ried to do and realised I'm not as stupid as I am cabbage looking.
The fact that you can't look through a tube or operate a camera in fact does prove the level of your stupidity.
Thinking that several people on the internet are faking pictures to try and fool you makes you look even dumber, especially with such a simple experiment. But simply claiming everyone is lying is your only defense.
Once again... why not show us these experiments YOU did that showed... something? You keep claiming all our pictures are faked and don't show reality, but can't provide ONE picture to show what you think reality should look like through a tube.
Seriously.. you have NEVER looked through a tube, right? You just imagine you know what happens. The liar here is you, because ANYONE can look through a 'level tube' and see the ground. So anyone with 5 minutes of spare time can see you're the liar here. Or insane. Hard to tell.
You seemed well up for it at first. Now I've backed you into a corner you're now starting to get all uppity.
It's no surprise to me.
-
No errors from using tubes if used correctly, as in the diagram.
Well that must be the first experiment in history to be carried out where all possible sources of errors have been eliminated. What is the detector in this experiment? The human eye or a static camera?
JJA ried to do and realised I'm not as stupid as I am cabbage looking.
Well I guess we'll all just have to take your word for that won't we. If you think this tube experiment is scientifically accurate then I would have to question your judgement on that. Just as you question everything else that doesn't comply with your beliefs.
Would you be willing to carry out an experiment yourself where everyone else tells you exactly how to carry it out? If not then why should we bow to the demands that you are giving out on what we should do?
Don't bow. Don't do anything if you don't want to.
If you can manage to do them so I have no comeback then do so. If not, then fair enough.
-
You seemed well up for it at first. Now I've backed you into a corner you're now starting to get all uppity.
It's no surprise to me.
LOL. I'm uppity now. ;D
Backed me into a corner by demanding I take a picture of the inside of the tube as well as showing the tube from the top, and the side in the same photo.
Care to take a picture of a tube to show how this is supposed to work?
You still can't show a single picture of your setup, and what you imagine a picture through a tube looks like. That's an astounding level of incompetence, even for you.
Or you are just lying, as you have claimed to run this experiment already. But your dog ate all the pictures, right? ::)
-
If you can manage to do them so I have no comeback then do so. If not, then fair enough.
No read what I said again. I actually said would YOU be willing to carry out an experiment where others dictated and made demands about what you should do and how you should do it?
Or you are just lying, as you have claimed to run this experiment already. But your dog ate all the pictures, right? ::)
Classic schoolboy excuse for not doing his homework!
-
You seemed well up for it at first. Now I've backed you into a corner you're now starting to get all uppity.
It's no surprise to me.
LOL. I'm uppity now. ;D
Backed me into a corner by demanding I take a picture of the inside of the tube as well as showing the tube from the top, and the side in the same photo.
Care to take a picture of a tube to show how this is supposed to work?
You still can't show a single picture of your setup, and what you imagine a picture through a tube looks like. That's an astounding level of incompetence, even for you.
Or you are just lying, as you have claimed to run this experiment already. But your dog ate all the pictures, right? ::)
Hi JJA,
You know you will never get any appreciation from Sceptimatic, but I just wanted to say how great it is that you took the time our of your day to take pictures through a leveled toilet paper roll in order to demonstrate, that yes, you can indeed see more than the end diameter out of it.
Your neighbors must think you are crazy, but I really appreciate the commitment. :)
-
you took the time our of your day to take pictures through a leveled toilet paper roll in order to demonstrate, that yes, you can indeed see more than the end diameter out of it.
I'm just wondering how much better off Universities around the world would be now if they had realised earlier that you can obtain scientifically accurate results with NO ERRORS about the shape of the Earth by using two toilet rolls spaced 5ft apart.
I just measured my two toilet roles with a digital Vernier gauge and from that I have identified that they don't have exactly the same internal diameter. Bugger! I will have to leave it to JJA to do the experiment! The question is though are the differences in measurement human error or instrument error?!?
Your neighbors must think you are crazy,
They would if they know why JJA is playing around with a could of tubes, mounted as best as he can on two tripods of exactly the same height.
-
No
On a flat warth he is still incorrect.
Eye level changes for each person and depends on their altitude above sea level as he already self admitted to.
This tube experiment is pointless as his only claim is that people see on 1dimension and that things dont get smaller due to perspective which he contradicts himself over and over again,
Unt he shows us what he sees, we will kever know.
The tube experiment is pertinent.
The double tube and crosshair is also very pertinent in showing what I'm explaining on this gradient that JJA is using.
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
I can only think of two reasons.
1. Dishonesty.
2. Simple adherence to a fellow globalist against a flat/alternate Earth mindset.
Which one can it be for some?
We re defending it because the curving away part is literally very very far away.
Your claim is that you cant see the ground at your feet has no relevance.
Your shitass diagram is not to scale.
And the field of view statements you keep making contradicts itself (sees 1in-of course things get smaller the farth away they get, field of view-1dim line of site)
If you were told to head north but were off by 1degree.
After 100km of travel, how far off you think you would be?
Gtfo and make more sense
-
you took the time our of your day to take pictures through a leveled toilet paper roll in order to demonstrate, that yes, you can indeed see more than the end diameter out of it.
I'm just wondering how much better off Universities around the world would be now if they had realised earlier that you can obtain scientifically accurate results with NO ERRORS about the shape of the Earth by using two toilet rolls spaced 5ft apart.
I just measured my two toilet roles with a digital Vernier gauge and from that I have identified that they don't have exactly the same internal diameter. Bugger! I will have to leave it to JJA to do the experiment! The question is though are the differences in measurement human error or instrument error?!?
Your neighbors must think you are crazy,
They would if they know why JJA is playing around with a could of tubes, mounted as best as he can on two tripods of exactly the same height.
They would, so I'm glad he is willing to subject himself to their bewildered stares for our sake.
I think it really shows just how wrong Sceptimatic is. And I am not talking about his ideas of how optics and perspective work, or his thoughts on how the atmosphere pushes everyone down, or his belief in the magic crystal and holographic sun and moon. We all know those are bonkers. But where he has a kernel of truth is how he talks about people just seems to take everything for granted. How this all too often bow to authority. I think this does happen, and happens all too often.
But the examples here like JJA show how wrong Sceptimatic is about how it applies to everyone. People do question things. Everything. Constantly. And people are willing to try things when asked. Sceptimatic says that anyone can see the truth of the world by looking through a leveled toilet roll tube. Crazy, right? Hilariously crazy in fact? And yet, people are still willing to entertain the idea, test it, try it. Sure, they do it and just say, "nope, that's wrong", but they do it, and I believe that most people, if they got a different answer than they expected, they would instead go "hmmmm .....".
-
Of course. I question things. You question things and heaven knows kids question things constantly. How many parents have been driven round the twist because of their kids constantly asking questions. I agree that this often reveals how much we take for granted. I often watch TV quizzes where contestants obviously don't know the first thing about the planets.. so much for indoctrination!
However that is not the context in which Scepti 'questions' things. If anyone says something that someone else doesn't agree with then one way of expressing that is 'Hmmm.. I would question that..'. In other words I would query that. Repetition of measurements normally reveals a pattern or the likely range of measurements. So if one particular measurement falls out of the usual range we immediately question that particular result. For instance there was a recent case where some measurements implied that elementary particles could travel faster than light. Thus calling into question the laws of physics. But an error in some measurements was identified and once corrected brought the velocities of the particles back under the light barrier. phew... no need to rewrite all the physics textbooks!
What I would call into question is Sceptis reasons for questioning 'things'. True scientists never say we know, or this proves this, that or the other. That is not what they are out to find out. Science relies on measurement, not on belief. Since no one has ever seen or found any evidence for the existence of this 'magic crystal' that Scepti insists is creating a holographic Sun, there is no reason to believe it exists. Apart from the fact that there is plenty of evidence that shows the Sun is a real and physically existing star.
The classic case of how science changes its position is gravity. For years physicists worked on the principle that gravity was a force which was first formally described by Newton in his famous F=GMm/r2 equation. However in 1915 Einstein re-modelled gravity so it was no longer regarded as a force in the sense of a push or pull but a bending or warping of space-time. The warping is proportional to mass which is why the effect of gravity is felt increasingly as mass increases. Note that under normal (classical) conditions, even Einstein re-modelling of gravity doesn't make Newtons equation any less applicable. And that to me is the beauty of physics.
Scepti on the other hand insists that what we experience as gravity is actually a product of gas (atmospheric) pressure. Sorry to be blunt but that is absolute b****x because gravity exists everywhere in the Universe, even in the vacuum of space. But then according to Scepti, there is no such thing as the vacuum of space. Well 'his' space at least.
-
Of course. I question things. You question things and heaven knows kids question things constantly. How many parents have been driven round the twist because of their kids constantly asking questions. I agree that this often reveals how much we take for granted. I often watch TV quizzes where contestants obviously don't know the first thing about the planets.. so much for indoctrination!
However that is not the context in which Scepti 'questions' things. If anyone says something that someone else doesn't agree with then one way of expressing that is 'Hmmm.. I would question that..'. In other words I would query that. Repetition of measurements normally reveals a pattern or the likely range of measurements. So if one particular measurement falls out of the usual range we immediately question that particular result. For instance there was a recent case where some measurements implied that elementary particles could travel faster than light. Thus calling into question the laws of physics. But an error in some measurements was identified and once corrected brought the velocities of the particles back under the light barrier. phew... no need to rewrite all the physics textbooks!
What I would call into question is Sceptis reasons for questioning 'things'. True scientists never say we know, or this proves this, that or the other. That is not what they are out to find out. Science relies on measurement, not on belief. Since no one has ever seen or found any evidence for the existence of this 'magic crystal' that Scepti insists is creating a holographic Sun, there is no reason to believe it exists. Apart from the fact that there is plenty of evidence that shows the Sun is a real and physically existing star.
The classic case of how science changes its position is gravity. For years physicists worked on the principle that gravity was a force which was first formally described by Newton in his famous F=GMm/r2 equation. However in 1915 Einstein re-modelled gravity so it was no longer regarded as a force in the sense of a push or pull but a bending or warping of space-time. The warping is proportional to mass which is why the effect of gravity is felt increasingly as mass increases. Note that under normal (classical) conditions, even Einstein re-modelling of gravity doesn't make Newtons equation any less applicable. And that to me is the beauty of physics.
Scepti on the other hand insists that what we experience as gravity is actually a product of gas (atmospheric) pressure. Sorry to be blunt but that is absolute b****x because gravity exists everywhere in the Universe, even in the vacuum of space. But then according to Scepti, there is no such thing as the vacuum of space. Well 'his' space at least.
How do you know this? (bold)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to he test.
JJA has all the equipment, it seems...seeing as he set it up down his slope..
-
How do you know this? (bold)
Which part?
If you mean the vacuum of space then why do you think they have to pressurise the cabins of airliners so the passengers can breath at 40,000ft? What they are actually doing is increasing the oxygen saturation in the cabin. Creating an increase in pressure. Why do you think mountaineers on top of Everest have to carry oxygen with them? Because they are in a partial vacuum. Go up to 70,000 and you have to wear a full on space suit because the air is so thin. This effect gets progressive greater until the air gets so thin as to be effectively a vacuum.
You know what we mean by a vacuum is yes?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to he test.
JJA has all the equipment, it seems...seeing as he set it up down his slope..
by your own admission - the horizon will change depending on person's height/ elevation/ eye level.
-
No
On a flat warth he is still incorrect.
Eye level changes for each person and depends on their altitude above sea level as he already self admitted to.
This tube experiment is pointless as his only claim is that people see on 1dimension and that things dont get smaller due to perspective which he contradicts himself over and over again,
Unt he shows us what he sees, we will kever know.
The tube experiment is pertinent.
The double tube and crosshair is also very pertinent in showing what I'm explaining on this gradient that JJA is using.
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
I can only think of two reasons.
1. Dishonesty.
2. Simple adherence to a fellow globalist against a flat/alternate Earth mindset.
Which one can it be for some?
We re defending it because the curving away part is literally very very far away.
Your claim is that you cant see the ground at your feet has no relevance.
Your shitass diagram is not to scale.
And the field of view statements you keep making contradicts itself (sees 1in-of course things get smaller the farth away they get, field of view-1dim line of site)
If you were told to head north but were off by 1degree.
After 100km of travel, how far off you think you would be?
Gtfo and make more sense
challenge back to sceppy, that doesn't require him to go outside.
Draw a triangle with 1degree angle in one corner.
let us know how it goes.
-
JJA has all the equipment, it seems...seeing as he set it up down his slope..
Why can’t you take the picture and show us to be fools?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to he test.
JJA has all the equipment, it seems...seeing as he set it up down his slope..
[/quote]
I don't actually have two tubes like that, and toiler paper tubes are too low quality and uneven to perform a good test.
Plus, I'm not going to go through the trouble of doing all that bullshit any more than I'd paint them pink and purple and do a rain-dance if you demanded it. Your idiotic demands and conditions have nothing to do with anything. The only reason you can give is it would make it 'harder for me to cheat' which is pointless. You will just accuse me of working harder to cheat.
If you had a valid concern now I'd humor it, like I did with using a level and other methods. I even used your dumb crosshairs because it was easy, if pointless to add them.
But all you have is whining about cheating and nothing else. So no, my work stands on it's own, and is easily replicated by anyone who has doubts. Except for you.
Your turn to do some work. Show us what you see through a tube, because I'm sure everyone reading this is very curious about what exactly YOU alone see, since everyone else can look through a tube and see exactly what I do.
What's your excuse?
1. Lazy
2. Don't own a tube.
3. Don't know how to look through a tube.
4. Can't figure out how cameras work.
5. Afraid to see the truth.
6. Lying is easier.
All of the above?
-
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
People are defending it because for a normal person of at least below-average intelligence, it's easy to look through a tube and verify my pictures are correct.
I'm sure half the people reading this probably looked through a paper towel tube at this point.
The real question is is... how the hell can you be so lacking in ability that you can't even look through a tube?
-
Because, with one tube you can angle it and still merge two crosshairs.
With two and shown how I explained, it's not quite as easy to do anything of the sort without it looking, clearly dipped.
No, with 2, it isn't as easily to align them, regardless of if it is level or not, and it wouldn't look any more dipped than 1 tube.
2 tubes offers literally no advantage and instead just is a lot more effort.
What makes you think this would be so much harder:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
If you don't want to follow instructions and try and back me into a corner, then fine.
You took a bit of effort to start it off, so show me and shut me up.
But the problem is until you have backed yourself into a corner, you wont simply shut up. Instead, you will just dismiss whatever evidence is provided, coming up with some pathetic BS for why it is a con job.
It only takes a small amount of effort to provide the evidence that shows you are wrong. But it takes a lot more to give into every one of your ridiculous demands, just for you to dismiss it and demand more.
The tube experiment is pertinent.
ANd shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
You can easily see more than just the width of the tube. That means you don't just see out in straight lines and instead see in a cone, like in the diagrams provided.
That means you can see the ground when looking through a tube, at least in some conditions.
The double tube and crosshair is also very pertinent
No, it isn't. It is just your excuse to dismissing being shown that you are wrong.
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
No, they can't. Instead, any sane person would realise there is nothing stopping the ground from being seen.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
NOTHING!
There is absolutely nothing to stop it.
This means that as long as nothing else gets in the way, and the ground doesn't curve away too fast, you will be able to see the ground.
I can only think of two reasons.
1. Dishonesty.
2. Simple adherence to a fellow globalist against a flat/alternate Earth mindset.
Which one can it be for some?
Projecting again I see, although 2 would need to be slightly modified to account for your blind adherence to the FE nonsense.
You have no rational objection to what has been provided.
All reason and evidence shows you are wrong.
You are the dishonest one here, not us.
You are the one outright rejecting reality, dismissing evidence that shows you are wrong with no justification other than it shows you are wrong, and providing nothing to support your outright lies.
Now I've backed you into a corner you're now starting to get all uppity.
No you haven't.
All you have done is spout a load of ridiculous demands which do nothing to refute the evidence already provided and do nothing to make you comit.
You haven't backed anyone into a corner.
Even if he provides it, you will just come up with some other pathetic excuse.
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to he test.
So go ahead and put it to the test.
No one is stopping you.
So why haven't you done it?
Is it because you know doing it will show you are wrong?
-
No
On a flat warth he is still incorrect.
Eye level changes for each person and depends on their altitude above sea level as he already self admitted to.
This tube experiment is pointless as his only claim is that people see on 1dimension and that things dont get smaller due to perspective which he contradicts himself over and over again,
Unt he shows us what he sees, we will kever know.
The tube experiment is pertinent.
The double tube and crosshair is also very pertinent in showing what I'm explaining on this gradient that JJA is using.
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
I can only think of two reasons.
1. Dishonesty.
2. Simple adherence to a fellow globalist against a flat/alternate Earth mindset.
Which one can it be for some?
What the hell is wrong with you people? Levelling of the tube is not the problem , the problem is the eyeline is in the centre of the tube - yet again.
A toilet roll is 4cm in diameter and 10cm in length. Which means if the pupil is in the centre at the near end, (the cross hairs) it is 2cm above the bottom of the tube, which gives an angle of 11 degrees to the bottom of the end of the tube, then to the ground to be seen - thus the downward slope of the road.
Move the pupil at the near end of the level tube down to the bottom of the tube so that the the bottom of the near end is in line with the bottom of the far end, and the angular light from the ground through the tube's far end to the pupil, is reduced to zero.
This is the most honest way this experiment can be conducted and sceptimatic will be correct. You will not see the downward slope of the hill if the tube is level and these adjustments are made.
But, it still doesn't prove the earth is flat.
For that, you need to include the horizon out at sea in the experiment. Remember the flat earth mantra - water always finds it's level - that includes large bodies of water, including the sea.
If earth is flat, all level lines at a location, will converge at points along the horizon line. Yes - a line separating sea from sky. If earth is curved to form a ball, all level lines at a location will converge at points at a height in space or the sky, pre-determined by the curvature - above the horizon.
-
Move the pupil at the near end of the level tube down to the bottom of the tube so that the the bottom of the near end is in line with the bottom of the far end, and the angular light from the ground through the tube's far end to the pupil, is reduced to zero.
This isn't true. In a purely mathematical sense you could accomplish this, but in the real world you will never be able to put your eye exactly 0cm above the bottom of the tube.
Your eye will always be above the bottom of the tube, even just a small amount. Your retina is not a 1 dimensional point after all.
And if your height above the bottom of the tube is not zero, then the downward angle you see is not zero either, and the line from your eye to the end of the tube will project far enough out and you will see as far below the tube as you want.
But I'm not sure what that is meant to accomplish. Why look from the bottom of the tube. Why not the top? Or the side? Or 37 degrees from the bottom?
It all seems pretty nonsensical.
-
Not to mention, all along, we have been talking about the eye being in the center on the end of a level tube. Not closer in any direction to the sides of the tube. Always in the center. Period.
-
Move the pupil at the near end of the level tube down to the bottom of the tube so that the the bottom of the near end is in line with the bottom of the far end, and the angular light from the ground through the tube's far end to the pupil, is reduced to zero.
This isn't true. In a purely mathematical sense you could accomplish this, but in the real world you will never be able to put your eye exactly 0cm above the bottom of the tube.
Your eye will always be above the bottom of the tube, even just a small amount. Your retina is not a 1 dimensional point after all.
And if your height above the bottom of the tube is not zero, then the downward angle you see is not zero either, and the line from your eye to the end of the tube will project far enough out and you will see as far below the tube as you want.
But I'm not sure what that is meant to accomplish. Why look from the bottom of the tube. Why not the top? Or the side? Or 37 degrees from the bottom?
It all seems pretty nonsensical.
It's not nonsensical if sceptimatic's main concern is if the earth is curved you shouldn't be able to see the ground through a level tube.
The only reason you can in this cockneyed experiment, is because your pupil is centralized and likely dilated between 4mm and 8mm. In a 40 mm diameter tube, that's a circle10 to 20 percent of the diameter of the tube, not a pinpoint. That increases your angular field of view, again.
If you look through the tube along the bottom, lining the near end and the far end up, (and you can, I did it this morning) you will not see the ground.
To make things easier, grab a fresh toilet roll with the paper still on, and try it. You can reduce the angle of view downwards to zero, which is what this experiment calls for.
Do I need to get illustrative and do my own diagrams for you lot?
-
How do you know this? (bold)
Which part?
If you mean the vacuum of space then why do you think they have to pressurise the cabins of airliners so the passengers can breath at 40,000ft?
Low pressure, not a vacuum.
Why do you think mountaineers on top of Everest have to carry oxygen with them? Because they are in a partial vacuum.
No, they're in lower pressure.
Go up to 70,000 and you have to wear a full on space suit because the air is so thin.
Again, lower pressure.
This effect gets progressive greater until the air gets so thin as to be effectively a vacuum.
It's lower pressure.
You know what we mean by a vacuum is yes?
Yep and it cannot exist.
If you mean just lower pressure then understand that it is still pressure.
If you want to say absence of anything as to be a nothing...well, I can't help you on that mindset. You'll have to try and get to grips with the nonsense of it, or don't. Your choice.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to he test.
JJA has all the equipment, it seems...seeing as he set it up down his slope..
by your own admission - the horizon will change depending on person's height/ elevation/ eye level.
Of course....but only for the person viewing it.
-
JJA has all the equipment, it seems...seeing as he set it up down his slope..
Why can’t you take the picture and show us to be fools?
Why don't you do the right experiment and show yourselves the truth?
-
I don't actually have two tubes like that, and toiler paper tubes are too low quality and uneven to perform a good test.
Plus, I'm not going to go through the trouble of doing all that bullshit any more than I'd paint them pink and purple and do a rain-dance if you demanded it. Your idiotic demands and conditions have nothing to do with anything. The only reason you can give is it would make it 'harder for me to cheat' which is pointless. You will just accuse me of working harder to cheat.
If you had a valid concern now I'd humor it, like I did with using a level and other methods. I even used your dumb crosshairs because it was easy, if pointless to add them.
But all you have is whining about cheating and nothing else. So no, my work stands on it's own, and is easily replicated by anyone who has doubts. Except for you.
Your turn to do some work. Show us what you see through a tube, because I'm sure everyone reading this is very curious about what exactly YOU alone see, since everyone else can look through a tube and see exactly what I do.
What's your excuse?
1. Lazy
2. Don't own a tube.
3. Don't know how to look through a tube.
4. Can't figure out how cameras work.
5. Afraid to see the truth.
6. Lying is easier.
All of the above?
Hmmmm...well it seems you failed. I have no issue with that. This is why I don't just accept clear duping.
I'll give you a 3 out of 10 for your efforts in trying to dupe me.
-
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
People are defending it because for a normal person of at least below-average intelligence, it's easy to look through a tube and verify my pictures are correct.
I'm sure half the people reading this probably looked through a paper towel tube at this point.
The real question is is... how the hell can you be so lacking in ability that you can't even look through a tube?
It's easy for anyone who is honest with themselves and who want to do the experiment properly, to see the reality...not what you offer as a skew to it. Deliberately, in my honest opinion.
-
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
People are defending it because for a normal person of at least below-average intelligence, it's easy to look through a tube and verify my pictures are correct.
I'm sure half the people reading this probably looked through a paper towel tube at this point.
The real question is is... how the hell can you be so lacking in ability that you can't even look through a tube?
I actually wonder the very same things with you people.
-
Because, with one tube you can angle it and still merge two crosshairs.
With two and shown how I explained, it's not quite as easy to do anything of the sort without it looking, clearly dipped.
No, with 2, it isn't as easily to align them, regardless of if it is level or not, and it wouldn't look any more dipped than 1 tube.
2 tubes offers literally no advantage and instead just is a lot more effort.
What makes you think this would be so much harder:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
This is why I rarely offer you much in reply. Mr duping twister.
Save it, it doesn't work on me.
-
Why don't you do the right experiment and show yourselves the truth?
We have, it shows you are wrong.
So why don't you do the experiment yourself.
Then you can't say we are cheating.
Hmmmm...well it seems you failed.
]
Projecting again.
He didn't fail. He provided evidence which clearly shows you are wrong.
You have no valid rebuttal and instead just dismiss it as a con and spout a bunch of ridiculous demands while still refusing to commit.
The only one trying to dupe in this thread is you.
You have no justification nor any evidence to support your pure nonsense.
Because, with one tube you can angle it and still merge two crosshairs.
With two and shown how I explained, it's not quite as easy to do anything of the sort without it looking, clearly dipped.
No, with 2, it isn't as easily to align them, regardless of if it is level or not, and it wouldn't look any more dipped than 1 tube.
2 tubes offers literally no advantage and instead just is a lot more effort.
What makes you think this would be so much harder:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
This is why I rarely offer you much in reply. Mr duping twister.
Because I clearly and easily show how you are completely wrong and you cannot come up with any honest rational response so you need to ignore/dismiss me?
Can you provide any justification for why the example I provided there should be harder than your example?
If not, then how is using 2 tubes going to help?
It is just a needless complication, and you will then dismiss any example provided as fake and claim both tubes are pointing down.
Now again, care to tell us what magic stops the blue line:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
There is no justification to dismiss the diagram as a con.
There is no way for you to say the tube is pointing down.
It is a diagram, with the tube level, but light from below the tube getting in and reaching the eye, allowing you to see it.
But with no way to appeal to the evidence being a con, you just repeatedly ignore it.
-
How do you know this? (bold)
Which part?
If you mean the vacuum of space then why do you think they have to pressurise the cabins of airliners so the passengers can breath at 40,000ft?
Low pressure, not a vacuum.
Space is not a perfect vacuum, but close. So you shouldn't have a problem with its existence as defined by science because it is simply at an extremely low pressure.
-
So going back to #2284, in your world Sceptimatic and in your mind pressure causes the effect that everyone else (wrongly obviously) attributes to gravity.
Pressure is determined by force/area (N/m2). So what is causing the pressure in your world and why does it vary with altitude?
My point being that you obviously accept that pressure exists but you say that gravity doesn't. So given that pressure is an effect of a force (cause/effect) then if you are going to eliminate gravity as a force (since gravity doesn't exist in your model) then to have pressure you need to replace gravity with some other type of force. Which is?
-
Why don't you do the right experiment and show yourselves the truth?
We have, it shows you are wrong.
So why don't you do the experiment yourself.
Then you can't say we are cheating.
Hmmmm...well it seems you failed.
]
Projecting again.
He didn't fail. He provided evidence which clearly shows you are wrong.
You have no valid rebuttal and instead just dismiss it as a con and spout a bunch of ridiculous demands while still refusing to commit.
The only one trying to dupe in this thread is you.
You have no justification nor any evidence to support your pure nonsense.
Because, with one tube you can angle it and still merge two crosshairs.
With two and shown how I explained, it's not quite as easy to do anything of the sort without it looking, clearly dipped.
No, with 2, it isn't as easily to align them, regardless of if it is level or not, and it wouldn't look any more dipped than 1 tube.
2 tubes offers literally no advantage and instead just is a lot more effort.
What makes you think this would be so much harder:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
This is why I rarely offer you much in reply. Mr duping twister.
Because I clearly and easily show how you are completely wrong and you cannot come up with any honest rational response so you need to ignore/dismiss me?
Can you provide any justification for why the example I provided there should be harder than your example?
If not, then how is using 2 tubes going to help?
It is just a needless complication, and you will then dismiss any example provided as fake and claim both tubes are pointing down.
Now again, care to tell us what magic stops the blue line:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
There is no justification to dismiss the diagram as a con.
There is no way for you to say the tube is pointing down.
It is a diagram, with the tube level, but light from below the tube getting in and reaching the eye, allowing you to see it.
But with no way to appeal to the evidence being a con, you just repeatedly ignore it.
Possibly he has no idwa what those lines in the pictures mean
-
I don't actually have two tubes like that, and toiler paper tubes are too low quality and uneven to perform a good test.
Plus, I'm not going to go through the trouble of doing all that bullshit any more than I'd paint them pink and purple and do a rain-dance if you demanded it. Your idiotic demands and conditions have nothing to do with anything. The only reason you can give is it would make it 'harder for me to cheat' which is pointless. You will just accuse me of working harder to cheat.
If you had a valid concern now I'd humor it, like I did with using a level and other methods. I even used your dumb crosshairs because it was easy, if pointless to add them.
But all you have is whining about cheating and nothing else. So no, my work stands on it's own, and is easily replicated by anyone who has doubts. Except for you.
Your turn to do some work. Show us what you see through a tube, because I'm sure everyone reading this is very curious about what exactly YOU alone see, since everyone else can look through a tube and see exactly what I do.
What's your excuse?
1. Lazy
2. Don't own a tube.
3. Don't know how to look through a tube.
4. Can't figure out how cameras work.
5. Afraid to see the truth.
6. Lying is easier.
All of the above?
Hmmmm...well it seems you failed. I have no issue with that. This is why I don't just accept clear duping.
I'll give you a 3 out of 10 for your efforts in trying to dupe me.
No matter how many times you say it, you're still losing this argument. Anyone can do this experiment and get the same results I got.
Nobody can do the experiment and get the results you get, because you refuse to do it and show us pictures of your own.
You don't get to demand people follow your crazy instructions while you sit back and do absolutely nothing.
Anyone else can look through a tube, why are you so afraid to do it?
-
Move the pupil at the near end of the level tube down to the bottom of the tube so that the the bottom of the near end is in line with the bottom of the far end, and the angular light from the ground through the tube's far end to the pupil, is reduced to zero.
This isn't true. In a purely mathematical sense you could accomplish this, but in the real world you will never be able to put your eye exactly 0cm above the bottom of the tube.
Your eye will always be above the bottom of the tube, even just a small amount. Your retina is not a 1 dimensional point after all.
And if your height above the bottom of the tube is not zero, then the downward angle you see is not zero either, and the line from your eye to the end of the tube will project far enough out and you will see as far below the tube as you want.
But I'm not sure what that is meant to accomplish. Why look from the bottom of the tube. Why not the top? Or the side? Or 37 degrees from the bottom?
It all seems pretty nonsensical.
It's not nonsensical if sceptimatic's main concern is if the earth is curved you shouldn't be able to see the ground through a level tube.
The only reason you can in this cockneyed experiment, is because your pupil is centralized and likely dilated between 4mm and 8mm. In a 40 mm diameter tube, that's a circle10 to 20 percent of the diameter of the tube, not a pinpoint. That increases your angular field of view, again.
If you look through the tube along the bottom, lining the near end and the far end up, (and you can, I did it this morning) you will not see the ground.
To make things easier, grab a fresh toilet roll with the paper still on, and try it. You can reduce the angle of view downwards to zero, which is what this experiment calls for.
Do I need to get illustrative and do my own diagrams for you lot?
Diagrams always help. Do I need to draw some, did you not understand my response?
Again, why are you insisting we look along the bottom of the tube when scepti has been clearly demanding we look through the center? Remember the centered crosshairs?
Why suddenly change the experiment? Why not look along the top or the side? What's your reasoning for changing things?
-
Anyone can clearly understand that he cannot be levelling a tube over a downward gradient like he's showing and expect to see that road.
So why in the hell you people are defending it?
People are defending it because for a normal person of at least below-average intelligence, it's easy to look through a tube and verify my pictures are correct.
I'm sure half the people reading this probably looked through a paper towel tube at this point.
The real question is is... how the hell can you be so lacking in ability that you can't even look through a tube?
I actually wonder the very same things with you people.
Have you noticed that I'm the one posting pictures through a tube, and you are the one unable to do it?
I think it's pretty clear who can't manage to simply hold up a tube and look through it. ::)
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Skepti won't just do the experiment he has asked for. Skepti, why? Show us. What is stopping you?
-
How do you know this? (bold)
Which part?
If you mean the vacuum of space then why do you think they have to pressurise the cabins of airliners so the passengers can breath at 40,000ft?
Low pressure, not a vacuum.
Space is not a perfect vacuum, but close. So you shouldn't have a problem with its existence as defined by science because it is simply at an extremely low pressure.
You know that can't work.
-
So going back to #2284, in your world Sceptimatic and in your mind pressure causes the effect that everyone else (wrongly obviously) attributes to gravity.
Everyone doesn't. Many do but not everyone.
And attributing to something that is not known and cannot be proven means you're following and appealing and adhering to what you believe is the authority.
Pressure is determined by force/area (N/m2). So what is causing the pressure in your world and why does it vary with altitude?
It varies because it's stacked.
All explained on the other thread.
My point being that you obviously accept that pressure exists but you say that gravity doesn't.
Because gravity doesn't.
You can't champion it because you actually do not know what it is you are trying to champion.
So given that pressure is an effect of a force (cause/effect) then if you are going to eliminate gravity as a force (since gravity doesn't exist in your model) then to have pressure you need to replace gravity with some other type of force. Which is?
Atmospheric pressure, which is explained in the other thread.
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Skepti won't just do the experiment he has asked for. Skepti, why? Show us. What is stopping you?
I have nothing to prove.
You people do have a lot to prove to keep your globe alive.
-
So going back to #2284, in your world Sceptimatic and in your mind pressure causes the effect that everyone else (wrongly obviously) attributes to gravity.
Everyone doesn't. Many do but not everyone.
And attributing to something that is not known and cannot be proemn means you're following and appealing and adhering to what you believe is the authority.
Oh the hypocrisy
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Skepti won't just do the experiment he has asked for. Skepti, why? Show us. What is stopping you?
I have nothing to prove.
You people do have a lot to prove to keep your globe alive.
LOL. Oh scepti.
70 pages of you insisting people do experiments exactly the way you want shows that you do indeed have a lot to prove, and have failed at all of it.
Why so scared to show your own work? Is it because you never actually performed the experiment yourself?
Or because you did... and it showed what EVERYONE ELSE SEES, the ground?
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Skepti won't just do the experiment he has asked for. Skepti, why? Show us. What is stopping you?
I have nothing to prove.
You people do have a lot to prove to keep your globe alive.
LOL. Oh scepti.
70 pages of you insisting people do experiments exactly the way you want shows that you do indeed have a lot to prove, and have failed at all of it.
Why so scared to show your own work? Is it because you never actually performed the experiment yourself?
Or because you did... and it showed what EVERYONE ELSE SEES, the ground?
You went from happy to do stuff to acting all weird.
Calm down and get back to proving me wrong.
You have all the gear so stop waiting for back pats and show me where I'm wrong by setting up as I asked.
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Skepti won't just do the experiment he has asked for. Skepti, why? Show us. What is stopping you?
I have nothing to prove.
You people do have a lot to prove to keep your globe alive.
LOL. Oh scepti.
70 pages of you insisting people do experiments exactly the way you want shows that you do indeed have a lot to prove, and have failed at all of it.
Why so scared to show your own work? Is it because you never actually performed the experiment yourself?
Or because you did... and it showed what EVERYONE ELSE SEES, the ground?
You went from happy to do stuff to acting all weird.
Calm down and get back to proving me wrong.
You have all the gear so stop waiting for back pats and show me where I'm wrong by setting up as I asked.
No, I never changed. You keep adding strange, and impossible requirements while refusing to do any work yourself.
I proved you wrong multiple times, you haven't changed anything by adding to your demands and accusing me of cheating.
I'm always happy to add reasonable additions to an experiment, but yours are now just "do all this extra stuff because I think you're cheating" which won't prove anything to anyone.
So... why won't you take a simple picture? What is it that you are so afraid of?
The truth? ;D
-
No, I never changed. You keep adding strange, and impossible requirements while refusing to do any work yourself.
Impossible requirements?
Take a look at the diagram. It's one extra tube and to level it off against the other.
You won't do it because it will show your earlier set up to be the con job it was.
I proved you wrong multiple times, you haven't changed anything by adding to your demands and accusing me of cheating.
You have not proved me wrong, at all...at any time...and you know this.
-
No, I never changed. You keep adding strange, and impossible requirements while refusing to do any work yourself.
Impossible requirements?
Take a look at the diagram. It's one extra tube and to level it off against the other.
You won't do it because it will show your earlier set up to be the con job it was.
I proved you wrong multiple times, you haven't changed anything by adding to your demands and accusing me of cheating.
You have not proved me wrong, at all...at any time...and you know this.
Take your own photo
Youve been proved wrong
And if not, feel free to TAKE YOUR OWN PHOTO
Aaaand to add
Youre a hypocrite as per knowing gravity vs knowing where the hologrpahic sun is.
-
No, I never changed. You keep adding strange, and impossible requirements while refusing to do any work yourself.
Impossible requirements?
Take a look at the diagram. It's one extra tube and to level it off against the other.
You won't do it because it will show your earlier set up to be the con job it was.
You demanded the picture through the tube also show the level on top of the tube which can only be seen from the side... care to explain how THAT works?
You don't even think about these things before demanding them, do you?
Well, not thinking is certainly your problem in general. :P
I proved you wrong multiple times, you haven't changed anything by adding to your demands and accusing me of cheating.
You have not proved me wrong, at all...at any time...and you know this.
Anyone can look through a tube and see exactly what my pictures show.
It's hilarious how you can continue to claim you see something totally different than the entire rest of the world. Yes... all tubes are faked except the one you have, that you never even looked through because you're so sure you are right.
You are the one hiding and refusing to show any pictures or proof.
This behavior of yours would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. Well, I suppose it's both!
-
Youre a hypocrite as per knowing gravity vs knowing where the hologrpahic sun is.
Not at all.
I don't cast my stuff off as fact. You lot do and that is dishonest.
-
You demanded the picture through the tube also show the level on top of the tube which can only be seen from the side... care to explain how THAT works?
I didn't ask you to do that. Pay attention.
You don't even think about these things before demanding them, do you?
I'm demanding nothing. I'm asking you to do the stuff and you seemed fine with it until I picked at it.
Well, not thinking is certainly your problem in general. :P
Is it my problem or your problem?
Anyone can look through a tube and see exactly what my pictures show.
I agree. I see what they show.
The issue is you're not showing what I asked due to not following it....likely deliberately.
It's hilarious how you can continue to claim you see something totally different than the entire rest of the world.
You would see something different if you followed the instructions instead of deliberately (in my opinion) skewing them.
Yes... all tubes are faked except the one you have, that you never even looked through because you're so sure you are right.
No tubes need to be faked. The setting up of the tubes is where the issue lies.
This behavior of yours would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. Well, I suppose it's both!
Feel free to have your digs. I don;t mind. But it does not answer any questions and certainly does not add anything provable from your side, which I find bemusing.
-
Atmospheric pressure, which is explained in the other thread.
Maybe it is. If so tell me exactly on what page of the other thread. You must know where it is because you wrote it. Or better still just explain to me here. What causes atmospheric pressure in your world? Pressure is a function of a force. But if gravity doesn't exist in your world then something else is creating the force. What is it?
I don't cast my stuff off as fact.
Really?. Since you won't accept anything else as fact (unless we can 'prove' it to you or 'show' it to you) then what have you got left? All we have from you is your opinions.
If you are not casting your 'stuff' as fact and you think everything else is made up by people being dishonest or indoctrinated. What do you cast as fact?
This holographic Sun of yours you believe might be created by some sort of crystal in the centre of the Earth beaming light onto a non-existent dome. But obviously as you say you are not casting that as an actual fact. But you won't accept that there is a physical body out there that we call the Sun either.
Well someone is right because in case you hadn't noticed there is a bright yellow thing in the sky which supplies light and heat to the Earth and keeps us all alive.
-
You demanded the picture through the tube also show the level on top of the tube which can only be seen from the side... care to explain how THAT works?
I didn't ask you to do that. Pay attention.
You pay attention to your own words. See here.
Use a simple level laid on the tube so I can see it to be truly level and that is still shows level as you look through the tube, along with a crosshair at the front of the tube.
So I am supposed to show you a level on top of the tube as I look through the tube. I already used a level, I already showed a picture through the tube.
But you want both in one picture. How's that supposed to work again?
Anyone can look through a tube and see exactly what my pictures show.
I agree. I see what they show.
The issue is you're not showing what I asked due to not following it....likely deliberately.
The issue is you don't get to demand stupid conditions and expect everyone to follow them to the letter.
Do your own experiment. You think I'm lying? Prove it with your own pictures.
It's hilarious how you can continue to claim you see something totally different than the entire rest of the world.
You would see something different if you followed the instructions instead of deliberately (in my opinion) skewing them.
The only one claiming I'm skewing them is you, with zero evidence.
Everyone else can just look through a tube and see the same thing I do.
If I was lying, there would be a dozen flat earthers proving me wrong. There is not.
This behavior of yours would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. Well, I suppose it's both!
Feel free to have your digs. I don;t mind. But it does not answer any questions and certainly does not add anything provable from your side, which I find bemusing.
[/quote]
From the guy who refuses to take a picture of a tube to show what he expects to see, I find it funny you accuse others of not adding anything, who actually put effort and work into it.
And remember, you're calling me a cheater and a liar. So don't try and take the high horse here.
In this entire discussion what have you added, other than your whiny demands and crying about fakery? That would be nothing.
Remember, you are the one who made this claim about not being able to see the ground through a tube. Yet you refuse to back it up.
I wonder why. ::)
-
You know that can't work.
And there you go with more baseless claims.
Just what part can't work, and why can't it?
And attributing to something that is not known and cannot be proven means you're following and appealing and adhering to what you believe is the authority.
That would be your nonsense, not the mainstream model which is quite well substantiated.
Again, you not liking the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Pressure is determined by force/area (N/m2). So what is causing the pressure in your world and why does it vary with altitude?
It varies because it's stacked.
All explained on the other thread.
You mean all repeatedly deflected from in the other thread with no explanation at all. Just like in this thread, you repeatedly deflect and offer no explanation at all.
So given that pressure is an effect of a force (cause/effect) then if you are going to eliminate gravity as a force (since gravity doesn't exist in your model) then to have pressure you need to replace gravity with some other type of force. Which is?
Atmospheric pressure, which is explained in the other thread.
And that has been repeatedly shown to not work.
Atmospheric pressure typically pushes things up, not down.
It cannot replace gravity, and the closest you have to an explanation for why the atmosphere stacks implicitly requires gravity.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Skepti won't just do the experiment he has asked for. Skepti, why? Show us. What is stopping you?
I have nothing to prove.
You people do have a lot to prove to keep your globe alive.
You have plenty to prove.
You came into this thread and spouted a bunch of outright lies which you have refused to back up at all.
These lies of yours have been repeatedly refuted with both logical argument and actual evidence, strongly supporting the globe.
So there is no actual threat to the globe here, and nothing more needed to keep it alive. It is alive and strong.
It is your FE nonsense which is dead, with no support from you at all.
No response to the simple questions and logical arguments which show your claims to be wrong; no actual challenge to the evidence provided showing you are wrong; no evidence provided by you to back up your wild claims.
So you are the one with everything to prove. Not us.
Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
You won't do it because it will show your earlier set up to be the con job it was.
How?
If his earlier setup was a con (which you only claim it is because it shows you are wrong), then there is nothing stopping him from repeating the same con with 2 tubes.
2 Tubes is just a needless complication that you are throwing out there to dismiss it.
If you are so sure it is a con, then YOU DO IT!
Go find a nice long hallway and take a picture through a tube from one end of the hallway, showing that the floor, ceiling, and walls are not visible.
You have not proved me wrong, at all...at any time...and you know this.
No, he knows he has proven you wrong, just like everyone here, including yourself.
You have no rational objection to it, and don't want to admit you are wrong as you have no concern for the truth at all, so you just lie and say it is a con job.
But how?
What magic was he using to con people?
Forget about seeing the ground, it is quite clear you can see more of an object than the physical size of the tube.
That alone kills your nonsense.
It shows the light is not simply coming in parallel like you claim.
Instead it clearly shows that light is coming in from above and below the tube, like any sane person would know happens.
This means that you can see things below the tube, like the ground.
So you have been disproven. You just refuse to admit it.
But you rejecting reality doesn't magically change it.
Again, if you are so sure you are right, DO IT YOURSELF!
Show everyone just what you think you should see through the tube.
-
Again, if you are so sure you are right, DO IT YOURSELF!
Show everyone just what you think you should see through the tube.
JB I thought you would have realised by now. Sceptimatic doesn't need do anything himself. Why should he? When you are so sure that your model is correct, true and real and better than anything else that science has managed to come up with like Scepti has, he doesn't need to do anything himself. He has satisfied himself that he is right so that's all that matters to him. We can either accept it (like we apparently do when it comes to believing the Earth is a globe) or we can lump it.
The fact that he cannot answer a direct question with a direct answer is irrelevant. The fact that he says he has answered all our questions before in the 'other' discussion (although I can't for the life of me find where) means he doesn't have to repeat himself by answering them 'again'. By sending us down a false path with the false expectation of finding the answer, he manages to set up a deflection and avoid answering the question at all. Nice dodging there Scep.
So the reality of it is even though his 'model' is so vastly better than what science has come up with.. he doesn't actually know anything about his model because... well I wonder why?..
-
Move the pupil at the near end of the level tube down to the bottom of the tube so that the the bottom of the near end is in line with the bottom of the far end, and the angular light from the ground through the tube's far end to the pupil, is reduced to zero.
This isn't true. In a purely mathematical sense you could accomplish this, but in the real world you will never be able to put your eye exactly 0cm above the bottom of the tube.
Your eye will always be above the bottom of the tube, even just a small amount. Your retina is not a 1 dimensional point after all.
And if your height above the bottom of the tube is not zero, then the downward angle you see is not zero either, and the line from your eye to the end of the tube will project far enough out and you will see as far below the tube as you want.
But I'm not sure what that is meant to accomplish. Why look from the bottom of the tube. Why not the top? Or the side? Or 37 degrees from the bottom?
It all seems pretty nonsensical.
It's not nonsensical if sceptimatic's main concern is if the earth is curved you shouldn't be able to see the ground through a level tube.
The only reason you can in this cockneyed experiment, is because your pupil is centralized and likely dilated between 4mm and 8mm. In a 40 mm diameter tube, that's a circle10 to 20 percent of the diameter of the tube, not a pinpoint. That increases your angular field of view, again.
If you look through the tube along the bottom, lining the near end and the far end up, (and you can, I did it this morning) you will not see the ground.
To make things easier, grab a fresh toilet roll with the paper still on, and try it. You can reduce the angle of view downwards to zero, which is what this experiment calls for.
Do I need to get illustrative and do my own diagrams for you lot?
Diagrams always help. Do I need to draw some, did you not understand my response?
Again, why are you insisting we look along the bottom of the tube when scepti has been clearly demanding we look through the center? Remember the centered crosshairs?
Why suddenly change the experiment? Why not look along the top or the side? What's your reasoning for changing things?
Sceptimatic's "experiment" as he outlines it, is a trick. It's a ruse. He could be a party magician in his spare time, or a travelling conman selling used toilet rolls instead of snake oil. "Step right up, ladies and gentleman. Step right up! Proof the Earth is flat in the palm of your hand!" He would make a fortune.
Sceptimatic knows that if your eye is centered in the middle of one end of the tube, you will always see the ground through the other end. This way he can always argue you should not be able to see ground while looking out level with the ground, on a curved earth, only sky - thus that earth is actually flat. But he is parlaying that his experiment forces you to only see straight ahead level, if the tube is level. This is his trick.
Change the experiment slightly. You are still looking through the dunny roll. If he is as honest as he says he is, sceptimatic should be all for this slight variation on his experiment.
Drop your eye level to the bottom of the tube, and you will see along a level surface and above that level surface only - sky.
-
Sceptimatic's "experiment" as he outlines it, is a trick. It's a ruse. He could be a party magician in his spare time, or a travelling conman selling used toilet rolls instead of snake oil. "Step right up, ladies and gentleman. Step right up! Proof the Earth is flat in the palm of your hand!" He would make a fortune.
Absolutely. Where as your party magician is an expert visual illusionist, so people like Scepi are expert written illusionists. The only difference is that the party magician can almost make you believe that what you are seeing is actually happening whereas Scepti has yet to provide a convincing argument to make me believe he is right.
But no matter... as Scepti has said repeatedly he is not out to present his model as fact or to make anyone believe a word he says. So in that way he has succeeded.
-
Sceptimatic has succeeded in convincing at least one person of the flat power of his experiment - himself. A form of self-hypnosis?
Honestly, where would society be if the toilet roll had not been invented? We'd all still be back around page 4 of this thread!
-
This whole forum, regardless of the discussion topic is about 'one upmanship' and playing 'devils advocate' on the part of the flat Earthers.
They know they are in the minority as far as what they believe in is concerned so if they think they can demonstrate that nothing can be proved, shown or demonstrated very easily then they would say they have won their case. Well good for you is all I can say.
Bottom line for me is that I know what I know and I know that I believe and that is good enough for me. I am not going to continue splitting progressively finer hairs in order to try and win an argument.
If that is how flat Earthers work in order to try and make themselves feel good and believe they know better than round Earth knowers then fine. Go ahead and believe you are.
The observant among you will recognise that this post is an exact duplicate of my latest post under the questions regarding FE theory. No that isn't a mistake. I thought I would post the same comments here because they are equally applicable to this discussion as well.
-
Flat earthers place the highest priority on proving something yourself, rather than relying on the word of experts. Fair enough.
I'm happy to entertain these practical exercises or experiments, for that purpose. It's educational on two levels. First, is how difficult it actually is, to prove without fancy equipment, to a person the earth is not flat. Secondly, how much proof a person needs to deny, to maintain a flat earth belief.
Ofcourse, the fun is in the thrill of the chase. Who's experiment or proof, will get there first, to finally penetrate and tear down sceptimatic's flat earth suit of armour? How will it creatively be denied?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to the test.
There's a lot of digs and what not in the last few posts but they amount to nothing.
JJA is getting the closest to following instruction but has failed when the nitty gritty's starting to be offered.
This is where the bickering starts ....and....of course, I fully expected it.
-
Flat earthers place the highest priority on proving something yourself, rather than relying on the word of experts. Fair enough.
Well that follows. Flat Earther think they know better than anyone else so naturally because the word of experts tells a different story to the one flat Earth believers subscribe to then their natural conclusion is that the experts are lying. Which is the core assertion of all conspiracy theorists.
-
Flat earthers place the highest priority on proving something yourself, rather than relying on the word of experts. Fair enough.
Well that follows. Flat Earther think they know better than anyone else so naturally because the word of experts tells a different story to the one flat Earth believers subscribe to then their natural conclusion is that the experts are lying. Which is the core assertion of all conspiracy theorists.
You people believe you know more than alternate thinkers because your mainstream platter has been.... and is, already laid out for you.
This gives you the ability to stand on a pedestal of like minded peers who police each other into that thought adherence process.
It's basically every part of the Asch conformity experiment.
-
seriously
the tube doesn't distort any optics.
it just limits the field of view - which to JB and JJA have shown doesn't matter when the thing you're looking at is really really far away.
any of JJA's photos could just as well have been a regular non tube photo, with a manually drawn circle on it - because what you see is what you see (james bond opening).
you've still yet to show any relevance.
as put to you, the curve is VERY REALLY REALLY FAR AWAY.
in a video
in a simulation
in calculation
in diagram and in photo.
yet still you insist on tube on tube action.
the point?
...
none.
because requirement for the horizon (on a ball earth) to be "eye level" has been bunked by JB and JJA and everyone else and EVEN YOU!
so
find a point
get to it
post a picture to prove it.
-
seriously
the tube doesn't distort any optics.
it just limits the field of view - which to JB and JJA have shown doesn't matter when the thing you're looking at is really really far away.
any of JJA's photos could just as well have been a regular non tube photo, with a manually drawn circle on it - because what you see is what you see (james bond opening).
you've still yet to show any relevance.
as put to you, the curve is VERY REALLY REALLY FAR AWAY.
in a video
in a simulation
in calculation
in diagram and in photo.
yet still you insist on tube on tube action.
the point?
...
none.
because requirement for the horizon (on a ball earth) to be "eye level" has been bunked by JB and JJA and everyone else and EVEN YOU!
so
find a point
get to it
post a picture to prove it.
Try the diagram as I've put it and see for yourself what's what.
-
You people believe you know more than alternate thinkers because your mainstream platter has been
So just because you are an alternate thinker does that automatically also mean you know better? Having different opinions about something doesn't mean your opinion is any more correct than someone elses. You believe it is obviously otherwise you wouldn't think it. But it doesn't make it correct.
I have no idea about what you know or don't know so how could I possibly believe I know more than you do? What I do know is that you don't seem to know a huge amount about your own model. You still haven't explained where the force is coming from to generate the pressure that you think exists instead of gravity in your world.
If you have explained it already in the 'other' discussion as you say you have then tell me the post number in that discussion where you explained it and I will have a read.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtWVnQtf/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to the test.
There's a lot of digs and what not in the last few posts but they amount to nothing.
JJA is getting the closest to following instruction but has failed when the nitty gritty's starting to be offered.
This is where the bickering starts ....and....of course, I fully expected it.
Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.
Using bigger fonts doesn't make you right.
Why don't you post pictures of your own experiment? Oh right, you can't figure out how to look through a tube yourself so have to beg others to do it for you, then cry when people stop putting up with your bullshit.
What amounts to nothing, is your own experiments. You claim you did them, so where are your pictures? Only in your imagination.
Try using blinking fonts next, I hear that is even more truthy. ::)
-
seriously
the tube doesn't distort any optics.
it just limits the field of view - which to JB and JJA have shown doesn't matter when the thing you're looking at is really really far away.
any of JJA's photos could just as well have been a regular non tube photo, with a manually drawn circle on it - because what you see is what you see (james bond opening).
you've still yet to show any relevance.
as put to you, the curve is VERY REALLY REALLY FAR AWAY.
in a video
in a simulation
in calculation
in diagram and in photo.
yet still you insist on tube on tube action.
the point?
...
none.
because requirement for the horizon (on a ball earth) to be "eye level" has been bunked by JB and JJA and everyone else and EVEN YOU!
so
find a point
get to it
post a picture to prove it.
Try the diagram as I've put it and see for yourself what's what.
No
Jja has provided sufficient photos
time for you to photo up.
Show us the right way
-
I actually think this alternative thinking idea is quite a good thing when done in the right way for the right reasons.
For example how many people who have ever lived have thought there is a stronger case for saying that the Sun is a projected holographic image from a source that no one has ever found or even seen or could find, over the conventional scientific account that the Sun is a G2V type main sequence yellow dwarf star? If you were to conduct an independent, random poll of any number of people which would they be most likely to choose? I accept that if you were to ask 100 people selected at random what they thought the Sun is, you wouldn't get 100 people replying a star. But equally they wouldn't say it is a holographic image either.
When I was doing my A level in physics many years ago I had to carry out experiments which have been a standard part of the course for years. They are well documented and the equipment needed is standard kit for any college. They have been tried and tested again and again and again with the same outcome. When I did the experiments myself I got the same result. That is not indoctrination. That is confirmation by experiment.
Now obviously there are certain experiments that I cannot perform myself. That would be impractical. However others with suitable facilities and equipment can perform these experiments which it is impossible for me to perform myself. Are you (the flat Earthers) suggesting that I should ignore and discard any information these people who perform these experiments and report back their results as lies and fabrication. Are you suggesting that I should only believe and accept information that I can personally obtain and verify myself? That would be pretty limiting don't you think? Life is simply too short to rely on ones self to learn everything by ourselves.
I am all for 'alternative thinking' when there is a clear and obvious need for it. Distrust of the entire scientific community is not though a reason for alternative thinking. Recognition that we live on a globe is something that has been with us for the majority of human history. Those who historically believed the Earth was flat did not form their beliefs from distrust. They formed them because at the time when they lived, we didn't know as much about the world as we do now.
There are plenty of 'alternative thinkers' in science even today. That's what scientists do when they are trying find out the reasons for little imperfections in existing models. We are never complacent in science. Because nature writes the rules and she will continue to do so.
-
Flat earthers place the highest priority on proving something yourself, rather than relying on the word of experts. Fair enough.
Well that follows. Flat Earther think they know better than anyone else so naturally because the word of experts tells a different story to the one flat Earth believers subscribe to then their natural conclusion is that the experts are lying. Which is the core assertion of all conspiracy theorists.
You people believe you know more than alternate thinkers because your mainstream platter has been.... and is, already laid out for you.
This gives you the ability to stand on a pedestal of like minded peers who police each other into that thought adherence process.
It's basically every part of the Asch conformity experiment.
No, it's called discernment. The ability to recognize and separate fact from fiction.
The Asch Conformity Experiment, ironically applies to you, sceptimatic, with how much reality you are prepared to ignore to be part of the flat earth group. By all accounts, you're prepared to ignore a lot of reality!
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Since this forum was first made, people like yourself have likely been saying the very same stuff. And guess what?
Yep, you're thinking correctly. Nobody has done anything that proves a spinning globe and nobody has disproved the alternatives for it.
You might as well say " what would you do is us globalists posted up a picture of a real unicorn."
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
-
All your posts consist of now Sceptimatic is throwing out disparaging remarks about people who think differently to you. What is the point of that?
You say that the affect that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by pressure and gravity doesn't actually exist. OK but pressure is caused by a force. You can't just magic pressure out of nowhere. So what is the force behind this pressure in your your world if gravity doesn't exist? I have asked this a couple of times now but you still haven't provided an answer. You say you have already answered it elsewhere in another discussion so point me to that answer.
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
You have shown repeatedly you simply won't accept being wrong. This discussion is a perfect example.
But if you are open minded as you say, what specific evidence would you accept that would prove to you the Earth is round?
Can you answer that?
-
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
But you know that will never happen because if Sceptimatic senses that something is being asked or shown which shows he is wrong, he will just change his own rules to suit. Because (by his own admission) he only has to prove anything to himself, he cannot by default be shown to be wrong about anything.
what specific evidence would you accept that would prove to you the Earth is round?
This can be applied to any flat Earther. Their basic position is that anything which shows or evidences that the Earth is not flat has been faked or deliberately misrepresented and can therefore be discredited and ignored. It's easy to conclude a belief is right if you choose to ignore all the evidence which shows it isn't.
-
There it is for anyone wanting to put it to the test.
So why haven't you?
There's a lot of digs and what not in the last few posts but they amount to nothing.
You mean there is a lot of calling you out, which you don't have any honest rational response to so you will just pretend your nonsense is still sound?
JJA is getting the closest to following instruction but has failed when the nitty gritty's starting to be offered.
You mean he followed your instructions, clearly showed you were completely incorrect, and then didn't bother putting in more effort when you just throw in more and more demands and insult him by claiming he is trying to con you? Especially when even with your extra demands, you would come up with the same crap.
Why would anyone want to follow your ridiculous demands when you will just insult them and throw in more ridiculous demands?
Like I said before, if you want anyone to bother any more you need to back yourself into a corner so you can't just dismiss whatever they give you and throw in more ridiculous demands.
Yep, you're thinking correctly. Nobody has done anything that proves a spinning globe and nobody has disproved the alternatives for it.
You not liking it and dismissing it as a con or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.
Your garbage has been disproven countless times.
The fact you continually avoid simple questions demonstrates this beyond any sane doubt.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
Like you have shown to be wrong repeatedly?
Like how JJA provided photos clearly showing that as an object gets further away, you can see more of it, clearly showing that you don't just magically see out in straight lines; as well as the numerous diagrams I have provided clearly showing you are wrong about your magic tube; as well as clearly showing you are wrong regarding seeing the ground out of said tube, and even seeing the RE.
Including a logical argument you are yet to refute at all.
And of course you repeated contradictions means you MUST be wrong.
You have been shown to be wrong so many times it isn't funny. You just refuse to admit it.
If you wish to disagree, then feel free to answer the question you have been avoiding for so long, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE REACHING THE EYE?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
If there is nothing stopping this blue line from reaching the eye you can see things BELOW the tube. This means your entire argument for why you can't see the RE through it is wrong.
And then it all follows that almost everything you have said in this thread is wrong.
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
Sceptimatic, I actually think I could. :-\ But, I have some reluctance.
Excuse the irony, but I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of ruining your Santa Claus - the flat earth. :-\ When I post a photo up and all, just promise me you'll do your best to discredit what I do, ok?
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and everybody else on this thread!
-
and nobody has disproved the alternatives for it
No one has proved as correct the alternatives for the spinning globe either have they.
-
All your posts consist of now Sceptimatic is throwing out disparaging remarks about people who think differently to you. What is the point of that?
You say that the affect that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by pressure and gravity doesn't actually exist. OK but pressure is caused by a force. You can't just magic pressure out of nowhere. So what is the force behind this pressure in your your world if gravity doesn't exist? I have asked this a couple of times now but you still haven't provided an answer. You say you have already answered it elsewhere in another discussion so point me to that answer.
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for other than what I've given you.
You know air can be compressed. You absolutely know this to be fact. You simply cannot deny it because it's so easily provable.
You accept this, right?
You accept that there is atmosphere and it is springy when compressed...meaning it pushes right back against the energy/force pushing against it, as long as it can be trapped to be compressed, either forced into a container or applied energy push against a denser resistance to it, like a wall, or water.
You can also understand that compressing air against water will leave a parting of that water, as in it will create a dip.
You can also appreciate that the dip can only be held for as long as there is applied energy/push to that area and you also know that force is acted upon equally by the water pushed away against a mass of water that is equally pushed away over distance and area but in much smaller quantity over that area. A dispersal of energy, if you like.
All real and by larger visual of happenings to the naked eye, it can be deduced that under smaller set up that the naked eye and even microscope may not see, it is likely to be the same set up of compression and energy which creates it, along with vibration...by mass upon mass or mass resisting mass in whatever density that may be to create such differences in forces of reaction to that action.
No fictional gravity required in any of this.
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
You have shown repeatedly you simply won't accept being wrong. This discussion is a perfect example.
But if you are open minded as you say, what specific evidence would you accept that would prove to you the Earth is round?
Can you answer that?
I'll accept any proof of your spinning globe as long as it is a proof.
Do you have any real proof?
Do you have any real proof?
-
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
But you know that will never happen because if Sceptimatic senses that something is being asked or shown which shows he is wrong, he will just change his own rules to suit. Because (by his own admission) he only has to prove anything to himself, he cannot by default be shown to be wrong about anything.
what specific evidence would you accept that would prove to you the Earth is round?
This can be applied to any flat Earther. Their basic position is that anything which shows or evidences that the Earth is not flat has been faked or deliberately misrepresented and can therefore be discredited and ignored. It's easy to conclude a belief is right if you choose to ignore all the evidence which shows it isn't.
You are armed with every book you need in order to prove what you believe.
You are also armed with a mass of people with that like mind of yourself and the very same access to those very same so called proof's.
You should have absolutely no problem in ensuring I have no comeback in any way shape or form....but here we are, still at it.
So what's gone wrong on your part and the part of your like minded peers?
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
Sceptimatic, I actually think I could. :-\ But, I have some reluctance.
Excuse the irony, but I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of ruining your Santa Claus - the flat earth. :-\ When I post a photo up and all, just promise me you'll do your best to discredit what I do, ok?
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and everybody else on this thread!
Go for it and let's see what you've got.
-
and nobody has disproved the alternatives for it
No one has proved as correct the alternatives for the spinning globe either have they.
I believe the evidence that disproves the spinning globe is the easiest evidence of any.
The only issue now is in finding out what the real Earth actually is.
We know for an absolute fact it isn't a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
Simple observation and physical proof of water level and atmosphere is way more than enough to kick that into touch.
The only argument keeping it all alive is fictional gravity. A supposed force that cannot be explained as a reality nor proven to be a reality but can become a storyline to the masses just as unicorns can become...or even santa claus or the tooth fairy......etc......etc.....etc..
-
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
What's preventing denpressure from working on a globe, even spinning Earth?
-
I believe the evidence that disproves the spinning globe is the easiest evidence of any.
What is that then? If it is so obvious then give me just one example of it.
We know for an absolute fact it isn't a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
No we don't because it is. Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it an absolute fact does it. If it is so obvious that the Earth is not a spinning globe as you insist then don't you think it would be a little more widely known after all this time and not just something that conspiracy theorists go on about all the time? But then conspiracy theorists know better than anyone else don't they.
The only argument keeping it all alive is fictional gravity.
So if gravity is fictional what is the force which produces your 'pressure'? Third or fourth time asking this question!
Maybe if I increase the text size and embolden it like you often do to what others have said you might take more notice of the question.
You keep saying you are not presenting your model as fact but time and time again that's exactly what you actually do.
-
What will you do, if one of us posts up a photo we took ourselves with a normal camera that irrefutably proves Earth is not flat? Will you psychologically be ok?
Unlikely, as he's never answered the subject of this thread in 70+ pages.
I don't think he can comprehend the very concept of being wrong.
I actually could....if....I say....if, you can actually show I'm wrong.
You have shown repeatedly you simply won't accept being wrong. This discussion is a perfect example.
But if you are open minded as you say, what specific evidence would you accept that would prove to you the Earth is round?
Can you answer that?
I'll accept any proof of your spinning globe as long as it is a proof.
Do you have any real proof?
Do you have any real proof?
So you still either won't answer my question, or simply don't understand it. Not surprised you haven't changed.
Every time I've asked this, you always deflect, deflect, deflect and demand that others give YOU answers that you can simply reject with no effort on your part. You've spent 70 pages avoiding the subject of this thread and derailing it.
I think you simply can't understand the question I'm asking, as you have never shown anything but confusion when pressed on it.
I'll ask one more time, just in case... what evidence would you accept that the Earth was round. What would it take to convince you?
-
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
What's preventing denpressure from working on a globe, even spinning Earth?
Your globe.
No foundation for a dome.
The impossibility of a spinning globe to keep atmosphere as we know it to be.
I know, I know, I know....but...but...but...it supposedly spins with Earth and all that absolute sickening nonsense.
-
gravity is fictional what is the force which produces your 'pressure'? Third or fourth time asking this question!
Maybe if I increase the text size and embolden it like you often do to what others have said you might take more notice of the question.
Molecular stacking and resistance of the stacking.
Don't be a JackBlack.
-
I'll ask one more time, just in case... what evidence would you accept that the Earth was round. What would it take to convince you?
Provable evidence.
Over to you.
-
I'll ask one more time, just in case... what evidence would you accept that the Earth was round. What would it take to convince you?
Provable evidence.
Over to you.
You still don't understand the question, do you?
What would be provable evidence? Give me an example.
-
I'll ask one more time, just in case... what evidence would you accept that the Earth was round. What would it take to convince you?
Provable evidence.
Over to you.
You still don't understand the question, do you?
What would be provable evidence? Give me an example.
Seeing as you argue your spinning globe like a person who makes it appear you have all the answers to prove your globe, how about you throw me a piece of provable evidence out there that is impossible to refute.
Can you do this?
Because.....if you can......then you will be able to spread the word, aided by myself and whoever else, that nobody needs to question it anymore.
Over to you.
One absolute nailed on provable thing.
Do you have one?
-
But when you lay down the rules about what you accept or not as 'provable evidence' that kind of tips the balance of favour in your direction don't you think. There are lots of points of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe but you invent all sorts of things to counter that evidence and therefore discard that as evidence.
-
Molecular stacking and resistance of the stacking.
That is not an answer, that is just a claim. What would be causing the resistance of the stacking? What forces exist between molecules to cause the resistance?
-
But when you lay down the rules about what you accept or not as 'provable evidence' that kind of tips the balance of favour in your direction don't you think. There are lots of points of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe but you invent all sorts of things to counter that evidence and therefore discard that as evidence.
If you can't prove the globe you smash into everyone's face, like the rest of the globalists like you, then what does that say about it?
You have it all on a massive silver platter, all handed to you and gorged on with gusto...and yet....and yet....here you are still trying to back it up with absolutely nothing.
Come on, surely you must have some proof. What proof is there?
-
Molecular stacking and resistance of the stacking.
That is not an answer, that is just a claim.
It's my claim and my answer.
A you trying to coax me to provide you with a molecular microscopic view of something you already see through
What would be causing the resistance of the stacking?
Atmospheric molecules.
What forces exist between molecules to cause the resistance?
More molecules.
-
No I'm just trying to find out more about your model. Like you said people should question things and not just accept what they are told. So that's exactly what I am doing in relation to your model. Asking you questions about it so I can learn more about it. If you know what you are talking about you should be able to answer them easily. If you have already answered them then simply show me where. Specifically where I mean.
Up to now all you are doing through your 'answers' to my questions is telling me I should accept what you say. Because you are not actually proving anything. I ask you what forces exist between molecules to cause resistance? Your answer: more molecules.
So I place a half a million polystyrene balls in a tank. What forces exist between them? Now I add another half million in the same tank. Is there any measurable difference in the forces between them. No.
So what force exists between your molecules to create a measurable pressure that we would call gravity?
-
I'll ask one more time, just in case... what evidence would you accept that the Earth was round. What would it take to convince you?
Provable evidence.
Over to you.
You still don't understand the question, do you?
What would be provable evidence? Give me an example.
Seeing as you argue your spinning globe like a person who makes it appear you have all the answers to prove your globe, how about you throw me a piece of provable evidence out there that is impossible to refute.
Can you do this?
Because.....if you can......then you will be able to spread the word, aided by myself and whoever else, that nobody needs to question it anymore.
Over to you.
One absolute nailed on provable thing.
Do you have one?
Why can't you for once try and understand a question before just going on your "not a globe" rants and demands?
It's a simple question... but you seem totally incapable of understanding it, because it means trying to imagine you might be wrong. And that is clearly beyond your abilities. I'm not even sure you are even trying at this point. Do you really get the meaning of anything people tell you, or just look for key words and then copy paste a response?
Any normal person could understand and answer the question I asked. It's very simple... what evidence would change your mind. It could be anything. But the fact you can't even UNDERSTAND the question let alone answer it means you are completely lost in your own dogma and beliefs. You are stating clearly that you will accept no evidence, ever, so it's pointless to give you any.
Not that any of this is a surprise.
-
Molecular stacking and resistance of the stacking.
That is not an answer, that is just a claim.
It's my claim and my answer.
A you trying to coax me to provide you with a molecular microscopic view of something you already see through
What would be causing the resistance of the stacking?
Atmospheric molecules.
What forces exist between molecules to cause the resistance?
More molecules.
No need for quatum level denpressure.
Just figure out why hair cant be pushed down and why i have no issue walking and not being pushed left right
-
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
What's preventing denpressure from working on a globe, even spinning Earth?
Your globe.
No foundation for a dome.
The impossibility of a spinning globe to keep atmosphere as we know it to be.
I know, I know, I know....but...but...but...it supposedly spins with Earth and all that absolute sickening nonsense.
I agree, denpressure still needs some sort of "containment" to work. But the dome (now a containment) doesn't need a foundation for itself and doesn't need to be dome shaped, per se. It could just be a membrane that encircles and encloses the globe earth. And it along with earth could actually be rotating. Rotation probably isn't that important in this though experiment. But a membrane enclosed globe earth could work with denpressure. Why wouldn't it?
-
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for other than what I've given you.
How about an accurate explanation rather than nonsense and deflection which doesn't address the issues raised?
I'll accept any proof of your spinning globe as long as it is a proof.
No, you will just dismiss it as a con-job, or just ignore it; like you have done with everything provided that has shown you are wrong.
Do you have any real proof?
Do you have any proof of any of the nonsense you spout which has been refuted countless times?
Like proof that looking through a simple level tube you magically can't see the ground.
Perhaps by explaining what will magically stop the light ray indicated by the blue line from reaching your eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
And then you can prove that the RE would be invisible, or otherwise prove that it doesn't have a horizon.
You should have absolutely no problem in ensuring I have no comeback in any way shape or form
Why?
Considering your comebacks amount to dismissing evidence as con-jobs and just completely ignoring logical arguments, I would say it would be impossible to ever reach the point of ensuring people like you have no comebacks. You will always be able to just dismiss it as a conjob without rational thought.
What is important is a logical rebuttal or a rational comeback, and you have none of them.
I believe the evidence that disproves the spinning globe is the easiest evidence of any.
Yet you are completely incapable of providing any.
We know for an absolute fact it isn't a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
No, you foolishly believe it with no rational justification at all.
Rather than even attempt to point out a problem with the globe you need to set up numerous pathetic strawmen to defeat.
That shows just how weak your position is.
Simple observation and physical proof of water level and atmosphere is way more than enough to kick that into touch.
Like what?
The simple observation of the horizon being observed to be below eye level, supporting the globe?
The simple observation that presumably level water over long distances obscures the bottom of objects which are above the water?
They indicate Earth is round.
As for the atmosphere, do you mean like how large scale weather systems show that not only is Earth round, it rotates.
The only argument keeping it all alive is fictional gravity.
No, Earth was known to be round long before gravity was given a name.
And again, no rational argument from you and instead just pathetic dismissal and ridicule. Gravity is backed up by mountains of evidence.
Your globe.
No foundation for a dome.
The globe would be the foundation in your nonsense.
The "dome" would be a spherical shell around it.
As you haven't provided any actual explanation for what causes the stacking and what causes the pressure gradient, there is nothing stopping it from working just as well on the very real globe.
The impossibility of a spinning globe to keep atmosphere as we know it to be.
What impossibility?
Don't be a JackBlack.
You mean don't clearly and easily point out what is wrong with your claims/"explanations"?
You were being asked what causes the atmosphere to stack. Saying it stacks is not an explanation.
-
It is interesting to see just how far or how long you can survive when you simply rely on belief. Sceptimatic is good with claims but he cannot be specific. He can't give us actual numbers that are based on measurement. That is the difference between science and belief.
Whenever a specific question is asked about what he believes he cannot provide a specific answer, other than to claim that he has already provided an answer. Yet he cannot provide a specific link or any specific information about where that answer actually is. Answers or claims which are based on belief are unavoidably vague.
If you want to believe in something badly or strongly enough then of course you can make it true in your mind. You can convince yourself that what you believe to be true is true so much that you find yourself believing equally that those who believe anything else are clueless and 'indoctrinated'.
The more you press these 'alternative' thinkers the more they will stand resolute that they are correct in what they believe. So this topic could go on for another 80 pages and you will still be arguing about what you can see through tubes etc.
-
No I'm just trying to find out more about your model. Like you said people should question things and not just accept what they are told. So that's exactly what I am doing in relation to your model. Asking you questions about it so I can learn more about it. If you know what you are talking about you should be able to answer them easily. If you have already answered them then simply show me where. Specifically where I mean.
Up to now all you are doing through your 'answers' to my questions is telling me I should accept what you say. Because you are not actually proving anything. I ask you what forces exist between molecules to cause resistance? Your answer: more molecules.
So I place a half a million polystyrene balls in a tank. What forces exist between them? Now I add another half million in the same tank. Is there any measurable difference in the forces between them. No.
So what force exists between your molecules to create a measurable pressure that we would call gravity?
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Obviously you do.
Do you agree that the mass of each is roughly the same?
I'll take that as a yes.
Ok, so you can understand that having one mass above another means the one below is holding up the one above. Fair enough?
This means the one below has to cater for that above mass upon it and resist that mass but it requires a foundation in order to do so.
Where could that foundation be?
It has to be under it to be used as a leverage or resistance to enable it to resist the mass or masses, above.
-
Why can't you for once try and understand a question before just going on your "not a globe" rants and demands?
It's a simple question... but you seem totally incapable of understanding it, because it means trying to imagine you might be wrong. And that is clearly beyond your abilities. I'm not even sure you are even trying at this point. Do you really get the meaning of anything people tell you, or just look for key words and then copy paste a response?
Any normal person could understand and answer the question I asked. It's very simple... what evidence would change your mind. It could be anything. But the fact you can't even UNDERSTAND the question let alone answer it means you are completely lost in your own dogma and beliefs. You are stating clearly that you will accept no evidence, ever, so it's pointless to give you any.
Not that any of this is a surprise.
I've already answered.
What exactly would you like me to say?
-
No need for quatum level denpressure.
Just figure out why hair cant be pushed down and why i have no issue walking and not being pushed left right
Already been explained but, as usual, you always go right back to square one.
Deliberately, In my opinion.
-
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
What's preventing denpressure from working on a globe, even spinning Earth?
Your globe.
No foundation for a dome.
The impossibility of a spinning globe to keep atmosphere as we know it to be.
I know, I know, I know....but...but...but...it supposedly spins with Earth and all that absolute sickening nonsense.
I agree, denpressure still needs some sort of "containment" to work. But the dome (now a containment) doesn't need a foundation for itself and doesn't need to be dome shaped, per se. It could just be a membrane that encircles and encloses the globe earth. And it along with earth could actually be rotating. Rotation probably isn't that important in this though experiment. But a membrane enclosed globe earth could work with denpressure. Why wouldn't it?
No it couldn't.
You could not stack atmosphere on something global and spinning.
I think you're smart enough to know this.
-
What impossibility?
Your globe.
-
Why can't you for once try and understand a question before just going on your "not a globe" rants and demands?
It's a simple question... but you seem totally incapable of understanding it, because it means trying to imagine you might be wrong. And that is clearly beyond your abilities. I'm not even sure you are even trying at this point. Do you really get the meaning of anything people tell you, or just look for key words and then copy paste a response?
Any normal person could understand and answer the question I asked. It's very simple... what evidence would change your mind. It could be anything. But the fact you can't even UNDERSTAND the question let alone answer it means you are completely lost in your own dogma and beliefs. You are stating clearly that you will accept no evidence, ever, so it's pointless to give you any.
Not that any of this is a surprise.
I've already answered.
What exactly would you like me to say?
No, you never answered.
What I would like you to say is simple. What specific piece of evidence would make you change your mind? What would it take?
Give us an example.
-
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
What's preventing denpressure from working on a globe, even spinning Earth?
Your globe.
No foundation for a dome.
The impossibility of a spinning globe to keep atmosphere as we know it to be.
I know, I know, I know....but...but...but...it supposedly spins with Earth and all that absolute sickening nonsense.
I agree, denpressure still needs some sort of "containment" to work. But the dome (now a containment) doesn't need a foundation for itself and doesn't need to be dome shaped, per se. It could just be a membrane that encircles and encloses the globe earth. And it along with earth could actually be rotating. Rotation probably isn't that important in this though experiment. But a membrane enclosed globe earth could work with denpressure. Why wouldn't it?
No it couldn't.
You could not stack atmosphere on something global and spinning.
I think you're smart enough to know this.
Sure you could. The membrane (containment) around the globe earth would revolve with the earth. But rotation isn't necessary. Let's just say the earth is not rotating, but it is a globe. Why with a membrane around it, stacking wouldn't work? The stacking would envelope the entire sphere and the same stacking functionality would act just the same as if on a flat earth. So why wouldn't that work? Why does the earth HAVE to be flat for denpressure to work?
-
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Obviously you do.
Do you agree that the mass of each is roughly the same?
I'll take that as a yes.
Ok, so you can understand that having one mass above another means the one below is holding up the one above. Fair enough?
This means the one below has to cater for that above mass upon it and resist that mass but it requires a foundation in order to do so.
Where could that foundation be?
It has to be under it to be used as a leverage or resistance to enable it to resist the mass or masses, above.
And this means by definition down is down because its down.
Your foam ball is already going down by no other reason than that all masses and matters arr already going down.
-
No need for quatum level denpressure.
Just figure out why hair cant be pushed down and why i have no issue walking and not being pushed left right
Already been explained but, as usual, you always go right back to square one.
Deliberately, In my opinion.
Deliverately because your explanation was "it doesnt because it doesnt"
Your model is magically directional and undirectional at the same time and relies on things already moving down to explain where down is.
Try and answer the question.
As we all can see youre deliverately avoiding
-
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Are you going to appeal to gravity acting on this mass to attract it towards Earth?
If not, why is mass relavent?
Ok, so you can understand that having one mass above another means the one below is holding up the one above.
In reality, with gravity, yes. In your model, NO!
That is because you have provided no justification for why one needs to be held up in the first place.
Why isn't it the one above holding the one below down as it tries to fly up?
Why isn't it the one to the left holding the one to the right to stop it flying off to the left?
Why isn't it just them sitting there?
Fair enough?
Where could that foundation be?
The solid round earth. Seems like a pretty good foundation to me.
Already been explained but, as usual, you always go right back to square one.
Deliberately, In my opinion.
Projecting again I see.
We have never left square one because you have never explained why things fall.
Instead of providing an explanation you just dodge or claim to have provided one.
The closest you have come to providing an explanation for why things fall only applies to an object already sitting on the ground, as it appeals to the lack of air below and the solid foundation below. But that has no hope of explaining why an object in mid-air falls.
In that case it has air all around, and if you look at the pressure of the air around it, it is slightly greater below the object and thus it would be pushed up by the air, not down.
But a membrane enclosed globe earth could work with denpressure. Why wouldn't it?
No it couldn't.
You could not stack atmosphere on something global and spinning.
And again you just go to the baseless assertions.
Why couldn't you?
What stops it?
Stop just baselessly asserting garbage and start defending your lies.
The solid round Earth provides a foundation for the air to stack on.
If it's motion was going to be a problem, then so would the motion of all objects on Earth.
Until you provide a justification for why the air stacks in the first place there is no justification for it not working on the very real RE you love to dismiss.
What impossibility?
Your globe.
What impossibility?
You are yet to show anything about the globe to be impossible.
You have no rational objection so you just repeatedly dismiss it.
And again, far more relevant to this thread WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE LIGHT INDICATED BY THE BLUE LINE FROM REACHING THE EYE?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
-
It is interesting to see just how far or how long you can survive when you simply rely on belief. Sceptimatic is good with claims but he cannot be specific. He can't give us actual numbers that are based on measurement. That is the difference between science and belief.
That depends on what you regard as real science in terms of what we're debating.
It's far too easy to throw in equations for something nobody can figure out...but are those equations meaningful?
That's the difference.
Whenever a specific question is asked about what he believes he cannot provide a specific answer, other than to claim that he has already provided an answer. Yet he cannot provide a specific link or any specific information about where that answer actually is. Answers or claims which are based on belief are unavoidably vague.
If you want to believe in something badly or strongly enough then of course you can make it true in your mind. You can convince yourself that what you believe to be true is true so much that you find yourself believing equally that those who believe anything else are clueless and 'indoctrinated'.
Noit clueless but we are all massively indoctrinated, so why deny it?
The more you press these 'alternative' thinkers the more they will stand resolute that they are correct in what they believe. So this topic could go on for another 80 pages and you will still be arguing about what you can see through tubes etc.
It's not about being correct. It's about believing it to be a better fit than the indoctrinated one we all (just about) were nurtured on.
-
The force is denpressure, which is my word to describe what I believe is a closer reality to the nonsense we've been fed by so called mainstream scientists.
What's preventing denpressure from working on a globe, even spinning Earth?
Your globe.
No foundation for a dome.
The impossibility of a spinning globe to keep atmosphere as we know it to be.
I know, I know, I know....but...but...but...it supposedly spins with Earth and all that absolute sickening nonsense.
I agree, denpressure still needs some sort of "containment" to work. But the dome (now a containment) doesn't need a foundation for itself and doesn't need to be dome shaped, per se. It could just be a membrane that encircles and encloses the globe earth. And it along with earth could actually be rotating. Rotation probably isn't that important in this though experiment. But a membrane enclosed globe earth could work with denpressure. Why wouldn't it?
No it couldn't.
You could not stack atmosphere on something global and spinning.
I think you're smart enough to know this.
Sure you could. The membrane (containment) around the globe earth would revolve with the earth. But rotation isn't necessary. Let's just say the earth is not rotating, but it is a globe. Why with a membrane around it, stacking wouldn't work? The stacking would envelope the entire sphere and the same stacking functionality would act just the same as if on a flat earth. So why wouldn't that work? Why does the earth HAVE to be flat for denpressure to work?
You need a foundation to stack. And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
You could not use that stacking system around a sphere because the stacking system becomes the opposite, like trying to build an upside down pyramid, meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
-
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Obviously you do.
Do you agree that the mass of each is roughly the same?
I'll take that as a yes.
Ok, so you can understand that having one mass above another means the one below is holding up the one above. Fair enough?
This means the one below has to cater for that above mass upon it and resist that mass but it requires a foundation in order to do so.
Where could that foundation be?
It has to be under it to be used as a leverage or resistance to enable it to resist the mass or masses, above.
And this means by definition down is down because its down.
Your foam ball is already going down by no other reason than that all masses and matters arr already going down.
No it's not. It's always held up. Clue: resistance below.
-
No need for quatum level denpressure.
Just figure out why hair cant be pushed down and why i have no issue walking and not being pushed left right
Already been explained but, as usual, you always go right back to square one.
Deliberately, In my opinion.
Deliverately because your explanation was "it doesnt because it doesnt"
Your model is magically directional and undirectional at the same time and relies on things already moving down to explain where down is.
Try and answer the question.
As we all can see youre deliverately avoiding
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
-
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Are you going to appeal to gravity acting on this mass to attract it towards Earth?
No....that's what you people do. You use it and have absolutely no clue as to what in the hell it actually is as a force.
And yet............AND YET....here you all are busting at the gut to keep using it to supposedly kill off my theory. It bemuses me.
-
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
You could use your own advice.
You still haven't answered my question. What specific evidence would make you change your mind, and accept the Earth was flat?
Give an actual example. Or just admit you can't.
-
You need a foundation to stack. And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
You could not use that stacking system around a sphere because the stacking system becomes the opposite, like trying to build an upside down pyramid, meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
Why is the pyramid shape required?
All that is required is that the ones on top are pushing on the ones below.
Why cant a cube work?
Or a cylinder?
Are you saying the dome is atcually cone shaped?
Less mass could hold more, it would just be all the more squished or under greater pressure.
-
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Obviously you do.
Do you agree that the mass of each is roughly the same?
I'll take that as a yes.
Ok, so you can understand that having one mass above another means the one below is holding up the one above. Fair enough?
This means the one below has to cater for that above mass upon it and resist that mass but it requires a foundation in order to do so.
Where could that foundation be?
It has to be under it to be used as a leverage or resistance to enable it to resist the mass or masses, above.
And this means by definition down is down because its down.
Your foam ball is already going down by no other reason than that all masses and matters arr already going down.
No it's not. It's always held up. Clue: resistance below.
Aaah
So down is down because below is below.
Got it.
Its so clear.
-
No need for quatum level denpressure.
Just figure out why hair cant be pushed down and why i have no issue walking and not being pushed left right
Already been explained but, as usual, you always go right back to square one.
Deliberately, In my opinion.
Deliverately because your explanation was "it doesnt because it doesnt"
Your model is magically directional and undirectional at the same time and relies on things already moving down to explain where down is.
Try and answer the question.
As we all can see youre deliverately avoiding
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
Correct the misunderstand or contiune to dodge.
Clearly you have no logical response beyond "it doesnt when it doesnt"
-
Do you agree that each polystyrene ball has a mass?
Are you going to appeal to gravity acting on this mass to attract it towards Earth?
No....that's what you people do.
And instead of accepting this reality you just pretend that mass magically goes down for no reason at all, but then reject that idea, directly contradicting yourself and claim it only goes down because air pushes it down, again, with no justification at all. But good job ignoring the point yet again.
here you all are busting at the gut to keep using it to supposedly kill off my theory. It bemuses me.
How?
I am pointing out that without a force like gravity, that mass is irrelevant. (and at the same time pointing out how unlike your nonsense gravity actually works.)
Without a force acting on the mass to try to move it down, it doesn't matter if the air weighs a Yg or nothing at all, there is no reason for it to push anything down anymore than it pushes things in any direction.
So unless you are going to appeal to a force like gravity which acts on mass, the mass of the ball is irrelevant.
Without a force acting on mass you have no reason for that mass to mean the bottom ball needs to hold up the top ball.
It is only with a downwards force (like gravity) acting on mass, to cause the top ball to try to move through the bottom ball that you have the bottom ball supporting the top ball.
Without it, even if the top ball was initially moving down towards the bottom ball, it would hit the bottom ball and bounce off and then travel upwards. With nothing to stop it, it will continue moving upwards.
That depends on what you regard as real science in terms of what we're debating.
Yes, if we actually mean real science, backed up by evidence and logical thought, which allows one to determine mathematical relationships between various things and be able to justify them, which you repeatedly reject because it shows you are wrong; or if you mean your repeated baseless assertions, backed up by absolutely nothing and refuted by plenty, with no numbers at all.
That justification or lack thereof is what makes the difference.
For example, using real science we can know that the horizon on an idealised version of the very real round Earth (where instead of Earth being an oblate spheroid with irregularities due to terrain, it is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km) with an observer eye height of 2 m, would appear at ~2.7 arc minutes below level, making it easy to see through both a simple level tube or a level scope, assuming that scope has a vertical FOV greater than ~5.4 arc minutes.
And what do you have to counter this?
Baseless claims that the RE magically wouldn't have a horizon, with no justification at all and no explanation for what magic is seen between looking straight down at Earth and straight up to the sky.
Baseless claims that if you look through a 1 inch level tube, the light would only come in parallel and thus you would only see ~ 1 inch of any object, and the ground being below that 1 inch means it can't be seen, which you contradict by claiming you can see more of distant objects.
So it is quite clear which side has the real science.
Noit clueless but we are all massively indoctrinated, so why deny it?
Just because you are massively indoctrinated doesn't mean everyone is.
It's not about being correct. It's about believing it to be a better fit than the indoctrinated one we all (just about) were nurtured on.
Whereas normal people would care more about it being correct or not, rather than just rejecting what they have been taught with no valid justification at all and then deluding themselves into thinking their nonsense with no hope of matching reality is magically better than models developed over generations by scientists trying to discover the truth.
Because your nonsense is not better than the mainstream model as it has no hope of matching reality as reality repeatedly contradicts it.
You need a foundation to stack.
And the RE provides it.
And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
Why?
meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
Nope. The bottom is more compressed by magic stacking meaning it has more mass, even with the tiny increase in size.
No it's not. It's always held up. Clue: resistance below.
If it's always held up, why does it fall?
And again, there is resistance all around.
Use your brain...you managed before.
Again, we are. The problem is your model makes no sense so using your brain won't make one accept it. Instead it will make one realise it makes no sense.
-
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
You could use your own advice.
You still haven't answered my question. What specific evidence would make you change your mind, and accept the Earth was flat?
Give an actual example. Or just admit you can't.
I already have the evidence. Water level.
-
You need a foundation to stack. And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
You could not use that stacking system around a sphere because the stacking system becomes the opposite, like trying to build an upside down pyramid, meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
Why is the pyramid shape required?
All that is required is that the ones on top are pushing on the ones below.
Why cant a cube work?
Or a cylinder?
Are you saying the dome is atcually cone shaped?
Less mass could hold more, it would just be all the more squished or under greater pressure.
I'm saying the dome is dome shaped.
I use a pyramid shape to highlight how the stacking system works and why the ice skin happens......etc.
And also the push is required from below to create the push from above.
Here you go again....backwards.
-
No need for quatum level denpressure.
Just figure out why hair cant be pushed down and why i have no issue walking and not being pushed left right
Already been explained but, as usual, you always go right back to square one.
Deliberately, In my opinion.
Deliverately because your explanation was "it doesnt because it doesnt"
Your model is magically directional and undirectional at the same time and relies on things already moving down to explain where down is.
Try and answer the question.
As we all can see youre deliverately avoiding
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
Correct the misunderstand or contiune to dodge.
Clearly you have no logical response beyond "it doesnt when it doesnt"
Learn to use your brain.
-
I am pointing out that without a force like gravity, that mass is irrelevant. (and at the same time pointing out how unlike your nonsense gravity actually works.)
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
-
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
You could use your own advice.
You still haven't answered my question. What specific evidence would make you change your mind, and accept the Earth was flat?
Give an actual example. Or just admit you can't.
I already have the evidence. Water level.
Again, are you unable to comprehend the question or are you just refusing to answer or to admit you can't answer?
You are not actually answering my question, you just keep dodging and deflecting.
Once more, what specific evidence for a ROUND EARTH would make you change your mind?
-
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
You could use your own advice.
You still haven't answered my question. What specific evidence would make you change your mind, and accept the Earth was flat?
Give an actual example. Or just admit you can't.
I already have the evidence. Water level.
Again, are you unable to comprehend the question or are you just refusing to answer or to admit you can't answer?
You are not actually answering my question, you just keep dodging and deflecting.
Once more, what specific evidence for a ROUND EARTH would make you change your mind?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmHdPV5T/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Go and try this out and show what your honest mind can see.
-
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
You could use your own advice.
You still haven't answered my question. What specific evidence would make you change your mind, and accept the Earth was flat?
Give an actual example. Or just admit you can't.
I already have the evidence. Water level.
Again, are you unable to comprehend the question or are you just refusing to answer or to admit you can't answer?
You are not actually answering my question, you just keep dodging and deflecting.
Once more, what specific evidence for a ROUND EARTH would make you change your mind?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmHdPV5T/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Go and try this out and show what your honest mind can see.
No, copy-pasting your deflections from earlier is not an answer. You're avoiding the question again.
What experiment could you run that if it showed results consistent with a round Earth would change your mind?
What specific evidence would you accept?
-
Take your own damn picture and prove to us we re all not as smart as you
Because PREDICTION - a 2nd tube or a longer tube would be a smaller circle from what jja alrsady gave you.
Which is not 1inch.
Which does show quit a bit of field of view.
Whcih you still have no point.
Your only point in all this was that horizon on a globe mist be eye level - which evryone here has told you, no, and you yoyrself have admitted "eyelevel" is allowed to change depending on viewer.
So..
Show us your pointless photo
Or
Make a point
-
It's not about being correct. It's about believing it to be a better fit than the indoctrinated one we all (just about) were nurtured on.
We look at the other planets through telescopes and we see spheres. The Earth is just another planet. It just happens to be the one we live on. So on the balance of probability is the Earth more likely to be a spherical or flat?
Direct observations does not prove the Earth is round but they don't prove it isn't either. Not unless you could show conclusively how an observation that we can make could only ever be possible if the world is flat. If such an observation exists then please describe it.
But when we take into account all the other observations we make of surface and in the sky, which is the more likely conclusion to reach with a completely unbiased mind?
Your issue seems to not just lie not with just whether the Earth is flat or not. With you it seems to be about the much, much bigger picture. It seems to be a complete refusal to accept anything stated in mainstream science. So you have taken it upon yourself to completely re-invent science to suit your own beliefs. I don't think any single person has ever managed to successfully reinvent science from the foundations upward singlehandedly in the history of the human race. That can only mean one of two possible outcomes. Either you are some kind of mega-genius who is truly and undisputedly in a class of your own when it comes to being the most remarkable and outstanding human being that ever lived. Or it means you are wrong.
Of those to possible scenarios which is most likely do you think?
-
I am pointing out that without a force like gravity, that mass is irrelevant. (and at the same time pointing out how unlike your nonsense gravity actually works.)
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
You mean like how gravity is an attractant force which surrounds every physical mass, right down to atoms? The bigger the mass, the stronger the attractant force. Well, that's what it is. Earth is a bigger mass than a human body, which is why your human body is attracted against the surface of the earth and not the other way around.
The problem you face, sceptimatic, by denying earth is a globe, is you automatically deny all science. All the pieces in science fit together. So if you take out one, you have to come up with alternate explanations for literally everything else. This is why the term "flat earther" can be used interchangeably with the term, "science denier".
-
It's not about being correct. It's about believing it to be a better fit than the indoctrinated one we all (just about) were nurtured on.
We look at the other planets through telescopes and we see spheres. The Earth is just another planet. It just happens to be the one we live on. So on the balance of probability is the Earth more likely to be a spherical or flat?
Direct observations does not prove the Earth is round but they don't prove it isn't either. Not unless you could show conclusively how an observation that we can make could only ever be possible if the world is flat. If such an observation exists then please describe it.
But when we take into account all the other observations we make of surface and in the sky, which is the more likely conclusion to reach with a completely unbiased mind?
Your issue seems to not just lie not with just whether the Earth is flat or not. With you it seems to be about the much, much bigger picture. It seems to be a complete refusal to accept anything stated in mainstream science. So you have taken it upon yourself to completely re-invent science to suit your own beliefs. I don't think any single person has ever managed to successfully reinvent science from the foundations upward singlehandedly in the history of the human race. That can only mean one of two possible outcomes. Either you are some kind of mega-genius who is truly and undisputedly in a class of your own when it comes to being the most remarkable and outstanding human being that ever lived. Or it means you are wrong.
Of those to possible scenarios which is most likely do you think?
-
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
Can I explain what gravity is? Not beyond what I observe it to be no. Can I say what it does? Yes I can say what it appears to do which is cause bodies with mass to attract each other. The more massive a particular body is the more it seems to attract other lesser massive bodies.
How does it do that? Well Einstein said that massive bodies cause a distortion of space-time, the magnitude of which is related to the mass of the body. How did he do that? Because he thought long and hard about what he observed and worked out his best explanation of the laws of physics that might be at work to explain those observations. Did he insist that he was right at any point? No.
Do I understand what that means or how it does it? Something to do with the Higgs field apparently. Does all that description fit in with everything I have observed? Yes it does. Do I fully understand what the Higgs field is, or how it does it? No. Do I need to?
Can I describe explicitly and scientifically what gravity is, what it does and how it does it? No. Does that mean I shouldn't believe in it? No. All I do know is that all the modern day positional prediction tables for everything we can see in the solar system are based on computations which are based on gravity and from my own observations I can confirm they are accurate. Very accurate. Not only the position of Jupiter in the sky at any one time (including daytime) but also the positions of its satellites and related events such as eclipses and transits. Is that good enough for me? Yep.
Does it bother me if there are antagonists in the world who actively deny that gravity exists and think they have an alternative, non-proven alternative explanation? Most definitely not. Because I can compare predicted positions based on gravity with observed positions and find a total correlation. What more evidence do I need?
-
You need a foundation to stack. And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
You could not use that stacking system around a sphere because the stacking system becomes the opposite, like trying to build an upside down pyramid, meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
Why is the pyramid shape required?
All that is required is that the ones on top are pushing on the ones below.
Why cant a cube work?
Or a cylinder?
Are you saying the dome is atcually cone shaped?
Less mass could hold more, it would just be all the more squished or under greater pressure.
I'm saying the dome is dome shaped.
I use a pyramid shape to highlight how the stacking system works and why the ice skin happens......etc.
And also the push is required from below to create the push from above.
Here you go again....backwards.
There's literally no reason why a spherical membrane/containment around a spherical earth wouldn't work the same way as a dome. You would get a push from the membrane and a push from the foundation.
Denpressure could be a globe earth phenomenon. The earth doesn't have to be flat for it to work. Unless you know of a reason why?
-
His never before seen reflective sun doesnt work on a ball.
Unfortunately the reflective sun was only created to explain the sun as no sun could exist floating around up there by itself.
-
His never before seen reflective sun doesnt work on a ball.
Unfortunately the reflective sun was only created to explain the sun as no sun could exist floating around up there by itself.
I'm not talking about the north pole carbonite crystal hologram sun garbage, I'm talking specifically about his form of gravity; denpressure. Denpressure doesn't rely on that stuff, just a membrane. And a spherical membrane, just like our spherical atmosphere only with a firm upper barrior, could envelop a globe earth and produce the same "stacking" business he touts. In essence, what would change one's mind...for one, with his, a flat earth is not required at all for his main theory.
-
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
No. Stop deflecting. This thread has nothing at all to do with gravity.
You again completely ignore the point being made.
The force in question does not need to be gravity. It just needs to be something like gravity, a force that acts upon mass to move it down towards Earth.
And again, the point being made isn't even that such a force needs to exist, but that unless you are going to claim/admit that such a force does exist, then you appealing to mass is irrelevant.
i.e. you have 2 options:
1 - Mass is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that your little ball has mass. That in no way helps explain why things fall.
2 - A force acts on mass to make it move towards Earth. (And that means there is no need for your denpressure BS).
Either way, your model is broken.
And of course you ignore the far more important question which is far more relevant for the actual topic:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE FROM REACHING THE EYE?
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Without an answer to that, everything you have said about the RE and the horizon amounts to pure BS.
I already have the evidence. Water level.
So you finally admit you have the evidence that shows Earth is round and you have just been trolling us?
Because water level clearly shows a curve.
Once more, the fact that both an observer and a distant object can be above the level of the water, yet the observer sees the bottom of the object obscured by the water shows that the water is curved, not flat.
And also the push is required from below to create the push from above.
Here you go again....backwards.
No, here you go again, backwards.
You have not provided any justification for why a push from below creates a push from above.
Likewise you have provided nothing from Earth to provide that push from below. All you have appealed to is a foundation. That does not equal a push.
So what is to stop the RE you hate so much from pushing outwards as that push from below?
Again, there is no basis at all for your claim that your nonsense wouldn't work equally well (which admittedly is not at all) on the round Earth as it would on a hypothetical flat Earth.
Learn to use your brain.
Again, follow your own advice. We are using our brain. It is what allows us to so easily see through your pure garbage.
Perhaps you should try to use yours for once, for something other than trying to deflect from your complete inability to defend any of your lies?
Go and try this out and show what your honest mind can see.
Again, do it yourself.
People have shown you what an honest mind can see, and that is that you are wrong.
So far all you have offered in response is dismissing it as lies or con-jobs, and repeatedly asserting the same nonsensical lies while avoiding simple logic which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
You have shown that you are not interested in what other people provide as you have no intention of every accepting that it shows you are wrong. You will only ever come up with some excuse to dismiss it.
So why don't you go and do it to show us what you see?
-
Try paying attention and stop following a trend.
It's almost like you're all starting to hang onto JackBlack's coat tails.
Use your brain...you managed before.
You could use your own advice.
You still haven't answered my question. What specific evidence would make you change your mind, and accept the Earth was flat?
Give an actual example. Or just admit you can't.
I already have the evidence. Water level.
Again, are you unable to comprehend the question or are you just refusing to answer or to admit you can't answer?
You are not actually answering my question, you just keep dodging and deflecting.
Once more, what specific evidence for a ROUND EARTH would make you change your mind?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmHdPV5T/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Go and try this out and show what your honest mind can see.
No, copy-pasting your deflections from earlier is not an answer. You're avoiding the question again.
What experiment could you run that if it showed results consistent with a round Earth would change your mind?
What specific evidence would you accept?
You seemed so excited and cock sure when you posted your pictures of your tube and now you got backed into a corner and are fighting like hell to avoid doing the experiment.
I wonder, why....... I wonder, why.......I wonder, why.
No I don't wonder why, when I think about it. I know why.
-
You seemed so excited and cock sure when you posted your pictures of your tube and now you got backed into a corner and are fighting like hell to avoid doing the experiment.
I wonder, why....... I wonder, why.......I wonder, why.
No I don't wonder why, when I think about it. I know why.
Everyone else knows why.
Maybe look at the title of this thread for the answer? I humored your stupid tube experiment long enough. I was more than willing and open minded to play along for a while, but you will endlessly add new conditions and demands so eventually it has to end for now. Maybe I'll get bored and debunk you some more in the future, but not today. You used up all that goodwill.
You still haven't posted YOUR experiment that you lied about doing. You don't get more of my time until you reveal your experiment first and show us what you think we should be seeing. Either admit you lied and didn't perform it, or show us the pictures.
And you still haven't answered the question that is the subject of this thread. What evidence would change your mind?
Why can't you? Only two reasons.
1. You simply won't accept any evidence for a round Earth because your belief is faith-based and thus you ignore all facts.
2. You can't even understand the concept of being wrong, which makes you unable to think logically, and are insane.
Which one is it? I'm leaning to number two as you haven't shown the slightest inkling of understanding the question at all.
-
His never before seen reflective sun doesnt work on a ball.
Unfortunately the reflective sun was only created to explain the sun as no sun could exist floating around up there by itself.
I'm not talking about the north pole carbonite crystal hologram sun garbage, I'm talking specifically about his form of gravity; denpressure. Denpressure doesn't rely on that stuff, just a membrane. And a spherical membrane, just like our spherical atmosphere only with a firm upper barrior, could envelop a globe earth and produce the same "stacking" business he touts. In essence, what would change one's mind...for one, with his, a flat earth is not required at all for his main theory.
Hah no i got your point.
But that is the only one noncontradicting point in his model.
-
As I said, if Sceptimatic is right in what he believes then he has successfully managed to achieve something which no other human being that ever lived has. To singlehandedly produce a complete alternative model of the Earth and the Universe as a whole which can explain everything in nature. That takes some doing. In fact I don't know if a feat of such unprecedented magnitude is even possible for just one person to achieve.
If such an achievement was true then he would be guaranteed fame, fortunate and a legacy that would last for centuries to come as the man who beat all of science. Once verified as correct Sceptimatic would have to have his model copyrighted so that no one else could make their own claims to Sceptimatics genius for themselves.
On the other hand he could be wrong. In which case any of the above would turn him instantly into probably the biggest laughing stock that ever lived. But he wouldn't care about a little thing like that would he. Water of a ducks back!
-
It's not about being correct. It's about believing it to be a better fit than the indoctrinated one we all (just about) were nurtured on.
We look at the other planets through telescopes and we see spheres.
What sphere do you see through your telescope?
I'm not asking you to bring up a picture from a book or the internet. I'm talking about you and your telescope that shows you an undeniable and provable, sphere.
The Earth is just another planet. It just happens to be the one we live on.
So you are led to believe. You do not know it for certain and you absolutely cannot state it as factual....but... you can believe it to be and pass it off as your own fact handed down to you from those you trust in, unconditionally, maybe.
So on the balance of probability is the Earth more likely to be a spherical or flat?
It depends on how you want to describe spherical or flat, in terms of how we live as part of each potential..
Direct observations does not prove the Earth is round but they don't prove it isn't either.
So what observations prove what you believe
Not unless you could show conclusively how an observation that we can make could only ever be possible if the world is flat. If such an observation exists then please describe it.
I believe wholeheartedly that water level is one such thing that nails it to be a flat Earth based on water as a certainty.
Terrain is another matter, due to unevenness.
But when we take into account all the other observations we make of surface and in the sky, which is the more likely conclusion to reach with a completely unbiased mind?
A completely unbiased mind, or basically naked and born to the wild for both of us, as lone wolves, the potential reality would never come close to a thought process of a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.
The potential thought process would be that we are still and whatever moves in the sky is not due to us moving but the lights moving.
Calm waters would further enhance the thought process on us being in a level. And so on.
At no time would anyone (in my opinion) consider we are spinning on a large oblate spheroid.
And....I do not believe you would entertain that. You will now because you are under that exact mindset of BIAS.
Your issue seems to not just lie not with just whether the Earth is flat or not. With you it seems to be about the much, much bigger picture. It seems to be a complete refusal to accept anything stated in mainstream science.
Wrong. That's your words you are using in order to try and convince yourself that I simply go against anything mainstream, no matter what.
It's a massive straw man argument.
So you have taken it upon yourself to completely re-invent science to suit your own beliefs.
Again you try the same tricks.
I'm not re-inventing science, I'm trying to look for scientific truth's against what I believe are questionable storylines that use science as a base but have zero proof of them being science, at all.
I don't think any single person has ever managed to successfully reinvent science from the foundations upward singlehandedly in the history of the human race.
Science is science. It's not an invention.
The world we are part of is the science. The issue is, knowing how it works. And this is where we're at.
That can only mean one of two possible outcomes. Either you are some kind of mega-genius who is truly and undisputedly in a class of your own when it comes to being the most remarkable and outstanding human being that ever lived. Or it means you are wrong.
I'm a simple easy going person that has the ability to question what I believe requires questioning. For me.
Everyone has that ability but most believe they do not have the time to question what they accept, almost, unconditionally by what they believe, are the authority on given subjects.
Of those to possible scenarios which is most likely do you think?
It's not about which one is most likely, it's about what doesn't fit reality...and your spinning globe model does not fit reality, as far as I'm concerned.
You beg to differ...and that's fine.
-
I am pointing out that without a force like gravity, that mass is irrelevant. (and at the same time pointing out how unlike your nonsense gravity actually works.)
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
You mean like how gravity is an attractant force which surrounds every physical mass, right down to atoms? The bigger the mass, the stronger the attractant force. Well, that's what it is. Earth is a bigger mass than a human body, which is why your human body is attracted against the surface of the earth and not the other way around.
The problem you face, sceptimatic, by denying earth is a globe, is you automatically deny all science. All the pieces in science fit together. So if you take out one, you have to come up with alternate explanations for literally everything else. This is why the term "flat earther" can be used interchangeably with the term, "science denier".
Tell me what gravity is and how it works to do what it does.
-
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
Can I explain what gravity is? Not beyond what I observe it to be no.
And what exactly do you observe that shows you your gravity?
Can I say what it does? Yes I can say what it appears to do which is cause bodies with mass to attract each other.
Mass attracting each other?
Explain why a grain of sand does not get attracted to a mountain or a iron filing does not get attracted to a girder just inches away?
And..... just explain how mass attracts mass. What force is it and why does it work?
The more massive a particular body is the more it seems to attract other lesser massive bodies.
But that's not true and you know it.
If that was true then all smaller mass would be stuck to all larger mass.
How does it do that? Well Einstein said that massive bodies cause a distortion of space-time, the magnitude of which is related to the mass of the body.
A distortion in space time?
What is space time?
How did he do that? Because he thought long and hard about what he observed and worked out his best explanation of the laws of physics that might be at work to explain those observations. Did he insist that he was right at any point? No.
Might?
And if he wasn't right then why are you arguing it as factual?
Do I understand what that means or how it does it?
Well....do you?
Something to do with the Higgs field apparently.
So what is this Higgs field and how did it come about?
Does all that description fit in with everything I have observed? Yes it does.
What exactly have you observed about gravity?
Do I fully understand what the Higgs field is, or how it does it? No.
Ok, so why mention it if you don't understand it?
You're following a script. You are simply appealing to what you believe is an authority on these things and yet, if you're honest....you have no clue, whatsoever as to what any of it is.
Do I need to?
Absolutely, if you want to brag about it and reel it off as a reality whilst calling alternative thinkers, antagonists.
Can I describe explicitly and scientifically what gravity is, what it does and how it does it? No.
And this is all I asked. You have no clue but you fight the corner for it based on stories.
Does that mean I shouldn't believe in it? No.
You're entitled to believe what you want to but you can't pass it off as a reality to people when your belief is based on nothing more than acceptance of stories as factual when they could very well be fictional.
You've already admitted that.
All I do know is that all the modern day positional prediction tables for everything we can see in the solar system are based on computations which are based on gravity and from my own observations I can confirm they are accurate.
Very accurate.
What are you seeing?
Lights....right?
You see predictable movements based on what you believe is you spinning around on your Earth.
But what are you really seeing and what is the real predictable movements? Earth spinning or the lights moving above a stationary standpoint of your own?
And how does this correlate with your gravity that you have no clue about?
Not only the position of Jupiter in the sky at any one time (including daytime) but also the positions of its satellites and related events such as eclipses and transits. Is that good enough for me? Yep.
l Moving lights.
Does it bother me if there are antagonists in the world who actively deny that gravity exists and think they have an alternative, non-proven alternative explanation? Most definitely not.
Maybe it doesn't. It appears that it does but then again, maybe I'm reading into your internet persona, too much.
Because I can compare predicted positions based on gravity with observed positions and find a total correlation. What more evidence do I need?
You can't base anything as factual on something you have no clue about.
You see moving lights.
You could map out similar (not to scale) lights on your very own ceiling.
Does this prove gravity?
Does it prove your bedroom is spinning? (And I'm not talking about a heavy night on the whisky). ;)
-
You need a foundation to stack. And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
You could not use that stacking system around a sphere because the stacking system becomes the opposite, like trying to build an upside down pyramid, meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
Why is the pyramid shape required?
All that is required is that the ones on top are pushing on the ones below.
Why cant a cube work?
Or a cylinder?
Are you saying the dome is atcually cone shaped?
Less mass could hold more, it would just be all the more squished or under greater pressure.
I'm saying the dome is dome shaped.
I use a pyramid shape to highlight how the stacking system works and why the ice skin happens......etc.
And also the push is required from below to create the push from above.
Here you go again....backwards.
There's literally no reason why a spherical membrane/containment around a spherical earth wouldn't work the same way as a dome. You would get a push from the membrane and a push from the foundation.
Denpressure could be a globe earth phenomenon. The earth doesn't have to be flat for it to work. Unless you know of a reason why?
It needs an ever denser stacked/layered atmosphere towards foundation.
Your globe could not provide that.
-
You seemed so excited and cock sure when you posted your pictures of your tube and now you got backed into a corner and are fighting like hell to avoid doing the experiment.
I wonder, why....... I wonder, why.......I wonder, why.
No I don't wonder why, when I think about it. I know why.
Everyone else knows why.
Maybe look at the title of this thread for the answer? I humored your stupid tube experiment long enough. I was more than willing and open minded to play along for a while, but you will endlessly add new conditions and demands so eventually it has to end for now. Maybe I'll get bored and debunk you some more in the future, but not today. You used up all that goodwill.
You still haven't posted YOUR experiment that you lied about doing. You don't get more of my time until you reveal your experiment first and show us what you think we should be seeing. Either admit you lied and didn't perform it, or show us the pictures.
And you still haven't answered the question that is the subject of this thread. What evidence would change your mind?
Why can't you? Only two reasons.
1. You simply won't accept any evidence for a round Earth because your belief is faith-based and thus you ignore all facts.
2. You can't even understand the concept of being wrong, which makes you unable to think logically, and are insane.
Which one is it? I'm leaning to number two as you haven't shown the slightest inkling of understanding the question at all.
You went weak and bowed to your internet buddies not to go any further.
I understand why you did it. You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong but you're having a lot of trouble setting that up.
I'm happy enough for you to deck out.
-
You went weak and bowed to your internet buddies not to go any further.
I understand why you did it. You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong but you're having a lot of trouble setting that up.
I'm happy enough for you to deck out.
I'm sure your happy that I'm not still constantly proving you wrong with photos. Especially since you can't provide any of your own. I'll give you a break, for now.
You live in your own little fantasy land, it must be cozy in there, not like the real world which confuses you so.
Can't answer the simple question the thread op asked, can't figure out how to look through a tube, or take a picture.
But you can lie about doing the experiment though, at least you are capable of doing something.
-
You need a foundation to stack. And I mean you need a wider to less wider stacking system in order for that to happen.
You could not use that stacking system around a sphere because the stacking system becomes the opposite, like trying to build an upside down pyramid, meaning the less mass holds the more mass. It just doesn't work.
Why is the pyramid shape required?
All that is required is that the ones on top are pushing on the ones below.
Why cant a cube work?
Or a cylinder?
Are you saying the dome is atcually cone shaped?
Less mass could hold more, it would just be all the more squished or under greater pressure.
I'm saying the dome is dome shaped.
I use a pyramid shape to highlight how the stacking system works and why the ice skin happens......etc.
And also the push is required from below to create the push from above.
Here you go again....backwards.
There's literally no reason why a spherical membrane/containment around a spherical earth wouldn't work the same way as a dome. You would get a push from the membrane and a push from the foundation.
Denpressure could be a globe earth phenomenon. The earth doesn't have to be flat for it to work. Unless you know of a reason why?
It needs an ever denser stacked/layered atmosphere towards foundation.
Your globe could not provide that.
There is literally no reason why denpressure wouldn't work on a sphere. You didn't provide an explanation as to why it has to be flat, you simply stated how it is. A denser stacked/layered atmosphere towards a foundation contained by a membrane of sorts works equally well on a flat plane as it does surrounding a sphere.
You really have to differentiate why your denpressure world has to be flat. You have failed to do so.
-
You seemed so excited and cock sure when you posted your pictures of your tube and now you got backed into a corner and are fighting like hell to avoid doing the experiment.
The only one backed into a corner here is you.
You have been provided evidence which clearly shows you are wrong.
When that happens you just throw in more ridiculous demands.
It isn't a case of avoiding doing the experiment, it is a case of the experiment being entirely worthless.
An extra tube doesn't help in any way.
It is just needless complexity which you are using an excuse to dismiss the evidence clearly showing you are wrong.
If someone did perform such an experiment for you, you would still just dismiss as a con-job and make more ridiculous demands.
Again, you have shown you have no interest in accepting any evidence anyone provides to show you are wrong.
Why would any sane person expect it to be any different with 2 tubes?
You will just claim both tubes are pointing down.
You clinging to it as if it will magically change the result shows just how pathetic your position is.
I believe wholeheartedly that water level is one such thing that nails it to be a flat Earth based on water as a certainty.
And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that is pure BS!
Water level proves beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
This is because the water has to be curved to block the view to a distant object.
You have no justification for how water level magically proves Earth is flat. So far all you have provided is that you can't detect the insignificant curvature over a tiny distance like a bathtub.
A completely unbiased mind, or basically naked and born to the wild for both of us, as lone wolves, the potential reality would never come close to a thought process of a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.
I would say that is exactly what happened, but that isn't quite true.
Instead minds biased by the idea of Earth being the flat and stationary centre of the universe realised that each of those 3 points are pure BS. Even with society trying to indoctrinate them to these completely baseless beliefs, those who saw past that bias managed to discover that Earth was round, that it rotates, and that it moves.
So no, a completely unbiased mind, if they had the available evidence, or the means to get it themselves, would conclude that Earth is round and rotating and moving.
It is only by also removing all the evidence and making them completely ignorant of the world that they may foolishly jump to unsupported conclusions like Earth being flat or staionary.
The potential thought process would be that we are still and whatever moves in the sky is not due to us moving but the lights moving.
And a similarly ignorant fool in a smoothly moving vehicle would conclude it is the world around them that is moving, not the vehicle.
At no time would anyone (in my opinion) consider we are spinning on a large oblate spheroid.
Again, but that is exactly what they did.
They considered the available evidence and concluded that Earth is round, that it is spinning and that it is moving.
And....I do not believe you would entertain that. You will now because you are under that exact mindset of BIAS.
No, we won't entertain that BS, because it is pure BS which requires one to ignore all the available evidence.
You are the one who is biased here.
That's your words you are using in order to try and convince yourself that I simply go against anything mainstream, no matter what.
You completely reject the model of the universe.
You completely reject how light works.
You completely reject how air works.
You completely reject the laws of motion.
You completely reject the model of atoms.
I don't think there is a single field of science you don't reject.
What from mainstream science do you accept?
I'm not re-inventing science, I'm trying to look for scientific truth's
No you aren't.
You are outright rejecting science, trying to replace things learned through science with plenty of evidence to back it up, with pure delusional BS with literally nothing to back it up.
You have shown you have no interest in any truths.
Science is science. It's not an invention.
The world we are part of is the science.
Science is the process by which we understand the world. The world is not science itself.
I'm a simple easy going person that has the ability to question what I believe requires questioning. For me.
Everyone has that ability but most believe they do not have the time to question what they accept, almost, unconditionally by what they believe, are the authority on given subjects.
You mean you are a simple person that rejects what you believe should be rejected, even without any justification, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
But the simple fact is people don't have enough time to question literally everything and justify it all for themselves. If they did that, science would never progress. But what they can do is see that the current models actually make sense, unlike your nonsense.
it's about what doesn't fit reality
And your flat fantasy doesn't fit reality, while all the available evidence supports the RE model.
You not liking that and wanting to reject or ignore the evidence that shows you are wrong doesn't magically change that.
-
It needs an ever denser stacked/layered atmosphere towards foundation.
Your globe could not provide that.
Again with the pathetic, baseless assertions.
Just what magic is there in your flat fantasy to allow a hypothetical flat Earth to provide it which wouldn't work equally well on a round Earth?
I understand why you did it.
So you understand that it is because you will always refuse to accept any evidence that shows you are wrong and instead you will just dismiss it without any justification at all, merely because it shows you are wrong, and you will throw in more needless complexity.
You understand that it is because you refuse to commit, you refuse to back yourself into a corner where when the evidence is provided you will admit you are wrong; by providing a list of everything that is required such that if evidence that shows you are wrong is provided which has everything in this list then instead of dismissing it as fake or coming up with some BS excuse for why it is wrong, you will instead admit it is correct and that you are wrong; because you have no interest at all of ever admitting you are wrong.
You understand that it is because the 2 tubes is just a needless layer of complexity which does not help at all.
And if you truly understand that, why do you still pretend it is anything different?
You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong
Like I clearly explained before, if he was truly conning you with the previous setup, by pointing it down, then all it would take is for him to point both tubes down. This is no harder than setting up both tubes to be level.
So if he was actually conning you, he would have done that already.
The fact he hasn't shows that he likely isn't conning you and it is more a case of your complete inability to admit you are wrong when all the evidence shows you are.
Again, if you are so sure, DO THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF! Show us what you get.
Because so far you have been provided with plenty of evidence that shows you are wrong, from plenty of people.
Yet you have provided literally nothing to back up your insane BS and have provided no evidence of your own.
And we all know why you won't do the experiment. Because if you do it, you can't dismiss it as you trying to con yourself. So when it shows you are wrong, there is no way out for you.
So if anyone is trying to hide the truth by not providing the experiment, it is YOU!
So quit stalling and do it yourself.
Or forget the experiment and instead deal with the pure logic. Once more, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
And what exactly do you observe that shows you your gravity?
How about things having a downwards force proportional to their mass?
How about masses attracting other masses?
Both of these are simple enough for pretty much anyone to verify.
But instead of doing that, you just reject it and try to replace it with pure fantasy.
Explain why a grain of sand does not get attracted to a mountain or a iron filing does not get attracted to a girder just inches away?
First you would need to show that it doesn't.
Remember, not getting attracted to it, and having other forces being more significant is quite different.
But that's not true and you know it.
If that was true then all smaller mass would be stuck to all larger mass.
There you go spouting pure garbage again.
Care to back up that complete absence of logic?
Just why would the force being proportional to the mass make all small objects stuck to all large objects?
Don't forget that other forces are involved as well.
Absolutely, if you want to brag about it and reel it off as a reality whilst calling alternative thinkers, antagonists.
No we don't. This is because unlike you, we are not paranoid to the extent of thinking literally everyone is lying to try to hide the truth of Earth being a magical flat land.
It is also because unlike your nonsense it actually makes sense and is consistent with what is observed.
And it is clear that your position is just antagonistic, as you make no attempt to refute gravity or the mainstream or show anything wrong with it. Instead you just dismiss it indoctrinated nonsense and attack strawmen.
You see predictable movements based on what you believe is you spinning around on your Earth.
But what are you really seeing and what is the real predictable movements? Earth spinning or the lights moving above a stationary standpoint of your own?
And how does this correlate with your gravity that you have no clue about?
No, not just Earth spinning, but also both Earth and the planets moving.
While you can set up a magical fantasy land with a stationary round Earth, that lacks any explanatory power.
Gravity acting on the planets explains their motion and thus their position including their position relative to Earth.
So the choice is a model which actually explains the relative position of the planets with fairly simple motion, vs planets magically following extremely chaotic paths for no reason at all.
-
Ignoring everything else for the moment you asked about what planetary spheres I see through my telescope.
I can easily post several images that I have taken of Jupiter and Saturn and Venus which show them as clearly spherical.
Ordinarily that would be straightforward but if I were to post any image's would you accept my word for them being mine and not just copied and pasted from somewhere else.
I will even post a photo of the equipment in my observatory if you are interested and point out the specific kit used for planetary imaging. I can take images of anything astronomical so any specific requests will be warmly accepted.
-
I am pointing out that without a force like gravity, that mass is irrelevant. (and at the same time pointing out how unlike your nonsense gravity actually works.)
Then, explain what gravity is in order to do what you say it does.
You mean like how gravity is an attractant force which surrounds every physical mass, right down to atoms? The bigger the mass, the stronger the attractant force. Well, that's what it is. Earth is a bigger mass than a human body, which is why your human body is attracted against the surface of the earth and not the other way around.
The problem you face, sceptimatic, by denying earth is a globe, is you automatically deny all science. All the pieces in science fit together. So if you take out one, you have to come up with alternate explanations for literally everything else. This is why the term "flat earther" can be used interchangeably with the term, "science denier".
Tell me what gravity is and how it works to do what it does.
Just did, numbskull.
Tell me what your brain is and how it works to do what it does. When you're finished, tell me what your consciousness is and how it works to do what it does. Next, tell me what your thoughts are, how they work to do what they do, and where they come from.
If you want the scientific explanation for how gravity works, read a book.
Ours is not to wonder why, ours is just to do or die.
-
Sceptimatic lets be clear about one thing. You are just one person who has taken an alternative stance on life and believes he knows a few things about the world which has somehow managed to evade all the worlds great scientists up to now. If that's the case then congratulations.
You are not the first 'Sceptimatic' to come along and you won't be the last. What you guys did before Internet came along I have no idea. Arranged illicit meetings on dark street corners I suspect where you boasted to each other about what you 'knew' which no else did.
In order to make your case appear stronger, you deliberately overlook or simply ignore facts which you know are true but you don't want to believe. That's where denial kicks in on your side.
Mass attracting each other?
Explain why a grain of sand does not get attracted to a mountain or a iron filing does not get attracted to a girder just inches away?
Easy. The reality is the grain of sand does get attracted to a mountain and an iron filing does get attracted to a girder no matter how near or far away it is. However the attraction that the grand of sand, the mountain, the iron filing and the girder all feel towards the thing under our feet (i.e. the Earth) is so, so much stronger that we don't ordinarily notice the attraction between smaller objects which are miniscule in comparison. You could work this out for yourself if you could be bothered but your mindset would prefer to see it from your belief point of view instead.
Gravity itself is extremely weak. Hence the reason why I can put my finger on the grain of sand and lift it up with just one finger. That is enough to overcome the gravitational force from Earth pulling the grain of sand back down to the ground. Swap the grain of sand with a 1 tonne boulder though and I now need a crane to lift it. All you have done is changed is the secondary mass and that is why the force has increased. because F is proportional to m.
You maintain it is pressure that causes this effect so show us the calculations you have done to get the same figure from pressure as we do from plugging in the values for G,M,m and r. It shouldn't be that hard for you.
All the other questions you are asking me about gravity etc or 'lights in the sky' are questions you can find the answer to in any number of books. So why bother asking me for the answer?
But what are you really seeing and what is the real predictable movements?
I don't know. You tell me since you seem to be the one who knows all the real answers.
Wrong. That's your words you are using in order to try and convince yourself that I simply go against anything mainstream, no matter what.
It's a massive straw man argument.
Ok then give me an example of something mainstream in science which you do accept as true. This claim coming from someone who thinks the Sun is some sort of holographic reflection off a dome that no one has yet physically detected yet. Have you? Or do you just 'accept' that it is there without further questioning what it is made from, how it got to be there, what the diameter of it is etc, etc.
-
You are not the first 'Sceptimatic' to come along and you won't be the last. What you guys did before Internet came along I have no idea. Arranged illicit meetings on dark street corners I suspect where you boasted to each other about what you 'knew' which no else did.
Before the internet they wrote manifestos, ranted on street corners, embarrassed their relatives during Thanksgiving dinners and otherwise just kept to themselves.
Not much has changed, other than having a corner on the internet to yell and rant and have their ideas archived.
Some are more successful than others. Time Cube guy got internet famous and will never be forgotten, skeptimatic's "tube theory" is frankly just not entertaining enough to have that kind of mass appeal.
-
You went weak and bowed to your internet buddies not to go any further.
I understand why you did it. You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong but you're having a lot of trouble setting that up.
I'm happy enough for you to deck out.
I'm sure your happy that I'm not still constantly proving you wrong with photos. Especially since you can't provide any of your own. I'll give you a break, for now.
You live in your own little fantasy land, it must be cozy in there, not like the real world which confuses you so.
Can't answer the simple question the thread op asked, can't figure out how to look through a tube, or take a picture.
But you can lie about doing the experiment though, at least you are capable of doing something.
I started to respect you when you put the effort in. Internet persona respect, of course. And then you failed. Such a shame.
-
There is literally no reason why denpressure wouldn't work on a sphere. You didn't provide an explanation as to why it has to be flat, you simply stated how it is. A denser stacked/layered atmosphere towards a foundation contained by a membrane of sorts works equally well on a flat plane as it does surrounding a sphere.
No it does not. And also, how can you even say that when you struggle to understand my theory?
You really have to differentiate why your denpressure world has to be flat. You have failed to do so.
I haven't failed to do so. You and your internet buddies have failed to grasp it, whether by inability to understand or inability to want to understand.
-
The only one backed into a corner here is you.
You have been provided evidence which clearly shows you are wrong.
I'm not backed into any corner and you have provided zero evidence of anything that proves you right and me wrong.
-
You went weak and bowed to your internet buddies not to go any further.
I understand why you did it. You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong but you're having a lot of trouble setting that up.
I'm happy enough for you to deck out.
I'm sure your happy that I'm not still constantly proving you wrong with photos. Especially since you can't provide any of your own. I'll give you a break, for now.
You live in your own little fantasy land, it must be cozy in there, not like the real world which confuses you so.
Can't answer the simple question the thread op asked, can't figure out how to look through a tube, or take a picture.
But you can lie about doing the experiment though, at least you are capable of doing something.
I started to respect you when you put the effort in. Internet persona respect, of course. And then you failed. Such a shame.
Liar.
You told me my pictures were faked and I was cheating. You accused me of fraud and refused to accept any pictures or diagrams or even basic math that I provided.
Respect, sure.
Now look at things from the other side, you have put no work in, provided no pictures, showed zero effort. How much respect do YOU deserve?
-
Ignoring everything else for the moment you asked about what planetary spheres I see through my telescope.
I can easily post several images that I have taken of Jupiter and Saturn and Venus which show them as clearly spherical.
Ordinarily that would be straightforward but if I were to post any image's would you accept my word for them being mine and not just copied and pasted from somewhere else.
I will even post a photo of the equipment in my observatory if you are interested and point out the specific kit used for planetary imaging. I can take images of anything astronomical so any specific requests will be warmly accepted.
You cannot show anything that verifies a sphere in the sky, no matter what you produce. You know this 100%, so why even try to attempt to sway me that you can?
-
Tell me what gravity is and how it works to do what it does.
Just did, numbskull.
No you did not.
You've explained nothing about it.
Tell me what your brain is and how it works to do what it does. When you're finished, tell me what your consciousness is and how it works to do what it does. Next, tell me what your thoughts are, how they work to do what they do, and where they come from.
Is this your way of telling me your gravity is a word that cannot be explained as anything physical but told as a story because it fits that fiction?
If you want the scientific explanation for how gravity works, read a book.
Ahhhhhh...read a book. Now we're getting somewhere. The story book of fiction which you borrowed from the fact shelf and didn't bother to query it.
Ours is not to wonder why, ours is just to do or die.
Just be a drone. Do and then die. Fair enough.
-
Sceptimatic lets be clear about one thing. You are just one person who has taken an alternative stance on life and believes he knows a few things about the world which has somehow managed to evade all the worlds great scientists up to now. If that's the case then congratulations.
I don't believe its evaded the worlds leading scientists. I believe genuine scientists know what Earth is not...at the very least.
What they think it is, would be open to scrutiny......if......I say "if" it was to be allowed...which it would not be, in my opinion.
I'm talking a genuine stance, not a made for TV debate that is choreographed for the ever gullible, us. And we are all gullible. It's just the extent of it, for some, against others.
You are not the first 'Sceptimatic' to come along and you won't be the last.
I agree with that.
What you guys did before Internet came along I have no idea.
I worked all hours and droned on. Came home, ate my meal, had a shower and read the papers...and believed them....then maybe watched TV, including the news....and believed it, unless the TV specifically passed it off as, fiction.
Or, I went out for a few pints with the lads and we talked about football and stuff.
The Earth was a spinning globe at this time. I had zero need to question it or anything else.
I used to believe a certain lad who I drank with, as part of a group of us. He had stories on top of stories and all passed off as factual. What did I know?
Until he was slowly picked apart and he became the storyteller whose stories must be told but the facts he no longer sold.....because we did not buy them.
Now the silly thing about that was....some of his stories were the truth and verified.....but......but.......he was no longer taken serious and all of his stories from that point on were accepted as just them. Stories alone and taken as neither truth nor fiction.
Does any of this ring a bell?
Arranged illicit meetings on dark street corners I suspect where you boasted to each other about what you 'knew' which no else did.
Don't get mixed up with forum typing and dark street corners where the shoe polisher knows a few things nobody else does.
In order to make your case appear stronger, you deliberately overlook or simply ignore facts which you know are true but you don't want to believe.
Tell me those facts?
That's where denial kicks in on your side.
It depends what it is I'm denying and why I'm doing it.
Mass attracting each other?
Explain why a grain of sand does not get attracted to a mountain or a iron filing does not get attracted to a girder just inches away?
Easy. The reality is the grain of sand does get attracted to a mountain and an iron filing does get attracted to a girder no matter how near or far away it is. However the attraction that the grand of sand, the mountain, the iron filing and the girder all feel towards the thing under our feet (i.e. the Earth) is so, so much stronger that we don't ordinarily notice the attraction between smaller objects which are miniscule in comparison. You could work this out for yourself if you could be bothered but your mindset would prefer to see it from your belief point of view instead.
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon...but a grain of sand and the mountain pose no such so called pull from it.
You know this is nonsense. You absolutely know it's nonsense, in my opinion..... but you are fearful of ever giving yourself the time to dare to see it like that, against mass peer pressure and ridicule you know you'd get if you ever did.
That's weak.
Gravity itself is extremely weak. Hence the reason why I can put my finger on the grain of sand and lift it up with just one finger. That is enough to overcome the gravitational force from Earth pulling the grain of sand back down to the ground. Swap the grain of sand with a 1 tonne boulder though and I now need a crane to lift it. All you have done is changed is the secondary mass and that is why the force has increased. because F is proportional to m.
It's weak when it wants to be but strong enough to pull in a moon. Come on for crying out loud.
You maintain it is pressure that causes this effect so show us the calculations you have done to get the same figure from pressure as we do from plugging in the values for G,M,m and r. It shouldn't be that hard for you.
I don't need calculations to see what pressure we can clearly see happening when we try to alter the balance.
All the other questions you are asking me about gravity etc or 'lights in the sky' are questions you can find the answer to in any number of books.
No, I can't. Books do not provide any answers.
They simply tell us that gravity does this and that.......not what it is as a force and why mass attracts mass only when the situation suits.
So why bother asking me for the answer?
Why are you here? You're trying to tell me the answers to your globe. So I'm asking you.
And as usual, like the rest...you bottle it because you have no clue.
But what are you really seeing and what is the real predictable movements?
I don't know. You tell me since you seem to be the one who knows all the real answers.
That's good enough for me. At least you are being honest.
Wrong. That's your words you are using in order to try and convince yourself that I simply go against anything mainstream, no matter what.
It's a massive straw man argument.
Ok then give me an example of something mainstream in science which you do accept as true.
Lots of stuff that I question and won't accept as true unless I am shown that truth.
You unconditionally accept it, it seems, without real proof.
This claim coming from someone who thinks the Sun is some sort of holographic reflection off a dome that no one has yet physically detected yet.
And you try to ridicule my theory with a mindset of a near million mile diameter ball of fire in a vacuum of space with your Earth spinning around it....etc.
Your comfort zone is mass indoctrinated compliance to that....and that's all it is.
Mass indoctrination and compliance can make people believe red is white. It's all about a built up intimidation to ensure peer pressured conformity.
Have you? Or do you just 'accept' that it is there without further questioning what it is made from, how it got to be there, what the diameter of it is etc, etc.
I've went through many thoughts and looked at many things to give me many clues about what we may be part of.
It's about looking at how things work in our lives to see that a bigger scale would reap the very same and the very same would be the natural workings of Earth that we live in.
I don't just accept a big ball of fire in a vacuum like I did when I had little time to think.
-
You went weak and bowed to your internet buddies not to go any further.
I understand why you did it. You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong but you're having a lot of trouble setting that up.
I'm happy enough for you to deck out.
I'm sure your happy that I'm not still constantly proving you wrong with photos. Especially since you can't provide any of your own. I'll give you a break, for now.
You live in your own little fantasy land, it must be cozy in there, not like the real world which confuses you so.
Can't answer the simple question the thread op asked, can't figure out how to look through a tube, or take a picture.
But you can lie about doing the experiment though, at least you are capable of doing something.
I started to respect you when you put the effort in. Internet persona respect, of course. And then you failed. Such a shame.
Liar.
You told me my pictures were faked and I was cheating. You accused me of fraud and refused to accept any pictures or diagrams or even basic math that I provided.
Respect, sure.
Now look at things from the other side, you have put no work in, provided no pictures, showed zero effort. How much respect do YOU deserve?
You're here to try and ridicule alternate thinkers into global compliance, once again.
You're failing with each post....but, your efforts are respected by myself.
Don't get mixed up.
-
Now we're getting somewhere. The story book of fiction which you borrowed from the fact shelf and didn't bother to query it.
Just be a drone. Do and then die. Fair enough.
Aah be careful
You already admitted you have no facts and never touted your side as fact.
Now you claim others are fiction?
-
Now we're getting somewhere. The story book of fiction which you borrowed from the fact shelf and didn't bother to query it.
Just be a drone. Do and then die. Fair enough.
Aah be careful
You already admitted you have no facts and never touted your side as fact.
Now you claim others are fiction?
I do claim the spinning globe nonsense as fiction. I stand by it for reasons I've given.
No need for me to be careful.
As for my stuff. I've already set it out as potential (to me) without fact (to others).
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon...but a grain of sand and the mountain pose no such so called pull from it.
You know this is nonsense. You absolutely know it's nonsense, in my opinion..... but you are fearful of ever giving yourself the time to dare to see it like that, against mass peer pressure and ridicule you know you'd get if you ever did.
That's weak.
It's weak when it wants to be but strong enough to pull in a moon. Come on for crying out loud.
What direction do you think the water will "fall"?
You purposefully misquoted him on strength of gravity.
Back in for all to see.
The reality is the grain of sand does get attracted to a mountain and an iron filing does get attracted to a girder no matter how near or far away it is. However the attraction that the grand of sand, the mountain, the iron filing and the girder all feel towards the thing under our feet (i.e. the Earth) is so, so much stronger that we don't ordinarily notice the attraction between smaller objects which are miniscule in comparison. You could work this out for yourself if you could be bothered but your mindset would prefer to see it from your belief point of view instead.
Gravity itself is extremely weak. Hence the reason why I can put my finger on the grain of sand and lift it up with just one finger. That is enough to overcome the gravitational force from Earth pulling the grain of sand back down to the ground. Swap the grain of sand with a 1 tonne boulder though and I now need a crane to lift it. All you have done is changed is the secondary mass and that is why the force has increased. because F is proportional to m.
-
You went weak and bowed to your internet buddies not to go any further.
I understand why you did it. You are trying to figure out a way to rig it so you can pretend to show I'm wrong but you're having a lot of trouble setting that up.
I'm happy enough for you to deck out.
I'm sure your happy that I'm not still constantly proving you wrong with photos. Especially since you can't provide any of your own. I'll give you a break, for now.
You live in your own little fantasy land, it must be cozy in there, not like the real world which confuses you so.
Can't answer the simple question the thread op asked, can't figure out how to look through a tube, or take a picture.
But you can lie about doing the experiment though, at least you are capable of doing something.
I started to respect you when you put the effort in. Internet persona respect, of course. And then you failed. Such a shame.
Liar.
You told me my pictures were faked and I was cheating. You accused me of fraud and refused to accept any pictures or diagrams or even basic math that I provided.
Respect, sure.
Now look at things from the other side, you have put no work in, provided no pictures, showed zero effort. How much respect do YOU deserve?
You're here to try and ridicule alternate thinkers into global compliance, once again.
You're failing with each post....but, your efforts are respected by myself.
Don't get mixed up.
So now I'm part of some global conspiracy because I looked through a tube and saw the ground? Yes, the whole world is conspiring against you.
Once more you have nothing and refuse to even take a picture through a tube. How many hundreds of posts have you made about your tube but won't even take a simple picture? That's an amazing amount of work all to avoid doing such a simple thing.
Which you claim you already did, but won't show anyone for reasons. Sure.
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon...but a grain of sand and the mountain pose no such so called pull from it.
You know this is nonsense. You absolutely know it's nonsense, in my opinion..... but you are fearful of ever giving yourself the time to dare to see it like that, against mass peer pressure and ridicule you know you'd get if you ever did.
That's weak.
It's weak when it wants to be but strong enough to pull in a moon. Come on for crying out loud.
What direction do you think the water will "fall"?
You purposefully misquoted him on strength of gravity.
Let's get this straight.
If your globe spins at the speeds that's said and the globe fattens out towards the equator because of this...as we're told, then don't you think the water in the seas would be compromised?
The stuff is hideous. It's nonsensical and is all a story of fiction backed up with CGI and composite pictures....etc.....etc.
-
So now I'm part of some global conspiracy because I looked through a tube and saw the ground?
Nooooo. You're just a person on the forum who thought he could pull the wool. You aren't the first and you certainly won't be the last.
I did respect your efforts, though.
Yes, the whole world is conspiring against you.
Not at all. The world is not the people.
Once more you have nothing and refuse to even take a picture through a tube. How many hundreds of posts have you made about your tube but won't even take a simple picture? That's an amazing amount of work all to avoid doing such a simple thing.
Which you claim you already did, but won't show anyone for reasons. Sure.
I know what's what. You do, too....but the reality seems to scare the hell out of you.
-
Let's get this straight.
If your globe spins at the speeds that's said and the globe fattens out towards the equator because of this...as we're told, then don't you think the water in the seas would be compromised?
The stuff is hideous. It's nonsensical and is all a story of fiction backed up with CGI and composite pictures....etc.....etc.
Right.
Hold a ball on a flat plate so it is free to roll as soon as you start spinning.
Now start spinning - at 1 rotation per 24hr.
Let me know how fast that ball shoots off your plate.
Hold the plate level, with a photo of the level, and include some tubes while youre at it, just for fun.
-
Also
Still waiting for your photo of the two tubes
As well new question - where is water supposed to fall off if the world is a ball?
-
Right.
Hold a ball on a flat plate so it is free to roll as soon as you start spinning.
Now start spinning - at 1 rotation per 24hr.
Let me know how fadt that ball shoots off your plate.
Hold the plate level, with a photo of the level, and include some tubes while youre at it, just for fun.
I'll need to spin the ball as fast as it's needed in order for the ball to fatten out at its equator.
Spinning it at one rotation in 24 hours will do nothing.
So tell me:
What makes your Earth fatten out at the equator, because I was led to believe it was this 1000+ mph spin.
Maybe you can verify this or put another take on it.
Can you?
-
Also
Still waiting for your photo of the two tubes
As well new question - where is water supposed to fall off if the world is a ball?
I'm waiting for you or someone else to show me the two tubes. JJA had all the expensive equipment set up and claimed he could not afford the extra tube required to follow my instructions. Can you lend him one?
As for the water.
If it was on a ball it would fall off any any point you place it as you turn the ball, unless you've managed to show real life that it doesn't. Have you?
I don't mean telling me to look at the oceans, because you know fine well how ridiculous that is to pass off as a water filled globe.
-
Also
Still waiting for your photo of the two tubes
As well new question - where is water supposed to fall off if the world is a ball?
I'm waiting for you or someone else to show me the two tubes. JJA had all the expensive equipment set up and claimed he could not afford the extra tube required to follow my instructions. Can you lend him one?
As for the water.
If it was on a ball it would fall off any any point you place it as you turn the ball, unless you've managed to show real life that it doesn't. Have you?
I don't mean telling me to look at the oceans, because you know fine well how ridiculous that is to pass off as a water filled globe.
Jja gave up because you kept changing the requirements.
We asked YOU dince you know the perfect setup to prove us all what you see.
Its the only way for us to understand what you perceive as reality.
Fake your photo.
Highlight what we re supposed to see.
Teach us something.
Aaaaaaaah what?
Where is down on a globe?
-
So now I'm part of some global conspiracy because I looked through a tube and saw the ground?
Nooooo. You're just a person on the forum who thought he could pull the wool. You aren't the first and you certainly won't be the last.
I did respect your efforts, though.
Yes, the whole world is conspiring against you.
Not at all. The world is not the people.
Once more you have nothing and refuse to even take a picture through a tube. How many hundreds of posts have you made about your tube but won't even take a simple picture? That's an amazing amount of work all to avoid doing such a simple thing.
Which you claim you already did, but won't show anyone for reasons. Sure.
I know what's what. You do, too....but the reality seems to scare the hell out of you.
Literally ANYONE can look through a tube and see exactly what I showed in my pictures. It takes a whole 5 minutes to find a tube, go outside and look to verify that I'm not lying. You are.
So yes, it's you against everyone in the entire world since only you seem to be unable to look through a tube correctly and somehow think you can't see the sky or the ground through it. Everyone else has looked through a tube and knows what you will see.
Reality doesn't scare me, but it certainly terrifies you. Why else would you be too afraid to look through a tube and post a picture of it? You do an awful lot of work to avoid such a simple thing.
Out of everything you have said here, this has to be the best evidence of your living in your own reality. It's so easy to prove you wrong, just look through a tube. But you seem incapable of even understanding the concept of being wrong.
How you get through everyday life is a mystery.
-
Also
Still waiting for your photo of the two tubes
As well new question - where is water supposed to fall off if the world is a ball?
I'm waiting for you or someone else to show me the two tubes. JJA had all the expensive equipment set up and claimed he could not afford the extra tube required to follow my instructions. Can you lend him one?
Liar.
I never said I couldn't afford another tube. I said I didn't have one and it wasn't worth the effort to go get one, since you would just change your demand to three tubes if I did.
Why can't you follow your own instructions and show us? Too lazy, or too complicated for you to manage? It involves looking through a tube after all.
-
Literally ANYONE can look through a tube and see exactly what I showed in my pictures. It takes a whole 5 minutes to find a tube, go outside and look to verify that I'm not lying. You are.
The issue is not what you see through a tube when you're outside. It;'s in how you see through it after you were instructed.
You seriously think you can pull the wool over my eyes by setting up a tube on a downward slope and levelling that tube still shows you that downward slope.
What a joke.
-
Also
Still waiting for your photo of the two tubes
As well new question - where is water supposed to fall off if the world is a ball?
I'm waiting for you or someone else to show me the two tubes. JJA had all the expensive equipment set up and claimed he could not afford the extra tube required to follow my instructions. Can you lend him one?
Liar.
I never said I couldn't afford another tube. I said I didn't have one and it wasn't worth the effort to go get one, since you would just change your demand to three tubes if I did.
Why can't you follow your own instructions and show us? Too lazy, or too complicated for you to manage? It involves looking through a tube after all.
You bottled it and you know it.
I'm not surprised you did bottle it. I knew you'd struggle to find a way out of it.
I'd hazard a guess that, while you are arguing the toss with me, you are trying to find a way to set it up to try the dupe. I'd love to see your efforts.
I'd prefer to see honesty...but.
-
Literally ANYONE can look through a tube and see exactly what I showed in my pictures. It takes a whole 5 minutes to find a tube, go outside and look to verify that I'm not lying. You are.
The issue is not what you see through a tube when you're outside. It;'s in how you see through it after you were instructed.
You seriously think you can pull the wool over my eyes by setting up a tube on a downward slope and levelling that tube still shows you that downward slope.
What a joke.
No, anyone can repeat this 'experiment' with a level toilet paper tube and see the ground. Anyone. It takes five minutes to verify my results and see exactly what my pictures showed.
If I was lying and tilting it down and faking it, don't you think SOMEONE would post pictures of their own showing the real view?
But nobody has because nobody can even understand what you THINK you would see. Nothing you say makes any sense. If we can't see the ground or the sky then what exactly do you imagine it even looks like?
Nobody is lying to you or fooling you or tricking you. It's all in your head, and all of the other billions of people who have looked through tubes sees exactly what I have shown.
You can claim I am trying to trick you all you want, but everyone else can simply look through a tube and see the truth. Everyone except you.
-
Also
Still waiting for your photo of the two tubes
As well new question - where is water supposed to fall off if the world is a ball?
I'm waiting for you or someone else to show me the two tubes. JJA had all the expensive equipment set up and claimed he could not afford the extra tube required to follow my instructions. Can you lend him one?
Liar.
I never said I couldn't afford another tube. I said I didn't have one and it wasn't worth the effort to go get one, since you would just change your demand to three tubes if I did.
Why can't you follow your own instructions and show us? Too lazy, or too complicated for you to manage? It involves looking through a tube after all.
You bottled it and you know it.
I'm not surprised you did bottle it. I knew you'd struggle to find a way out of it.
I'd hazard a guess that, while you are arguing the toss with me, you are trying to find a way to set it up to try the dupe. I'd love to see your efforts.
I'd prefer to see honesty...but.
You can't even explain why you find it impossible to show pictures of an experiment you claimed to have performed.
You are also constantly missing the point that this is not a hard experiment for anyone else to perform, and anyone can verify my results. Anyone but you.
Why would I bother to fake an experiment that can be so easily done by anyone reading this? It's just a tube. You just look through it. ::)
-
So would you or wouldn't you like me to post a couple of my OWN planetary images? So you can see what your lights in the sky really look like with a bit of magnification applied to them.
I can promise you any image I post is one I have personally taken with my own equipment and processed myself to bring out the details in them.
-
Literally ANYONE can look through a tube and see exactly what I showed in my pictures. It takes a whole 5 minutes to find a tube, go outside and look to verify that I'm not lying. You are.
The issue is not what you see through a tube when you're outside. It;'s in how you see through it after you were instructed.
You seriously think you can pull the wool over my eyes by setting up a tube on a downward slope and levelling that tube still shows you that downward slope.
What a joke.
No, anyone can repeat this 'experiment' with a level toilet paper tube and see the ground. Anyone. It takes five minutes to verify my results and see exactly what my pictures showed.
If I was lying and tilting it down and faking it, don't you think SOMEONE would post pictures of their own showing the real view?
But nobody has because nobody can even understand what you THINK you would see. Nothing you say makes any sense. If we can't see the ground or the sky then what exactly do you imagine it even looks like?
Nobody is lying to you or fooling you or tricking you. It's all in your head, and all of the other billions of people who have looked through tubes sees exactly what I have shown.
You can claim I am trying to trick you all you want, but everyone else can simply look through a tube and see the truth. Everyone except you.
Nobody needs to post anything. It's me against you lot. Nobody else is backing me up.
This is all you lot backpatting each other. I wouldn't expect anything else.
You bottled it.
-
So would you or wouldn't you like me to post a couple of my OWN planetary images? So you can see what your lights in the sky really look like with a bit of magnification applied to them.
I can promise you any image I post is one I have personally taken with my own equipment and processed myself to bring out the details in them.
Come on then, let's see them.
-
Nobody needs to post anything. It's me against you lot. Nobody else is backing me up.
This is all you lot backpatting each other. I wouldn't expect anything else.
You bottled it.
No, this is you making a wild claim, everyone else showing you that you're wrong, and you doing NOTHING to show any evidence at all.
The reason nobody is backing you up is because everyone can look through a tube and see it works just like my pictures. What is there to back up, you haven't made a coherent argument.
You are amazingly lazy. You make wild claims, then expect everyone else to do your work for you and whine when they get tired of your endless childish demands.
You made the claim, it's your responsibility to provide evidence for it.
-
Ok well here is Saturn for starters. Always a good one since the rings provide that enhanced sensation of depth and 3D. Look carefully and you can even see part of the rings next to the disk hidden due to the shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fskcQYQ/Saturn.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Here's another taken with the other telescope which is a specialist solar telescope. Here we are using purely the light of the H alpha line and so looking at the chromosphere of the Sun. That is the normally invisible layer of the solar atmosphere directly above the photosphere. Temperature increase here to about 20,000K which is why the chromosphere produces an emission spectrum rather than an absorption spectrum. The telescope can take advantage of this and 'zoom in' to the H alpha line at 626.3nm. It does this by employing a double interference filter which eliminates all the light apart from the specific wavelength I am after.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hP3bk3rS/Sun-in-Ha.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Those are great pictures, I've always wanted an H-Alpha band telescope but I don't get enough sunny days here to make it worth it.
I got some great Milky Way shots when I was driving across country, lots of spots in the middle of nowhere with no light pollution. Would be nice to live there for the view but then again, I like big cities and everything they can provide. Just not a view of the sky.
-
Well thank you. Plenty more where they came from but this is not an astroimaging forum after all. Name a target though and I will image it for you. So that's my offering. Lets see what Sceptimatic has in his photo album.
-
Well thank you. Plenty more where they came from but this is not an astroimaging forum after all. Name a target though and I will image it for you. So that's my offering. Lets see what Sceptimatic has in his photo album.
If looking through a toilet paper tube is beyond his abilities, I can't imagine the trouble he would have trying to operate a telescope.
-
Where are the FE scientists who have conducted experiments? Beyond the Curve showed two experiments, which both failed*.
There was the one who photographed a channel or canal back in the day. Are they the only ones?
*Did not give the result they expected.
-
Well here are my 'tubes' The solar telescope us nearest the camera while the centre one is the 10" planetary imaging scope while the smallest one furthest from the camera (Takahashi FSQ106ED) is a dedicated for deep sky imaging.
All scopes are mounted on a computerised equatorial mount which is self-tracking and aligned to the NCP to within 30' arc. Since this is not an astronomy forum though I won't go into any more details but if you have an specific questions about anything feel free to PM me.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvKnysVr/scopes.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/1grXM5Q1)
-
Take a picture of your telescope with todays newspaper and an apple with a pencil stuck in the side to prove this isnt a generic internet photo you grabbed.
-
That photo was taken back in the summer while I was observing the Sun but I will certainly take an image of the mount in approximately the same position with an apple balanced on top tomorrow during daylight if that would qualify as proof. We don't get newspapers here.
-
That photo was taken back in the summer while I was observing the Sun but I will certainly take an image of the mount in approximately the same position with an apple balanced on top tomorrow during daylight if that would qualify as proof. We don't get newspapers here.
That's a start, but after that we will demand you eat the apple on video to prove it's not fake.
Once you do that then more conditions will be added. If you ever refuse then everyone can smugly call you a fake because you won't follow our dumb instructions anymore.
:P
-
Nice pics there solarwind thanks.
I took this picture about 13 years ago. It was taken using a Meade lx90 8 inch and a cannon 350D, and if I remember correctly the picture consists of ten 30 second exposures stacked together using photoshop. I'm no expert, but was very pleased with this image, Its m104 "The Sombrero Galaxy". I don't have the scope anymore, and haven't done any amateur astronomy for years now, wish I still did though.
(https://i.imgur.com/6SxBiJU.jpg)
-
To stay on topic: If you're a flat earther, would the picture above change your mind about the universe being small in FET? apparently m104 is about 50 million light years away.
-
Apparently it is. A distance measured by two completely different methods. Namely Type 1a supernova and through Cepheid variable monitoring via the Hubble. 50 million lightyears makes it one of our nearer galactic neighbours although not close enough to be part of the local group.
I have to say that I find the FE approach to astronomy quite intriguing. To me it is all perfectly natural and logical. But the FE side is always tinged with an air of denial about it all. Without any real justification for that denial. Which is a great shame I think.
-
I'm not backed into any corner and you have provided zero evidence of anything that proves you right and me wrong.
I skipped the evidence as I knew you would simply dismiss it, but I have provided logical arguments and diagrams and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong. Unlike the evidence, there is no way for these logical arguments or diagrams to be a con, so there is no excuse for you to use, so you simply ignore them, repeatedly.
That shows just how you have been backed into a corner with no way out.
If you weren't backed into a corner, and hadn't been shown to be wrong beyond any sane doubt, you would have addressed the arguments and diagrams, clearly pointing out what is wrong with it with an actual justification, rather than simply dismissing them or ignoring them.
Likewise, you would actually answer the questions asked of you.
Remember this diagram I provided plenty of times:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Remember how I repeatedly asked you what magic stops the ray of light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye?
This is a simple disproof of your insanity. The light reaching your eye from a tube doesn't come into the tube parallel. That would require a lens, like in the below diagram.
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
Without such a lens, the light simply comes in in a straight line, and thus you see things below the tube, including potentially the ground, like in this scale diagram of a RE:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
So unless you can tell us what magic stops the blue line, you have been backed into a corner and shown to be wrong beyond any doubt.
Likewise, remember this argument you repeatedly ignored (or came up with pathetic excuses to try to avoid it) because it clearly shows you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
If you weren't backed into a corner and shown to be wrong beyond any doubt you would have clearly pointed which point(s) of this argument you think are wrong, why you think it is wrong and what the correct version should be.
Likewise, you would have answered the question which is dealing with the first points of the argument you haven't accepted yet:
Just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Instead you continually appeal to a level scope and your baseless and refuted assertion that the horizon shouldn't be seen through a level scope. You do this as an excuse to ignore the simple question which establishes beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon, while you also repeatedly claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon at all, anywhere.
So it is quite clear that you have been backed into a corner and shown to be wrong beyond any doubt.
But in terms of evidence, plenty of evidence has been provided by others which show beyond any sane doubt that you are wrong.
But you reject it as a con job, with no justification at all. The only reason you reject it as a con-job is because it shows you are wrong and you have no interest in admitting you are wrong.
And your refusal to provide a complete list of requirements, which if met, means you simply admit you are wrong rather than looking for more excuses also shows not only that you have been backed into a corner, but that you also likely know you are wrong (as does your complete refusal to provide evidence of your own to show what you repeatedly claim we should see).
I started to respect you
No you didn't.
The only people you show respect here are those who appear to just be accepting whatever BS you spout.
If they question you to the point you cannot answer them, or they show you are wrong, you insult them; just like you insulted him by accusing him of faking evidence.
Respecting him would be accepting what he showed as evidence that you are wrong. But that would basically be accepting that you are wrong, so of course you wont do that.
No it does not.
You are technically correct as it doesn't work at all, regardless of the shape of Earth, but you are yet provide any justification (which is actual justification rather than a nonsense excuse which has been refuted) for why it shouldn't work on a round Earth if it did work on a flat Earth.
And also, how can you even say that when you struggle to understand my theory?
Realising your model is pure nonsense doesn't mean we don't understand it.
Either way, it shows your claim for why we reject it is pure garbage.
It doesn't matter if we merely think it works just as well for a RE or if it actually does work just as well for a RE, either way, we think it works just as well for a RE and thus there is no need to reject it to cling to a RE.
You cannot show anything that verifies a sphere in the sky, no matter what you produce.
Plenty of people can. It just would never be enough for you, as you have no interest in accepting reality.
You're here to try and ridicule alternate thinkers into global compliance, once again.
You're failing with each post....but, your efforts are respected by myself.
Don't get mixed up.
And there you go projecting yet again.
You are the one attempting to ridicule people, not us.
You are the one repeatedly failing, not us.
Clearly explaining why you are wrong is not ridiculing you.
Providing plenty of evidence that shows you are wrong is not ridiculing you.
You repeatedly making baseless assertions and dismissing reality as nonsense and those who support it as indoctrinated fools is attempting to ridicule.
I do claim the spinning globe nonsense as fiction. I stand by it for reasons I've given.
What reasons?
Do you mean your refuted strawmen? Or your baseless assertions contradicted by plenty of evidence which you just dismiss as a con-job?
Because I am yet to see you provide anything that actually indicates Earth is not round or spinning.
As for my stuff. I've already set it out as potential (to me) without fact (to others).
And we have shown it makes no sense and in plenty of cases is completely false.
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
but a grain of sand and the mountain pose no such so called pull from it.
You know this is nonsense.
We know the garbage you spout is nonsense.
The grain of sand and mountain are also pulled towards Earth. The force attracting the grain of sand to the mountain is tiny compared to the force attracting the grain of sand towards the centre of Earth. The net force on the grain of sand from gravity is basically straight down to the centre of Earth.
It's weak when it wants to be but strong enough to pull in a moon.
What moon is it pulling in?
Do you mean it is strong enough to keep the moon in orbit?
That is just because of how massive the moon is.
I don't need calculations to see what pressure we can clearly see happening when we try to alter the balance.
The only balance pressure cares about is the balance of pressure. If that was all there was, there would be no pressure gradients and no other forces.
As soon as you have multiple forces you need calculations to determine the net force.
At least you are being honest.
You should try it some time.
Lots of stuff that I question and won't accept as true unless I am shown that truth.
You unconditionally accept it, it seems, without real proof.
And more lies.
What you reject (not merely question) you will not accept as true, even when shown that truth. Instead you will continue to reject it as you have done repeatedly in this thread.
What we accept as true, we do not accept unconditionally. We accept it based upon the plentiful evidence supporting it, and will only accept it until it can be shown to be wrong. And by that I don't mean you just lie and say it is wrong, not show a problem with a strawman, but actually show a problem with it.
I don't just accept a big ball of fire in a vacuum like I did when I had little time to think.
Yet you cannot show any problem with it.
If your globe spins at the speeds that's said and the globe fattens out towards the equator because of this...as we're told, then don't you think the water in the seas would be compromised?
Do you mean it would bulge out at the equator just like Earth itself?
If so, yes, and it does.
Or do you mean it would all fly to the equator? If so, no. This is where actual calculations can help.
Trying to do it without calculations can be quite problematic.
You have the rotation of Earth trying to move water to the equator and outwards from that.
But countering that you have gravity trying to pull the water down.
Gravity tries to make a sphere, the spinning tries to make an ever expanding ring.
The net result is an oblate spheroid, where gravity is the primary force making it roughly a sphere, while the rotation makes it bludge out at the equator.
The level surface is an equipotential surface where the water doesn't continue to flow towards the equator as that would make it too high and result in gravity pulling it back down.
This makes sense. And all you can do is try to ridicule it rather than try to show a problem with it.
You're just a person on the forum who thought he could pull the wool.
No, that would be you, continually trying to lie to everyone to try to con them into rejecting the globe.
I did respect your efforts, though.
No you didn't. You rejected it as a con-job.
Rejecting it as a con-job is not respecting it.
Respecting it would be accepting it as an honest attempt to observe and document reality, it would be accepting it as evidence that you are wrong, and only rejecting it if you can actually show a technical fault with it, or if you can provide counter evidence.
I know what's what. You do, too....but the reality seems to scare the hell out of you.
And projecting again.
You are the one refusing to provide a photo to show you are wrong, so scared you outright refuse to provide evidence of your own and reject all evidence as a con-job.
We all know you are wrong.
I'm waiting for you or someone else to show me the two tubes.
And we are all waiting for you to do so.
claimed he could not afford the extra tube required to follow my instructions.
No, that isn't what he claimed.
But everyone can see that that would be a completely pointless exercise, as you will just dismiss it as well, and 2 tubes does nothing except make the entire thing harder. It is a needless complexity.
Again, maybe if you provide a comprehensive list of requirements such that when the evidence is provided you will simply accept that you are wrong without excuse, then someone might be willing to do it.
-
They simply tell us that gravity does this and that.......not what it is as a force and why mass attracts mass only when the situation suits.
Why does anybody need to understand how gravity works to know what it does? That is like saying you need to understand how a car works in order to drive one. As everyday experience tells us, clearly you don't. Name me any piece of equipment that is commonly used in life which we need to know how it works in order to use it.
Books tell us that any object with mass attracts any other object with mass and they tell us how to calculate the size of the force that exists between them. If you then go on to measure that force (where practicable) you will find it is correct. Is that what you mean by being 'indoctrinated'? Being told what the force will be between two objects and then being able to confirm it by measurement? That happens a lot in science, you should try it sometime.
What more do you need to know than that?
Did you not like my photos? You accepted my invitation to post a couple pretty quickly but you haven't made any comment about them since.
When scientists consider alternate theories or models, they do not eliminate any until sufficient evidence has been clearly presented that favours one over the others. Science is about process of elimination.
Your version of 'alternate thinking' is to cast aside as irrelevant and wrong anything which doesn't conform with your beliefs straightaway. So for you it's Sceptimatics model or no model. Where is the science in that?
If your globe spins at the speeds that's said and the globe fattens out towards the equator because of this...as we're told, then don't you think the water in the seas would be compromised?
Compromised... how exactly? What do you think it is going to do, fly off into space or something? Ahh so that is why the media are always telling us there is a water shortage!
-
I'm not sure why any of you expect scepti to respect you when there are pages and pages of insults aimed at him in this thread.
-
I'm not sure why any of you expect scepti to respect you when there are pages and pages of insults aimed at him in this thread.
Who was expecting respect? I never saw anyone ask for that from him, he brought it up.
Why wouldn't you expect a harsh tone in return for being constantly told you're deliberately faking photos, making up evidence and his own insults? If someone is going to accuse me of being a fake after bending over backwards to do what they asked, I'm not going to mince words.
-
You haven't bent over backwards, this is a forum not a gymnasium. If you really want to discuss moderation, you know where the thread needs to be posted, otherwise, you can mince your words or not. I will deal with it, if I have to.
-
Since when did pointing out, explaining why and showing where someone is wrong by what they claim or believe qualify as an insult towards them?
Scepti has claimed that the stars and planets are just 'lights in the sky' unless we can show him otherwise. So I have by posting my own photos. What are they if not evidence that he is wrong?
Oh yes and happy 2021 everyone!
-
I want you to go back at least three pages, and then read the replies. Be sure to read the ones that are just talking shit about scepti and not contributing to the discussion at all. Don't read them as a defender of the RE, read them as if you are me, the mother of misfits.
Also, happy new year!
-
Nooooo. You're just a person on the forum who thought he could pull the wool. You aren't the first and you certainly won't be the last.
I did respect your efforts, though.
This "tube" experiment is tempting though. I might try it if sceptimatic can provide the specifics for it. Two tubes correct?
-
There is literally no reason why denpressure wouldn't work on a sphere. You didn't provide an explanation as to why it has to be flat, you simply stated how it is. A denser stacked/layered atmosphere towards a foundation contained by a membrane of sorts works equally well on a flat plane as it does surrounding a sphere.
No it does not. And also, how can you even say that when you struggle to understand my theory?
You really have to differentiate why your denpressure world has to be flat. You have failed to do so.
I haven't failed to do so. You and your internet buddies have failed to grasp it, whether by inability to understand or inability to want to understand.
The reason being is that you have literally provided no reason why it wouldn't work on a sphere. There's no difference between a flat earth with a containment and a spherical earth with a containment. (I already tossed out the spinning bit) The same not knowing how "down" works in your theory has the same problems on a plane as it does around a sphere. So yeah, maybe the geocentrists would be interested in denpressure as it would work (even though it doesn't work no matter the shape of the earth) for them.
And oh yeah, we all grasp it. Just because we've shown where it fails doesn't mean it hasn't been "grasped".
The point being, what would change your mind about the shape of the earth would be that your theory doesn't need a flat one. Simple as that.
-
Since when did pointing out, explaining why and showing where someone is wrong by what they claim or believe qualify as an insult towards them?
Scepti has claimed that the stars and planets are just 'lights in the sky' unless we can show him otherwise. So I have by posting my own photos. What are they if not evidence that he is wrong?
Oh yes and happy 2021 everyone!
Come on now
Just as he smuggly talks down to us, we do the same to some degree at some point.
-
The difference being that we know that the balance of evidence is tipped very firmly in our favour. Conspiracy theorists are strange creatures. They thrive on adversity and so the stronger the evidence is that shows they are wrong, the more they will 'rise to the challenge' of opposing that evidence and instead insist that they are right.
If you can't eliminate the enemy the best you can do is weaken it. That is at the root of all the dismissive and disparaging comments we get from Scepti about 'your spinning globe'... etc etc.
-
Nobody needs to post anything. It's me against you lot. Nobody else is backing me up.
This is all you lot backpatting each other. I wouldn't expect anything else.
You bottled it.
No, this is you making a wild claim, everyone else showing you that you're wrong, and you doing NOTHING to show any evidence at all.
The reason nobody is backing you up is because everyone can look through a tube and see it works just like my pictures. What is there to back up, you haven't made a coherent argument.
You are amazingly lazy. You make wild claims, then expect everyone else to do your work for you and whine when they get tired of your endless childish demands.
You made the claim, it's your responsibility to provide evidence for it.
You were backed into a corner and you froze. Your words mean nothing from this point on....unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
-
Ok well here is Saturn for starters. Always a good one since the rings provide that enhanced sensation of depth and 3D. Look carefully and you can even see part of the rings next to the disk hidden due to the shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fskcQYQ/Saturn.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Can you prove this is in your space and not a reflective hologram?
-
Here's another taken with the other telescope which is a specialist solar telescope. Here we are using purely the light of the H alpha line and so looking at the chromosphere of the Sun. That is the normally invisible layer of the solar atmosphere directly above the photosphere. Temperature increase here to about 20,000K which is why the chromosphere produces an emission spectrum rather than an absorption spectrum. The telescope can take advantage of this and 'zoom in' to the H alpha line at 626.3nm. It does this by employing a double interference filter which eliminates all the light apart from the specific wavelength I am after.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hP3bk3rS/Sun-in-Ha.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Is this your ball/sphere?
What proof do you have that this is not a reflective hologram?
-
To stay on topic: If you're a flat earther, would the picture above change your mind about the universe being small in FET? apparently m104 is about 50 million light years away.
Who measured it...and how?
-
I'm not backed into any corner and you have provided zero evidence of anything that proves you right and me wrong.
I skipped the evidence
And this is your problem.
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
-
Can you prove that my images of the Sun and Saturn are reflective holograms then? If that's what you want to believe then fine by me. Just show me some evidence that proves that they are holograms.
If they are then they are extremely good ones and very realistic too. Especially the solar hologram because it is constantly changing and is never the same twice. Plus the appearance of the hologram seems to change dramatically when I switch from the Ha wavelength to the CaK one which is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Not quite sure how you would achieve that using holographic technology. Any ideas?
-
They simply tell us that gravity does this and that.......not what it is as a force and why mass attracts mass only when the situation suits.
Why does anybody need to understand how gravity works to know what it does?
Do you understand gravity?
If so, tell me about it. What is it?
That is like saying you need to understand how a car works in order to drive one.
If you were told there were thousands of little mice in the engine, would you accept that?
If you wouldn't, then tell me why you wouldn't?
As everyday experience tells us, clearly you don't. Name me any piece of equipment that is commonly used in life which we need to know how it works in order to use it.
How about you tell me how you use gravity in your everyday life and explain how you know its a reality?
Books tell us that any object with mass attracts any other object with mass and they tell us how to calculate the size of the force that exists between them.
Books?
Books can tell all kinds of stories and any story can be passed off as factual for the reader. How are you to know what the reality is?
If you then go on to measure that force (where practicable) you will find it is correct. Is that what you mean by being 'indoctrinated'? Being told what the force will be between two objects and then being able to confirm it by measurement? That happens a lot in science, you should try it sometime.
Tell me how you measure this force to know what it is?
What more do you need to know than that?
The proof and truth, that's what.
Did you not like my photos? You accepted my invitation to post a couple pretty quickly but you haven't made any comment about them since.
I did, Mr impatient.
When scientists consider alternate theories or models, they do not eliminate any until sufficient evidence has been clearly presented that favours one over the others. Science is about process of elimination.
Science is reality and the issue for the seeker is in finding that reality. Only then can you really be called a factual scientist.
Until then it's all theoretical, which means, no real proof in terms of what we're arguing.
Your version of 'alternate thinking' is to cast aside as irrelevant and wrong anything which doesn't conform with your beliefs straightaway.
No. It's to question and not simply accept as a truth, something which has no direct proof.
So for you it's Sceptimatics model or no model.
Nobody is told to go with my model. They're your words, not mine.
Where is the science in that?
There is none. It's simply looking for the truth of science. We can all claim to be scientists. I'm more than happy to say, we're all scientists, looking for the scientific truth's.
The reality is, we're mostly theoretical.
If your globe spins at the speeds that's said and the globe fattens out towards the equator because of this...as we're told, then don't you think the water in the seas would be compromised?
Compromised... how exactly? What do you think it is going to do, fly off into space or something? Ahh so that is why the media are always telling us there is a water shortage!
How about you explain this video.
You argue for one rotation of a ball as being so slow as to not spill anything....and yet here's your mate, Neil telling everyone how the rotation distorts the globe you believe you live on.
You people need to make your mind's up.
-
Can you prove that my images of the Sun and Saturn are reflective holograms then? If that's what you want to believe then fine by me. Just show me some evidence that proves that they are holograms.
If they are then they are extremely good ones and very realistic too. Especially the solar hologram because it is constantly changing and is never the same twice. Plus the appearance of the hologram seems to change dramatically when I switch from the Ha wavelength to the CaK one which is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Not quite sure how you would achieve that using holographic technology. Any ideas?
I've told you what my stance is and how I believe Earth may, potentially, be.
Can you prove to me that your pictures are not just reflective holograms. If so, show me how you do it.
-
Books can tell all kinds of stories and any story can be passed off as factual for the reader. How are you to know what the reality is?
How about the bit where I follow the instructions in a textbook which describe an experiment. Then I do the experiment for myself (as many students do) using the equipment described provided by the staff and I get the exact results predicted.
Has lab gear that I have used been doctored or indoctrinated somehow to provide the results the book says it will?
-
Can you prove to me that your pictures are not just reflective holograms. If so, show me how you do it.
Can you prove they are holograms? If so show me how you do it.
I have provided some evidence in the form of my own images which is more than you have done up to now and you are the one insisting they are holograms. So the onus is currently on you to prove your position first. In fact you the only one claiming they are holograms up to now. SO prove your point. Until you do that you won't get any more from me. Take it or leave it.
-
Books can tell all kinds of stories and any story can be passed off as factual for the reader. How are you to know what the reality is?
How about the bit where I follow the instructions in a textbook which describe an experiment. Then I do the experiment for myself (as many students do) using the equipment described provided by the staff and I get the exact results predicted.
Has lab gear that I have used been doctored or indoctrinated somehow to provide the results the book says it will?
What experiment?
I assume you mean undeniable physical proof....right?
If so...show me...or tell me about it.
-
Can you prove to me that your pictures are not just reflective holograms. If so, show me how you do it.
Can you prove they are holograms? If so show me how you do it.
I have provided some evidence in the form of my own images which is more than you have done up to now and you are the one insisting they are holograms. So the onus is currently on you to prove your position first. In fact you the only one claiming they are holograms up to now. SO prove your point. Until you do that you won't get any more from me. Take it or leave it.
I've repeatedly told you I have no physical proof. My model is theoretical or hypothetical...or whatever you want to decide for yourself.
How about you nail it down with proof that your vision is not based on seeing holographic images coming from the very place you are part of.
You see, all it takes is to start thinking on the most simple and basic terms and also look at what we, as humans, invent for ourselves.
What are we inventing?
Is inventing the right term....or is it realising we are part of everything that is already set out for our survival?
Basically we are just copying on a small scale, what is happening on a large scale.
You may never get the chance to even think on those lines, such is your steadfast stance on a belief of the books you read and fail to question in any critical way. In my honest opinion.
-
Nobody needs to post anything. It's me against you lot. Nobody else is backing me up.
This is all you lot backpatting each other. I wouldn't expect anything else.
You bottled it.
No, this is you making a wild claim, everyone else showing you that you're wrong, and you doing NOTHING to show any evidence at all.
The reason nobody is backing you up is because everyone can look through a tube and see it works just like my pictures. What is there to back up, you haven't made a coherent argument.
You are amazingly lazy. You make wild claims, then expect everyone else to do your work for you and whine when they get tired of your endless childish demands.
You made the claim, it's your responsibility to provide evidence for it.
You were backed into a corner and you froze. Your words mean nothing from this point on....unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
I already proved you were wrong several times. If you think my photos are not enough then you do it right and show your evidence.
It's not my job to cure you of your paranoia that everyone is out to trick you.
If literally everyone that looks through a tube sees something you claim is impossible, maybe, just maybe you are wrong?
-
How about you nail it down with proof that your vision is not based on seeing holographic images coming from the very place you are part of.
No one will ever 'prove' anything to you that you don't want to believe. That much has been proved purely on the length of time that has been wasted going on about this tube experiment of yours. No one will ever perform an experiment or make an observation that proves to you anything other than what you want to believe.
So go ahead and carry on believing your theortical or hypothetical model or whatever you want to call it if it makes you happy. It's pointless discussing anything with you. Period.
-
Nobody needs to post anything. It's me against you lot. Nobody else is backing me up.
This is all you lot backpatting each other. I wouldn't expect anything else.
You bottled it.
No, this is you making a wild claim, everyone else showing you that you're wrong, and you doing NOTHING to show any evidence at all.
The reason nobody is backing you up is because everyone can look through a tube and see it works just like my pictures. What is there to back up, you haven't made a coherent argument.
You are amazingly lazy. You make wild claims, then expect everyone else to do your work for you and whine when they get tired of your endless childish demands.
You made the claim, it's your responsibility to provide evidence for it.
You were backed into a corner and you froze. Your words mean nothing from this point on....unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
I already proved you were wrong several times. If you think my photos are not enough then you do it right and show your evidence.
It's not my job to cure you of your paranoia that everyone is out to trick you.
If literally everyone that looks through a tube sees something you claim is impossible, maybe, just maybe you are wrong?
You are under no obligation to show me anything or prove anything, to me.
You are here on a flat Earth forum for whatever reasons.
You've come up against someone ( me, among others) who does not believe the indoctrinated global model. You, for some reason, have decided to .......what? Why are you here?
-
How about you nail it down with proof that your vision is not based on seeing holographic images coming from the very place you are part of.
No one will ever 'prove' anything to you that you don't want to believe. That much has been proved purely on the length of time that has been wasted going on about this tube experiment of yours. No one will ever perform an experiment or make an observation that proves to you anything other than what you want to believe.
So go ahead and carry on believing your theortical or hypothetical model or whatever you want to call it if it makes you happy. It's pointless discussing anything with you. Period.
So why do you continually discuss stuff with me?
You're also here for a reason. What is that reason?
Surely you can't be here just to say your Earth is a globe, so nah nah na nah nah?
Enlighten me.
-
I've repeatedly told you I have no physical proof. My model is theoretical or hypothetical...or whatever you want to decide for yourself.
All those words you use like theoretical or hypothetical mean pretty much the same thing. But there's nothing theoretical or hypothetical about your model in your mind is there. For you it is 100% real and true because you have already decided it is. Your model is the only model you will accept. You have proved to yourself it is the right one.
There is nothing that I, JJA, JB or anyone else can do or say that will convince you any other way. You have set your model in your mind so no one can prove to you (to your satisfaction) that you are wrong. That means to you that you must therefore be right. That is how your mind works. You don't need to prove your model to anyone else because you have already proved it to yourself. Therefore there is nothing hypothetical or theoretical about it in your mind.
-
You are under no obligation to show me anything or prove anything, to me.
You are here on a flat Earth forum for whatever reasons.
You've come up against someone ( me, among others) who does not believe the indoctrinated global model. You, for some reason, have decided to .......what? Why are you here?
I'm here because I want to be.
I'm here because I enjoy performing experiments and taking pictures and it's a good excuse to try things I wouldn't otherwise bother with, which is why I went along with the tube experiment for so long. I stop when it's no longer fun, or the demands get too silly. And also, because it's too damn cold to spend hours setting up tubes when I already went above and beyond the initial requirements.
I will repeat and improve them when flaws are pointed out, but not when the only complaint is baseless claims that I'm dishonest and cheating.
I'm here because it's interesting to challenge my assumptions and put what I believe to the test. Why are YOU here?
-
I still don't quote understand what aspect of RE is 'indoctrinated'. The precise shape and size of the Earth is something which is being constantly measured, re-measured, assessed and re-assessed by scientists, engineers, geologists and other specialists.
No single person could ever do all these measurements for themselves for reasons of logistics, equipment and budget to name but three. The results of geographical, geological and geodesic surveys are freely available. So where is the 'indoctrination' in all that? We have our own GPS receivers from which we can take our own measurements and then compare that to published data. Where is the indoctrination there?
So in Sceptis case he is obviously not using the term in its correct context. On the other hand indoctrination would be appropriate for the Scepti model because he is asking us to accept his model purely based on what we are told about it. That IS indoctrination.
-
I've repeatedly told you I have no physical proof. My model is theoretical or hypothetical...or whatever you want to decide for yourself.
All those words you use like theoretical or hypothetical mean pretty much the same thing.
Yep, they do.....but, in your indoctrinated so called scientific world they mean different, as and when the situation suits.
This is why I simply use them. It's to save you the time and effort in explaining the differences......when it suits.
But there's nothing theoretical or hypothetical about your model in your mind is there.
The clue is in me not passing it off as factual. So what can you deduce from that?
For you it is 100% real and true because you have already decided it is.
As above.
Your model is the only model you will accept.
Absolutely not.
If I see a better fit or a potential then I'll take note.
I see bits of potential in lots of theories but I do like my own one hell of a lot......yet it does not make it factual.
You have proved to yourself it is the right one.
As above.
There is nothing that I, JJA, JB or anyone else can do or say that will convince you any other way.
You have zero chance of ever turning me back to the indoctrinated globe model I was bullied into, as a child........unless one of you has some definitive proof...but all you seem to have is massive appeals to what you believe is, authority, which counts as zero in my mind.
You have set your model in your mind so no one can prove to you (to your satisfaction) that you are wrong.
So therefore, you are struggling.
That means to you that you must therefore be right.
I'd love to be right but I can't claim that with my model.
That is how your mind works. You don't need to prove your model to anyone else because you have already proved it to yourself.
It depends what you mean by, prove.
Judging by what I'm saying, how can I possibly, physically prove anything I say, other than to give you food for thought on why I came to my conclusions, which I try to do, which are not accepted.
That's your issue, not mine.
Therefore there is nothing hypothetical or theoretical about it in your mind.
As above.
-
You are under no obligation to show me anything or prove anything, to me.
You are here on a flat Earth forum for whatever reasons.
You've come up against someone ( me, among others) who does not believe the indoctrinated global model. You, for some reason, have decided to .......what? Why are you here?
I'm here because I want to be.
I'm here because I enjoy performing experiments and taking pictures and it's a good excuse to try things I wouldn't otherwise bother with, which is why I went along with the tube experiment for so long. I stop when it's no longer fun, or the demands get too silly. And also, because it's too damn cold to spend hours setting up tubes when I already went above and beyond the initial requirements.
I will repeat and improve them when flaws are pointed out, but not when the only complaint is baseless claims that I'm dishonest and cheating.
I'm here because it's interesting to challenge my assumptions and put what I believe to the test. Why are YOU here?
I think it's a little bit more than that...but.....no problem.
-
I still don't quote understand what aspect of RE is 'indoctrinated'. The precise shape and size of the Earth is something which is being constantly measured, re-measured, assessed and re-assessed by scientists, engineers, geologists and other specialists.
You make it sound easy peasy. Why?
Because you're a book reader and an acceptor of what is on offer.
Fair enough....but..... the Earth is inhospitable on many parts and likely many many more, as my model suggests it just may be.
No single person could ever do all these measurements for themselves for reasons of logistics, equipment and budget to name but three. The results of geographical, geological and geodesic surveys are freely available. So where is the 'indoctrination' in all that? We have our own GPS receivers from which we can take our own measurements and then compare that to published data. Where is the indoctrination there?
GPS is ground positioning stations passed off as global positioning satellites....in my opinion.
So in Sceptis case he is obviously not using the term in its correct context. On the other hand indoctrination would be appropriate for the Scepti model because he is asking us to accept his model purely based on what we are told about it. That IS indoctrination.
I'm asking you to accept nothing of the sort. You ask me questions and I answer. The answers are not to your liking...obviously. I don't care one iota about that.
The crux of the matter is simple. I answer the questions. I do not expect anyone to accept anything.
Understand that to save yourself the trouble typing it every 5 minutes.
-
You are under no obligation to show me anything or prove anything, to me.
You are here on a flat Earth forum for whatever reasons.
You've come up against someone ( me, among others) who does not believe the indoctrinated global model. You, for some reason, have decided to .......what? Why are you here?
I'm here because I want to be.
I'm here because I enjoy performing experiments and taking pictures and it's a good excuse to try things I wouldn't otherwise bother with, which is why I went along with the tube experiment for so long. I stop when it's no longer fun, or the demands get too silly. And also, because it's too damn cold to spend hours setting up tubes when I already went above and beyond the initial requirements.
I will repeat and improve them when flaws are pointed out, but not when the only complaint is baseless claims that I'm dishonest and cheating.
I'm here because it's interesting to challenge my assumptions and put what I believe to the test. Why are YOU here?
I think it's a little bit more than that...but.....no problem.
You asked, I answered.
Why are you here? If you don't want your beliefs challenged, why post outside the True Believers forum?
-
You ask me questions and I answer.
Oh really? I must have missed those posts! When and where did you actually provide a clear answer to any question asked of you? That's the problem. You never answer questions with any useful answer. The nearest you ever get to answering a question is to say you already answered it in another discussion. Then when asked to point out where you cannot bring yourself to do it. Or you simply say as you have once again
The answers are not to your liking...obviously. I don't care one iota about that.
So please don't start claiming that you answer any question that is asked of you because you don't. You must be a highly trained politician because your tactics of how to avoid answering a question directly is as good as any politician I know.
Ground Positioning System? Hmm OK. Why is it then that when I go on holiday in an area with steep sided valleys all around I always lose my mobile phone signal yet my SatNav continues to work perfectly? Explain that.
You make it sound easy peasy. Why?
Well thank you. The hallmark of a great teacher... which is very useful when you work in education. Why? because that is surely what a good teacher should be able to do isn't it. Make the complex seem simple.
the Earth is inhospitable on many parts and likely many many more
I couldn't agree more. There are some regions where only extremophiles can survive. You don't need your model to show that. I just turn on the TV and watch a few documentaries. Do TVs exist in your world? Or do you just make it all up as go along. Any TVs that do exist in your world would most likely be centrally controlled (by you) to make sure they don't show anything you don't agree with or believe in.
-
I've repeatedly told you I have no physical proof. My model is theoretical or hypothetical...or whatever you want to decide for yourself.
All those words you use like theoretical or hypothetical mean pretty much the same thing. But there's nothing theoretical or hypothetical about your model in your mind is there. For you it is 100% real and true because you have already decided it is. Your model is the only model you will accept. You have proved to yourself it is the right one.
There is nothing that I, JJA, JB or anyone else can do or say that will convince you any other way. You have set your model in your mind so no one can prove to you (to your satisfaction) that you are wrong. That means to you that you must therefore be right. That is how your mind works. You don't need to prove your model to anyone else because you have already proved it to yourself. Therefore there is nothing hypothetical or theoretical about it in your mind.
He can only convince himself through actual experimentation
Take his own photo
Verify it beyond " thought experiment."
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
WHAT???
at least acknowledge the "thoery" of a ball earth properly.
Where is "down" on a ball that would result in water fallung "off" said ball?
-
The crux of the matter is simple. I answer the questions.
So remind us again. When was the last time you actually and explicitly answered a single question put to you. And I don't mean your 'answers' when you have simply stated you already answered the question in the other discussion.
Another trend I have noticed is where someone asks a question, you make an unfounded claim and then when asked to explain any further you simply ignore it. My question about why SatNavs work in areas where mobile phones don't for example. If the G in GPS meant ground rather than global then why does the signal to a SatNav magically get through when a mobile phone signal doesn't? You say it is just 'your opinion' but everyday experience doesn't seem to support your opinion. So perhaps it might be time to review your opinion? Unless you can explain how your ground positioning system seems to be able to reach the entire planet while ground based mobile phone signals don't.
Anyone would think GPS signals are coming from a different, higher up source. Like a satellite for instance. Or perhaps those GPS signals are being sent out from the same tower where your projected Sun and Moon holograms are being sent out from and being bounced off the 'dome'. Now there's an idea?!?
-
To be clear
Sceppy
You do not "answer" the questions beyond your initial claim and you avoid any follow up or clarification.
Hence the question remains "unanswered"
-
Because you're a book reader and an acceptor of what is on offer.
Do you not read books then? Beyond fiction/science fiction books I mean.
The answers are not to your liking...obviously.
Correct. Because your 'answers' are not actually answers. See TMKs post above.
-
I'm not backed into any corner and you have provided zero evidence of anything that proves you right and me wrong.
I skipped the evidence as I knew you would simply dismiss it, but I have provided logical arguments and diagrams and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong. Unlike the evidence, there is no way for these logical arguments or diagrams to be a con, so there is no excuse for you to use, so you simply ignore them, repeatedly.
That shows just how you have been backed into a corner with no way out.
And this is your problem.
No, it is your problem, and further shows just how dishonest and pathetic you are, where you completely misrepresent a post.
Why are you so dishonest? Why do you not care about the truth at all?
I didn't merely skip the evidence as your dishonest quoting indicated.
Instead, I provided something far superior, logical arguments you cannot simply dismiss as a con-job.
And your dishonesty shows with how you dismiss the evidence as a con-job but do whatever you can to flee from the logical arguments as you know you cannot simply dismiss them.
Grow up and start dealing with the fact that you are wrong.
Again, can you show any problem with the logical argument I presented which proves beyond any doubt that you are wrong?
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
Projecting again I see.
This is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing the reality of a globe, and why your dismissal of it is in no way rational. You are defeated by extremely simple questions and arguments which easily show your arguments are pure nonsense. And rather than any rational comeback, you just resort to your pathetic insults and projection.
Your modus operandi seems to be trying to con people into foolishly believing all of mainstream science is wrong, using whatever dishonest BS you can.
Mine appears to be defending the truth using logic and evidence.
You were backed into a corner and you froze.
Again, the only one backed into a corner here is you.
You didn't back JJA into a corner at all. You just dismissed the evidence he provided as a con-job and made a ridiculous demand which was not justified in any way.
In order to back him into a corner you would need to defend your insane claims, such as by providing evidence or a rational argument to back it up.
Just rejecting all the evidence isn't backing anyone into a corner.
Your version of 'alternate thinking' is to cast aside as irrelevant and wrong anything which doesn't conform with your beliefs straightaway.
No. It's to question and not simply accept as a truth, something which has no direct proof.
No, you do not simply question. You reject it at all costs, dismissing any evidence to back it up as a con-job or fake or lies or deception, and ignoring the logical arguments which back it up and show you are wrong, while continually ridiculing things which you cannot show any problem with.
So it is quite clear you are not simply questioning.
The clue is in me not passing it off as factual. So what can you deduce from that?
But you repeatedly pass it off as factual, just like you repeatedly pass off your lies about the RE as factual.
But then when it comes time for you to justify it, you flee.
This tells me that you know you are spouting pure BS, that you have absolutely no integrity or moral compass and that you do not care about the truth at all.
Am I close?
Your model is the only model you will accept.
Absolutely not.
If I see a better fit or a potential then I'll take note.
You mean take note so you can repeatedly ridicule it to pretend it is wrong, while being unable to show a single fault?
That still isn't accepting it.
There is a much better model, which unlike your garbage actually has explanatory power, but you reject it without cause.
You have zero chance of ever turning me back to the indoctrinated globe model
And there you go again admitting you have no interest in reality and no interest in accepting the fact you are wrong.
unless one of you has some definitive proof
I have provided you with a definitive logical proof, which you simply ignored. So clearly proof and evidence is not the issue, your irrational outright rejection of the globe model is.
You have set your model in your mind so no one can prove to you (to your satisfaction) that you are wrong.
So therefore, you are struggling.
No, therefore you have no interest in reality and are choosing to accept a model which has been shown to be wrong countless times.
Again, the problem lies entirely with you, not us.
Again, the fact that you continually ignore logical arguments which clearly show you are wrong shows that you are the problem.
If we were the problem you would be able to show what is wrong with that argument, addressing the specific point that is problematic, explain why it is wrong and what it should be.
Like I did with your claim regarding the horizon, like I did with your claim regarding the FOV through a tube, like I did repeatedly with all your BS about denpressure, like I did with your claims regarding water falling from Earth, like I did with your claims of massive disturbance of the ocean due to the spin of Earth.
GPS is ground positioning stations passed off as global positioning satellites....in my opinion.
And your opinion is worthless garbage.
You can make your own GPS receiver, coding it all to know where the satellites actually are.
You ask me questions and I answer.
No, we ask you questions and you either dodge them and answer some other question which we didn't ask, provide a non-answer which was already addressed in the question, or just outright ignore the question.
For example, I have repeatedly asked you what magic stops the ray of light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
You have never answered this question, likely because you know that the only honest and defendable answer is that there is nothing to stop that ray of light from reaching the eye and thus you can see below the tube and all your claims to the contrary are pure BS.
So no, the crux is simple, you refuse to answer questions when it is clear that answering them will show that you are completely wrong, and instead continue with pathetic attempts at indoctrination by repeatedly asserting pure lies as facts.
-
unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
2 tubes are required for this experiment, correct?
-
Sceptimatic, nothing will change your mind, and you are not prepared to do any experiments that actually verify the shape of the world you live on. So, what is the point of you being in this section of the forum and not the believers only section? That is what you are: a believer only, playing with your toilet rolls.
You don't accept any explanation for gravity, and have no alternative explanation for the world's geosystem. Even when you are told what gravity is, and how it works, your childish response is the same :"Now tell me what gravity is and how it works."
Here's a challenge for you, sceptimatic. Why don't you try and prove the globe earth model wrong, using something a little more sophisticated than a toilet roll....
-
Why are you here?
To see different opinions on everything, including those that oppose the globe you unconditionally believe in.
If you don't want your beliefs challenged, why post outside the True Believers forum?
Challenge them all you want to...but know what you're challenging.
-
Ground Positioning System? Hmm OK. Why is it then that when I go on holiday in an area with steep sided valleys all around I always lose my mobile phone signal yet my SatNav continues to work perfectly? Explain that.
There's places up the road from me where the signal is so pathetic as to make it appear as if mobile phones are in their infancy.
There are places towards scotland that cut off GPS, which has to rescan and at times sends you way off course.
Am I lying?
Ask any genuine person.
If your GPS was global positioning satellites...this would not happen if, as you mention, it seems to work in every place you seem to have been....weirdly.
This is why I trust none of you people.
You make it sound easy peasy. Why?
Well thank you. The hallmark of a great teacher... which is very useful when you work in education. Why? because that is surely what a good teacher should be able to do isn't it. Make the complex seem simple.
Yep, the storyteller whose stories must be told/sold.
Make the impossible appear possible. Make the complicated appear simple in the story but unreachable in reality.
I agree with your stance.
It's called mass indoctrination without evidence.
the Earth is inhospitable on many parts and likely many many more
I couldn't agree more. There are some regions where only extremophiles can survive. You don't need your model to show that. I just turn on the TV and watch a few documentaries. Do TVs exist in your world?
Ahhhhhh, the TV.
Say no more.
Or do you just make it all up as go along. Any TVs that do exist in your world would most likely be centrally controlled (by you) to make sure they don't show anything you don't agree with or believe in.
Make it up?
Clearly I make it up. But what does make it up actually mean?
To you it seems to mean telling lies or making up fantasy stories.....but, to get to a theory you have to make stuff up to fit that theory and that make up can be all the little tidbits pieced together to make up a theoretical. A picture. A mindset on a specific.
Your jigsaw is already done for you. All you do is jumble it up and by memory, put it back together for your next victims class, or whatever.
This is the jigsaw and you lot have no clue how to put it together....but I'm going to teach you where the pieces go....but first you need to understand the picture you are piecing together because that picture is your reality, because this same picture was my reality and now I get paid to pass it on as part of the curriculum(brainwashing).
I'm sure you get my point.
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
WHAT???
at least acknowledge the "thoery" of a ball earth properly.
Where is "down" on a ball that would result in water fallung "off" said ball?
How about, where is UP?
-
The crux of the matter is simple. I answer the questions.
So remind us again. When was the last time you actually and explicitly answered a single question put to you. And I don't mean your 'answers' when you have simply stated you already answered the question in the other discussion.
Another trend I have noticed is where someone asks a question, you make an unfounded claim and then when asked to explain any further you simply ignore it. My question about why SatNavs work in areas where mobile phones don't for example. If the G in GPS meant ground rather than global then why does the signal to a SatNav magically get through when a mobile phone signal doesn't? You say it is just 'your opinion' but everyday experience doesn't seem to support your opinion. So perhaps it might be time to review your opinion? Unless you can explain how your ground positioning system seems to be able to reach the entire planet while ground based mobile phone signals don't.
Anyone would think GPS signals are coming from a different, higher up source. Like a satellite for instance. Or perhaps those GPS signals are being sent out from the same tower where your projected Sun and Moon holograms are being sent out from and being bounced off the 'dome'. Now there's an idea?!?
Take a look at the antennas perched on high rises and atop hills and such.
Then add in frequency changes and strengths and there's your answer.
None of this space nonsense.
-
To be clear
Sceppy
You do not "answer" the questions beyond your initial claim and you avoid any follow up or clarification.
Hence the question remains "unanswered"
Unanswered to people like yourself. I understand that. If you accepted any answer from me then you would not be absorbed into the global mindset so much, so it's well understandable that my answers do not suit and are cast off as non answers.
The same happens from my side with you people attempting to pass on the nonsense of a globe.
-
Because you're a book reader and an acceptor of what is on offer.
Do you not read books then? Beyond fiction/science fiction books I mean.
Do you?
The answers are not to your liking...obviously.
Correct. Because your 'answers' are not actually answers. See TMKs post above.
I don't think you understand what an answer is.
-
No, it is your problem, and further shows just how dishonest and pathetic you are, where you completely misrepresent a post.
I have no problem, whatsoever.
-
unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
2 tubes are required for this experiment, correct?
Correct.
The diagram is there to see.
Follow JJA's train of thought and half done set up. You can maybe add in the extra what he couldn't afford to do.
-
Correct.
The diagram is there to see.
Five feet between the tubes, got it. How long are the tubes?
-
unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
2 tubes are required for this experiment, correct?
Correct.
The diagram is there to see.
Follow JJA's train of thought and half done set up. You can maybe add in the extra what he couldn't afford to do.
Two tubes is meaningless...
Whats wrong with 1 long tube?
What if he used a skinnier tube like a straw?
Or a fatter tube like pvc pipe?
What is the diameter to length ratio that will achieve your goal?
What is your goal for this experiment?
To not see ground?
To only see one inch?
You havent laid out the point - well you had and were proven wrong already.
What is your point?!
-
Sceptimatic, nothing will change your mind, and you are not prepared to do any experiments that actually verify the shape of the world you live on.
I do experiments regularly that prove many things contrary to what I've been bullied into in life.
The fact that you haven't seen them but are quite capable of doing them with my instruction, still puts you all in a quandary.
You people tell me they don't work and none of you even attempt to try the stuff for yourselves....which is the key issue. YOURSELVES.
I'm not asking you to do it for me. Do it quietly for yourselves and even if it shows the opposite of what you've been bullied into, you can still follow the bullies and go against your new better judgement.
But that's for the weak.
The strong will see the reality of at least knowing what we do not live on.
So, what is the point of you being in this section of the forum and not the believers only section? That is what you are: a believer only, playing with your toilet rolls.
A believer of, what?
You don't accept any explanation for gravity, and have no alternative explanation for the world's geosystem.
Gravity is absolute nonsense. It's a word made up in order to give people the illusion of space magic, mainly.
Even when you are told what gravity is, and how it works, your childish response is the same :"Now tell me what gravity is and how it works."
Nobody's told me what it is or how and why it works.
Here's a challenge for you, sceptimatic. Why don't you try and prove the globe earth model wrong, using something a little more sophisticated than a toilet roll....
I've already proved the global nonsense wrong.
Water level and objects remaining in the distance is more than enough to kill of the spinning global nonsense.
The real issue is in finding out what Earth is in its entirety, which may never be known but may be riddled with clues and some truth's within many people's theories...including mine....maybe.
A spinning globe is literally dead in that level water.
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
WHAT???
at least acknowledge the "thoery" of a ball earth properly.
Where is "down" on a ball that would result in water fallung "off" said ball?
How about, where is UP?
Down is toward the center
Up is away from the center.
So how can water fall "offf" a globe if "off" is "up"?
-
Correct.
The diagram is there to see.
Five feet between the tubes, got it. How long are the tubes?
A kitchen roll or anything longer. Nothing specific.
Whatever you have at hand....but... follow the instruction of it all and ensure the gradient as JJA did.
Ensure the set up is like my diagram.
And most of all. Be honest.
-
unless you prove what I'm arguing against..
2 tubes are required for this experiment, correct?
Correct.
The diagram is there to see.
Follow JJA's train of thought and half done set up. You can maybe add in the extra what he couldn't afford to do.
Two tubes is meaningless...
Whats wrong with 1 long tube?
What if he used a skinnier tube like a straw?
Or a fatter tube like pvc pipe?
What is the diameter to length ratio that will achieve your goal?
What is your goal for this experiment?
To not see ground?
To only see one inch?
You havent laid out the point - well you had and were proven wrong already.
What is your point?!
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
WHAT???
at least acknowledge the "thoery" of a ball earth properly.
Where is "down" on a ball that would result in water fallung "off" said ball?
How about, where is UP?
Down is toward the center
Up is away from the center.
So how can water fall "offf" a globe if "off" is "up"?
This is the magic of your globe.
Down is your centre and up is in the sky.
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball...or is gravity the supposed molten iron near the core against the solid iron core or whatever it is.
Is gravity in the centre of the ball?
What keeps your water on the ball and yet the spin supposedly makes the equator, fatter. You know, a little chubbier...and yet the water is not pushed away.
I'm sure you can explain this....right?
So your gravity pulls....right? Pulls into the centre of Earth....but towards the centre of Earth, you stop because you can't go any farther.
Hmmmmmm.
Over to you for your explanation.
-
... A kitchen roll or anything longer. Nothing specific.
ensure the gradient as JJA did....
...Ensure the set up is like my diagram....
Is 11" long and 1 3/4" wide ok?
How steep is the angle I'm supposed to use?
-
Am I lying?
Yes, you have shown to be lying repeatedly.
And instead of providing any evidence for your outright lies, you just continue to make the same lies and accuse us of dishonesty.
It's called mass indoctrination without evidence.
Only to those dishonest people that choose to ignore all the evidence.
Clearly I make it up. But what does make it up actually mean?
It means you spout pure garbage with no justification at all and no connection to reality.
None of this space nonsense.
No nonsense, just space reality.
Again, you can make your own receiver and prove it.
Unanswered to people like yourself.
People who actually want the question answered, rather than a pathetic deflection to pretend it is answered.
Guess what? That still means you haven't answered the question.
You pretending you have and claiming that you have doesn't magically mean you have. It just means you are lying and ignoring the questions which show you are wrong.
I'm still waiting on you to tell me what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
The same happens from my side with you people attempting to pass on the nonsense of a globe.
You mean the reality of a globe that you are still yet to challenge. But no, the same doesn't happen the other way around. You are provided answers, plenty of them, which you then ignore and change the topic to then later pretend you never got the answer.
No, it is your problem, and further shows just how dishonest and pathetic you are, where you completely misrepresent a post.
I have no problem, whatsoever.
Except a complete inability to actually answers questions asked of you and to rationally and honestly defend your claims in any way.
I would say they are some big problems.
I do experiments regularly that prove many things contrary to what I've been bullied into in life.
You mean you repeatedly lie and claim to have done such experiments but never provide any evidence of this.
The fact that you haven't seen them but are quite capable of doing them with my instruction, still puts you all in a quandary.
And the fact that when we do do the experiments and don't get the results you claim should happen just shows that you are lying.
Once more, the issue is you, not us.
The strong will see the reality of at least knowing what we do not live on.
Yes, the strong will see the reality that we do not live on a flat planet, and instead we live on a round planet.
The weak continue to spout nonsense like Earth is flat and we live in a magical cell which works with pure magic.
The weak will continually ignore things which show they are wrong, refusing to justify their claims with rational arguments or evidence.
That is you, not us.
Gravity is absolute nonsense.
Is that why you are still completely incapable of showing any fault with it or explaining the evidence which shows it is real?
That sure seems like you are absolute nonsense, not gravity.
I've already proved the global nonsense wrong.
Where?
You have spouted a bunch of outright lies, attacking strawmen that in no way represent reality or the RE, and have been repeatedly refuted.
Water level and objects remaining in the distance is more than enough to kill of the spinning global nonsense.
You mean level water obscuring the bottom of distant objects is more than enough to kill off your FE BS and fully supports a round Earth.
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
Earth is not a tiny ball being held above a much larger ball, so that analogy is useless.
Otherwise, go and hold a plate sideways and pour some water on it and see it run off. Do you accept that as refuting your FE fantasy? If not, why should we accept it refuting a RE?
In order to have that experiment actually be valid, you need to have the ball in free fall, outside the roche limit of any other significant mass.
What keeps your water on the ball and yet the spin supposedly makes the equator, fatter. You know, a little chubbier...and yet the water is not pushed away.
I'm sure you can explain this....right?
Yes, it already has been explained.
But like all the explanations of why your claims are pure BS, you just ignore it.
Feel free to go back to this post to see the explanation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2296855#msg2296855
-
... A kitchen roll or anything longer. Nothing specific.
ensure the gradient as JJA did....
...Ensure the set up is like my diagram....
Is 11" long and 1 3/4" wide ok?
How steep is the angle I'm supposed to use?
The size is absolutely fine.
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
-
Yes, it already has been explained.
But like all the explanations of why your claims are pure BS, you just ignore it.
Feel free to go back to this post to see the explanation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2296855#msg2296855
You've explained nothing.
-
Yes, it already has been explained.
But like all the explanations of why your claims are pure BS, you just ignore it.
Feel free to go back to this post to see the explanation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2296855#msg2296855
You've explained nothing.
Again, it is right there in that post, if you have an issue with the explanation, feel free to point out just what you take issue with.
Here it is again:
Do you mean it would bulge out at the equator just like Earth itself?
If so, yes, and it does.
Or do you mean it would all fly to the equator? If so, no. This is where actual calculations can help.
Trying to do it without calculations can be quite problematic.
You have the rotation of Earth trying to move water to the equator and outwards from that.
But countering that you have gravity trying to pull the water down.
Gravity tries to make a sphere, the spinning tries to make an ever expanding ring.
The net result is an oblate spheroid, where gravity is the primary force making it roughly a sphere, while the rotation makes it bludge out at the equator.
The level surface is an equipotential surface where the water doesn't continue to flow towards the equator as that would make it too high and result in gravity pulling it back down.
Just like so many things, the problem is you ignoring the fact that multiple forces are at work where you need to consider the magnitude of each force.
Now again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
-
Sceptimatic, Shifter just posted a video which trashes your stylish avatar. Check it out, sometime.
You're a science denier, and what you believe is the earth is not spherical, space does not exist, our solar system dies not exist, the universe does not exist, and you have been lied to, and deceived.
I'd love to know which authorities you choose to trust and which authorities you choose to distrust. I'm a government worker, so I'm curious.
-
Is 11" long and 1 3/4" wide ok?
How steep is the angle I'm supposed to use?
Bowchickawowo
-
Sceptimatic, Shifter just posted a video which trashes your stylish avatar. Check it out, sometime.
You're a science denier, and what you believe is the earth is not spherical, space does not exist, our solar system dies not exist, the universe does not exist, and you have been lied to, and deceived.
I'd love to know which authorities you choose to trust and which authorities you choose to distrust. I'm a government worker, so I'm curious.
Everyone's a government worker, so what's your point?
-
Is 11" long and 1 3/4" wide ok?
How steep is the angle I'm supposed to use?
Bowchickawowo
Nice one, I'm still chuckling. ;D
-
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking. Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
Are you suggesting that the simple observation of watching water pouring off a ball bearing is evidence enough show the Earth is not a ball. And a very big one compared to the ball bearing. If yes then that is worrying... if not then what are you suggesting?
-
But a body of water can be supposedly pulled towards the centre of Earth and not fall off the globe you believe we walk upon
"Fall off the globe" makes no sense.
Fall implies falling downwards, but that is towards the globe.
And this is why you have absolutely no interest in seeing through the silliness of the global nonsense. Your modus operandi (for whatever reasons) is to ensure people do not see past that utter global nonsense.
WHAT???
at least acknowledge the "thoery" of a ball earth properly.
Where is "down" on a ball that would result in water fallung "off" said ball?
How about, where is UP?
Down is toward the center
Up is away from the center.
So how can water fall "offf" a globe if "off" is "up"?
This is the magic of your globe.
Down is your centre and up is in the sky.
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball...or is gravity the supposed molten iron near the core against the solid iron core or whatever it is.
Is gravity in the centre of the ball?
What keeps your water on the ball and yet the spin supposedly makes the equator, fatter. You know, a little chubbier...and yet the water is not pushed away.
I'm sure you can explain this....right?
So your gravity pulls....right? Pulls into the centre of Earth....but towards the centre of Earth, you stop because you can't go any farther.
Hmmmmmm.
Over to you for your explanation.
What?!
If you took a ball in your hand, while standing on the globe earth, and poured water on the ball, the water falls down, "down" being towards the earth, the thing youre standing on.
So in the globe model, what "gotcha"
do you think you have that makes you think the water is going fall "off" (off being "up") the globe earth?
Sceppy the greatest troll or dumbest person...
-
@ TMK... I'm so disappointed in Scepti. He was just starting to convince me that he really is some sort of unique super genius. And then he goes and spoils it by telling us he can't figure out why water doesn't stick to a ball when you pour some over it*.
Bummer. or to coin his own words:
Nice one, I'm still chuckling. ;D
*You might have a different outcome if your ball was actually a neutron star. But then it wouldn't just be the water that stuck to it!
-
Is 11" long and 1 3/4" wide ok?
How steep is the angle I'm supposed to use?
Bowchickawowo
;D
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
-
Sceptimatic, Shifter just posted a video which trashes your stylish avatar. Check it out, sometime.
You're a science denier, and what you believe is the earth is not spherical, space does not exist, our solar system dies not exist, the universe does not exist, and you have been lied to, and deceived.
I'd love to know which authorities you choose to trust and which authorities you choose to distrust. I'm a government worker, so I'm curious.
Everyone's a government worker, so what's your point?
Really? You get a government paid salary?
Have you performed my table at the beach experiment yet, or do you need me to post up step by step photos?
-
Show that water goes down the drain in the same direction in each hemisphere. Show that planes could actually fly on a flat earth. Go to space and take a picture showing that it's flat.
Oh, wait, you can't can you? Because it's ROUND.
-
Show that water goes down the drain in the same direction in each hemisphere.
You would need a very large and very calm tank for the hemisphere you are in to matter.
Show that planes could actually fly on a flat earth.
Assuming it has the same kind of air and something pulling us down, why couldn't they fly?
-
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking. Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
I never mentioned magnetism, so who's being ignorant.
Are you suggesting that the simple observation of watching water pouring off a ball bearing is evidence enough show the Earth is not a ball.
Absolutely.
Everything on a small scale gives massive clues to the potential of large scale. Something that people might find interesting if they can release themselves from the massive bullying of the nonsense of the spinning globe. I don't include you in this, to be fair. I know you're 100% nailed onto what you've been bullied into.
-
Show that water goes down the drain in the same direction in each hemisphere.
You would need a very large and very calm tank for the hemisphere you are in to matter.
No you wouldn't. Coryolis effect, ever heard of it? Do you know how fast the earth spins? the effect is massive even on a basic sink.
Show that planes could actually fly on a flat earth.
Assuming it has the same kind of air and something pulling us down, why couldn't they fly?
how COULD they? what does air have to do with it? air resistance has nothing to do with what makes planes fly, don't give me that flat earth bs. they fly because the earth is round and they're constantly falling, but because their horizontal motion is fast enough they never reach the ground.
-
If you took a ball in your hand, while standing on the globe earth, and poured water on the ball, the water falls down, "down" being towards the earth, the thing youre standing on.
So in the globe model, what "gotcha"
do you think you have that makes you think the water is going fall "off" (off being "up") the globe earth?
Sceppy the greatest troll or dumbest person...
Ok then let's get to the nitty gritty seeing as you can't explain what your globe properly.
You say there is no down in terms of anything falling off your globe. Ok then.
You say down is towards the centre of your ball.
I assume you mean your gravity is somehow pulling the water towards the centre of your ball and this is why you think it stays on the ball.....right?
Is this right?
If so then explain to me how this happens if also, in your ball centre the opposite happens, as in things stop falling, as we're told.
Can you explain any iof this or is it just what you've been indoctrinated into and accept, even if you have no clue?
-
@ TMK... I'm so disappointed in Scepti. He was just starting to convince me that he really is some sort of unique super genius. And then he goes and spoils it by telling us he can't figure out why water doesn't stick to a ball when you pour some over it*.
Bummer. or to coin his own words:
Nice one, I'm still chuckling. ;D
*You might have a different outcome if your ball was actually a neutron star. But then it wouldn't just be the water that stuck to it!
This stuff is why I question what you people actually are.
I really do.
On a spectrum kind of thing.
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
-
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
No. I'm saying you would never have any horizon.
-
Sceptimatic, Shifter just posted a video which trashes your stylish avatar. Check it out, sometime.
You're a science denier, and what you believe is the earth is not spherical, space does not exist, our solar system dies not exist, the universe does not exist, and you have been lied to, and deceived.
I'd love to know which authorities you choose to trust and which authorities you choose to distrust. I'm a government worker, so I'm curious.
Everyone's a government worker, so what's your point?
Really? You get a government paid salary?
Have you performed my table at the beach experiment yet, or do you need me to post up step by step photos?
By all means post it step by step. Show me what you're trying to prove, then I'll rip it to bits and send you back to try again, by showing you your issues. Unless you can nail it and shut me up.
Let's see.
-
If you took a ball in your hand, while standing on the globe earth, and poured water on the ball, the water falls down, "down" being towards the earth, the thing youre standing on.
So in the globe model, what "gotcha"
do you think you have that makes you think the water is going fall "off" (off being "up") the globe earth?
Sceppy the greatest troll or dumbest person...
Ok then let's get to the nitty gritty seeing as you can't explain what your globe properly.
You say there is no down in terms of anything falling off your globe. Ok then.
You say down is towards the centre of your ball.
I assume you mean your gravity is somehow pulling the water towards the centre of your ball and this is why you think it stays on the ball.....right?
Is this right?
If so then explain to me how this happens if also, in your ball centre the opposite happens, as in things stop falling, as we're told.
Can you explain any iof this or is it just what you've been indoctrinated into and accept, even if you have no clue?
Ugh
Mass attracts mass
Water has mass
The earth itself has waaay more mass.
The theory is solid.
Provide a debunk becuase you rwater falling up is a fail.
Now
On the other handen pressure ocntinues to fail even observable mwasurmenets in that air is somehow unidirectiontional - except when it isnt.
In purely measruable measemurents, denP fails.
So either make a point or continue makinf a fool of yourself.
-
If you took a ball in your hand, while standing on the globe earth, and poured water on the ball, the water falls down, "down" being towards the earth, the thing youre standing on.
So in the globe model, what "gotcha"
do you think you have that makes you think the water is going fall "off" (off being "up") the globe earth?
Sceppy the greatest troll or dumbest person...
Ok then let's get to the nitty gritty seeing as you can't explain what your globe properly.
You say there is no down in terms of anything falling off your globe. Ok then.
You say down is towards the centre of your ball.
I assume you mean your gravity is somehow pulling the water towards the centre of your ball and this is why you think it stays on the ball.....right?
Is this right?
If so then explain to me how this happens if also, in your ball centre the opposite happens, as in things stop falling, as we're told.
Can you explain any iof this or is it just what you've been indoctrinated into and accept, even if you have no clue?
Ugh
Mass attracts mass
Water has mass
The earth itself has waaay more mass.
The theory is solid.
Provide a debunk becuase you rwater falling up is a fail.
Now
On the other handen pressure ocntinues to fail even observable mwasurmenets in that air is somehow unidirectiontional - except when it isnt.
In purely measruable measemurents, denP fails.
So either make a point or continue makinf a fool of yourself.
Take a bit more time with your replies.
-
Are you suggesting that the simple observation of watching water pouring off a ball bearing is evidence enough show the Earth is not a ball.
Absolutely.
And I have already explained to you why it isn't.
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
the nonsense of the spinning globe. I don't include you in this, to be fair. I know you're 100% nailed onto what you've been bullied into.
The one providing nonsense here is you.
We aren't nailed to what we have been bullied into, we reject what you try to bully us into.
Instead, we accept what the evidence supports.
So in the globe model, what "gotcha"
do you think you have that makes you think the water is going fall "off" (off being "up") the globe earth?
Ok then let's get to the nitty gritty seeing as you can't explain what your globe properly.
You say there is no down in terms of anything falling off your globe. Ok then.
You say down is towards the centre of your ball.
I assume you mean your gravity is somehow pulling the water towards the centre of your ball and this is why you think it stays on the ball.....right?
Is this right?
If so then explain to me how this happens if also, in your ball centre the opposite happens, as in things stop falling, as we're told.
He doesn't need to explain exactly how gravity works to show your claim is pure nonsense.
You would need to provide an explanation for just why the water should be "falling" off Earth, and in what direction.
But the simple explanation is mass curves spacetime such that the time axis points towards the mass to convert motion through time into motion through space, or in layman's terms, to accelerate the object towards the mass. That means the water is attracted to Earth.
A simple consistent explanation which also explains the observed attraction of masses in experiments like Cavendish, and the orbit of the planets and the moon.
Quite unlike your nonsense where the only possible justification for why something would fall actually indicates it should go up, not down, as the pressure is greater below.
No. I'm saying you would never have any horizon.
Yes, and that has been shown to be a lie repeatedly.
Your continued avoidance of such a simple question shows beyond any doubt that it is a lie and you know it is a lie.
If you disagree, feel free to answer the question:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Likewise it has been refuted with plenty of actual evidence, such as photos of a "horizon" on a hill and photos of balls showing a "horizon".
You have no justification at all for why there should be no horizon on a RE.
then I'll rip it to bits and send you back to try again
You mean you will dismiss it as a con-job and look for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it?
Yet again showing you have no interest in the truth and admitting you are wrong.
-
And I have already explained to you why it isn't.
No you haven't.
-
Show that water goes down the drain in the same direction in each hemisphere.
You would need a very large and very calm tank for the hemisphere you are in to matter.
No you wouldn't. Coryolis effect, ever heard of it? Do you know how fast the earth spins? the effect is massive even on a basic sink.
Yes I have heard of it. But unlike you, I don't go spouting pure nonsense about it.
The effect is based upon the difference in velocity of the rotation of the Earth at different points.
In order to generate a significant effect, it needs to travel a significant distance in a short time.
For a basic sink, that force is insignificant and minor disturbances will be far more dominant.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide the math to show otherwise.
If you like, I can even give an example:
The Coriolis force, at least according to Wikipedia, has a formula F=-2momega X v, noting that omega (the angular velocity of Earth) and v (the velocity of the object relative to Earth) are vectors, and you use their cross product (indicated by x). This means that directionality matters and thus doing the experiment in a location where the vectors are parallel (such as on the equator, with water flowing north-south) we get a result of 0, and the resulting force vector also has directionality, and thus any upwards or downwards component will be irrelevant for water flowing out a sink.
This means we get the maximum at the poles where we can then just treat them as scalars, and minimum at the equator where it is 0.
Instead of F, I will use a, by dividing by mass, and I will assume we are at the poles, i.e. a=2 omega v.
For simplicity, assuming the velocity is constant, and the water initially flows directly to the drain, with the sink having a diameter of D, then it will take a time of t=D/(2 v) to exit, and thus the acceleration will only have this time to act to deflect the stream, and as it does it at right angles to the motion, that deflection will be:
l=0.5 a t^2
Subbing in the above equations, we end up with:
l=0.5*(2 omega v)*(D/(2 v))^2
l=omega v D^2/(4 v)^2)
l=0.25 omega D^2/v
This may seem contradictory as the deflection is inversely proportional to velocity while the force is proportional to velocity. This is because as you increase the velocity you give it less time to be deflected.
So now lets stick in some numbers, lets say you have a 1 m wide sink, with water flowing through at a velocity of 0.05 m/s (so it takes 10 seconds to go from the edge to the centre, very unrealistically slow for your best chances).
And we know that the rotational period of Earth is ~86164 s, giving us an angular velocity (in radians per second) of 7.3e-5.
This gives us a deflection of 0.00036 m or 0.36 mm. You are highly unlikely to notice that.
In order to get a deflection of 1 cm you need the water to travel at roughly 2 mm/s with it taking 250 seconds to reach the drain.
So that is quite insignificant.
We can also look at the sideways velocity at the drain.
u=a t
u=(2 omega v)*(D/(2 v))
u=omega D.
And in this case, we see that it is not proportional at all to the velocity and instead is based upon the size of the system.
Again for our 1 m sink, this gives us 7.3e-5 m/s or roughly 72.9 um/s.
Still tiny. As a hint, this gives us an idea that you would need a similar speed to really have a significant effect at which point the water basically isn't moving.
We can also analyse it to see what kind of velocity is needed to keep it in a perfect circular motion.
This is where the Coriolis effect provides the force necessary for uniform circular motion.
As that has a=v^2/r=v^2/(2D), we simply equate the 2 terms:
2 omega v=v^2/(2D)
v=4 omega D
And again for our 1 m sink, this gives us a speed of 2.9 e-4 m/s or 0.29 mm/s.
So you need the water to be travelling extremely slowly.
But what if we scale it up?
A 100 m wide sink just needs a speed of ~3 cm/s.
A 100 km wide sink just needs ~30 m/s or ~100 km/hr.
Show that planes could actually fly on a flat earth.
Assuming it has the same kind of air and something pulling us down, why couldn't they fly?
how COULD they? what does air have to do with it? air resistance has nothing to do with what makes planes fly, don't give me that flat earth bs. they fly because the earth is round and they're constantly falling, but because their horizontal motion is fast enough they never reach the ground.
Planes, i.e. aeroplanes, use the air to generate lift. They fly at sub-orbital velocities.
Are you confusing planes with satellites?
-
And I have already explained to you why it isn't.
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
No you haven't.
It doesn't work when you do it and just ignore the explanation that was provided, as I provided it in that same post.
It only works if the explanation isn't in that post.
But that is why you likely removed the explanation from the post in your dishonest quote-mining. (Just like you ignore simple questions which expose your lies)
This again shows your dishonesty. You don't care about an explanation, you don't want an explanation for why you are wrong. So when one is provided you just ignore it and pretend it isn't there so you can go on spouting your pure BS.
Just what do you think is wrong with my explanation for why your argument is a pathetic strawman?
Here is is again:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
And again:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Unless you have an answer for that, which doesn't match the horizon, your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is an outright lie.
-
Show that water goes down the drain in the same direction in each hemisphere.
You would need a very large and very calm tank for the hemisphere you are in to matter.
No you wouldn't. Coryolis effect, ever heard of it? Do you know how fast the earth spins? the effect is massive even on a basic sink.
Yes I have heard of it. But unlike you, I don't go spouting pure nonsense about it.
The effect is based upon the difference in velocity of the rotation of the Earth at different points.
In order to generate a significant effect, it needs to travel a significant distance in a short time.
For a basic sink, that force is insignificant and minor disturbances will be far more dominant.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide the math to show otherwise.
Like I believe someone hwo thinks the earth is flat knows a thing about math. You can show anything with math if you're bad enough.
x=1
x2=x
x2-x=0
x(x-1)=0
x=0
Do you believe 1=0 now? Actually you think the earth is flat, so you might, but I can assure you that's not the case. Just because you think no one can see through your misleading tricks doesn't mean what you're saying is any more true.
If you like, I can even give an example:
The Coriolis force, at least according to Wikipedia, has a formula F=-2momega X v, noting that omega (the angular velocity of Earth) and v (the velocity of the object relative to Earth) are vectors, and you use their cross product (indicated by x). This means that directionality matters and thus doing the experiment in a location where the vectors are parallel (such as on the equator, with water flowing north-south) we get a result of 0, and the resulting force vector also has directionality, and thus any upwards or downwards component will be irrelevant for water flowing out a sink.
You think water flowing down a sink has no vertical motion.
This means we get the maximum at the poles where we can then just treat them as scalars, and minimum at the equator where it is 0.
Instead of F, I will use a, by dividing by mass, and I will assume we are at the poles, i.e. a=2 omega v.
You only care about one location as opposed to a whole hemisphere.
For simplicity, assuming the velocity is constant, and the water initially flows directly to the drain, with the sink having a diameter of D, then it will take a time of t=D/(2 v) to exit, and thus the acceleration will only have this time to act to deflect the stream, and as it does it at right angles to the motion, that deflection will be:
l=0.5 a t^2
Subbing in the above equations, we end up with:
l=0.5*(2 omega v)*(D/(2 v))^2
l=omega v D^2/(4 v)^2)
l=0.25 omega D^2/v
This may seem contradictory as the deflection is inversely proportional to velocity while the force is proportional to velocity. This is because as you increase the velocity you give it less time to be deflected.
you admit it's contradictory and doesn't make sense, but you still try to stick with it.
So now lets stick in some numbers, lets say you have a 1 m wide sink, with water flowing through at a velocity of 0.05 m/s (so it takes 10 seconds to go from the edge to the centre, very unrealistically slow for your best chances).
You admit the numbers are using are unrealistic.
And we know that the rotational period of Earth is ~86164 s, giving us an angular velocity (in radians per second) of 7.3e-5.
The Earth rotates at 1000 miles an hour, or 460 meters per second. You just make up figures here.
This gives us a deflection of 0.00036 m or 0.36 mm. You are highly unlikely to notice that.
In order to get a deflection of 1 cm you need the water to travel at roughly 2 mm/s with it taking 250 seconds to reach the drain.
So that is quite insignificant.
We can also look at the sideways velocity at the drain.
u=a t
u=(2 omega v)*(D/(2 v))
u=omega D.
And in this case, we see that it is not proportional at all to the velocity and instead is based upon the size of the system.
Again for our 1 m sink, this gives us 7.3e-5 m/s or roughly 72.9 um/s.
Still tiny. As a hint, this gives us an idea that you would need a similar speed to really have a significant effect at which point the water basically isn't moving.
We can also analyse it to see what kind of velocity is needed to keep it in a perfect circular motion.
This is where the Coriolis effect provides the force necessary for uniform circular motion.
As that has a=v^2/r=v^2/(2D), we simply equate the 2 terms:
2 omega v=v^2/(2D)
v=4 omega D
And again for our 1 m sink, this gives us a speed of 2.9 e-4 m/s or 0.29 mm/s.
So you need the water to be travelling extremely slowly.
But what if we scale it up?
A 100 m wide sink just needs a speed of ~3 cm/s.
A 100 km wide sink just needs ~30 m/s or ~100 km/hr.
Like I said, I wouldn't expect a dumbass who thinks the world is flat to understand anything about math.
Show that planes could actually fly on a flat earth.
Assuming it has the same kind of air and something pulling us down, why couldn't they fly?
how COULD they? what does air have to do with it? air resistance has nothing to do with what makes planes fly, don't give me that flat earth bs. they fly because the earth is round and they're constantly falling, but because their horizontal motion is fast enough they never reach the ground.
Planes, i.e. aeroplanes, use the air to generate lift. They fly at sub-orbital velocities.
Are you confusing planes with satellites?
[/quote]
They use the same principles. Satellites stay aloft without any air whatsoever. You're the one that seems to be confused. I have plenty of objects in my house that, proportionally, have more surface area than weight compared to a plane, but they aren't magically able to fly just because wishing it. Your fantasy of planes being able to work on a flat earth is just that: fantasy.
-
And again:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We're not talking about looking down at the ground then looking up, so why are you trying to use this nonsense?
Unless you have an answer for that, which doesn't match the horizon, your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is an outright lie.
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line. It's theoretical.
It's a mesh of light and dark....or a convergence of dense mass of stacked atmosphere against the dense mass of what it reflects against.....ie, water.
You see what's in between on the flat, not on your fictional globe.
-
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking. Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
I never mentioned magnetism, so who's being ignorant.
I was just curious to know why you mentioned an iron ball specifically. Water will run around a ball of any material and fall off the bottom. But why does it fall of just the bottom? Why doesn't it fall sideways or upwards if there is no other force around to stop it? Iron is a ferrous material and therefore magnetic but water isn't magnetic. So the water couldn't care less what the ball was made of. On the other hand if you were to pour a load of small iron ball bearings over a larger iron ball you would see them stick to the top of it. This showing that magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Because you have self-declared gravity to be non-existent, nonsense (which you are of course fully entitled to do) you naturally have to find an alternative explanation for what you observe. Unsuccessfully up to now I might add.
If you could somehow make an iron ball that had a mass greater than that of Earth but small enough to fit in your hand then you would find that water most definitely would stick to it. Along with everything else in your vicinity which wasn't tied down I might add. That's my prediction anyway.
-
Watert is slightly polar when its flowing.
Not magnetic but kinda.
-
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line. It's theoretical.
Yes, and??? What does you telling us anything prove? You could equally tell me there is intelligent life on Mars.. Just because YOU tell us anything it doesn't magically make it true.
Situation is then.. On the one hand you accuse us of being 'indoctrinated because we apparently simply accept what we are told re Earth being a globe. But obviously if you 'repeatedly tell' us something, such as your theoretical horizon line' then that is different and we are just expected (by you) to accept it without a grain of real evidence.. You can't provide any evidence because as you have also repeatedly told us... your model is purely hypothetical and theoretical.
Your mind is so full of... well let's just say stuff that you would like to be true, and so in your mind is true. You can't prove any of it by your own admission because it is all theoretical and hypothetical. For the rest of us there is 'indoctrination'. On balance I think I'll stick with the indoctrination in that case. At least with indoctrination comes some real and proper measurable evidence which is more than can be said for anything you come up with.
-
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
I need to know specifics. Should I use the curvature of the globe's surface, or should I use some random stretch of road that curves downward at an arbitrary rate?
-
You can show anything with math if you're bad enough.
x(x-1)=0
x=0
And if you are good enough you can show the fault with it.
The last step should be x=0/(x-1), which is 0/0 if x=1, which is undefined.
It would be more correct to stop at the 2nd last line where you have effectively:
1*0=0.
This doesn't show 1=0, it shows 0=0.
Actually you think the earth is flat
No, I don't.
I don't need to think Earth is flat to see that your arguments are BS.
You think water flowing down a sink has no vertical motion.
I was approximating it for simplicity. But as you are referring to it spinning around as it exits the sink, the vertical motion is negligible. If you think it is important, do the math to show it is.
You only care about one location as opposed to a whole hemisphere.
I picked the location which gives you the best result.
i.e. I simplified the situation to give you the best case scenario. Moving away from the pole will only make it worse for you.
This may seem contradictory as the deflection is inversely proportional to velocity while the force is proportional to velocity. This is because as you increase the velocity you give it less time to be deflected.
you admit it's contradictory and doesn't make sense, but you still try to stick with it.
No, I stated it appears to be contradictory, and explained that it isn't.
There is a very big difference between it actually being contradictory and just appearing to be for someone who doesn't think about it.
You admit the numbers are using are unrealistic.
I am choose numbers to make the situation better for you. I can put in more realistic numbers and make it even worse for you.
And we know that the rotational period of Earth is ~86164 s, giving us an angular velocity (in radians per second) of 7.3e-5.
The Earth rotates at 1000 miles an hour, or 460 meters per second. You just make up figures here.
Do you understand how rotation is measured?
Do you understand what angular velocity is?
Rotation can be measured in several ways.
The simplest are the period and angular velocity.
Earth rotates once every just less than a day (1 sidereal day).
This is a period of 86164 s (just shy of 4 minutes less than 1 average solar day, which is 86400 s).
It needs to rotate 2 *pi radians in this time (or 360 degrees).
This gives it an angular velocity of 7.3e-5 radians per second.
Note the units here. They are measuring a change in angle per unit time.
It is not a linear velocity.
The linear velocity varies depending where on Earth you are. If you take r to be the distance to the axis of rotation, then v=omega*r.
So at the pole, where r=0, v is 0.
But at the equator, where r=6378100 m, then v=465 m/s.
So no, I'm not making up figures.
If you think I am, feel free to tell me what you think the angular velocity of Earth is.
Like I said, I wouldn't expect a dumbass who thinks the world is flat to understand anything about math.
But while you say that, what you really mean is that you cannot come up with any rational objection to what I have said and don't want to admit I am wrong so you just repeatedly insult me rather than showing anything wrong with the math and without providing your own.
Planes, i.e. aeroplanes, use the air to generate lift. They fly at sub-orbital velocities.
Are you confusing planes with satellites?
They use the same principles.
No, they use fundamentally different principles.
Satellites travel at very high velocities, orbital velocities.
For example, the ISS, orbiting at ~400 km travels at roughly 8 km/s.
Again using simple math we can show what is needed.
Assuming it is orbiting above Earth at a distance of r from the centre (and simplifying by treating Earth as spherically symmetric), then we know the acceleration due to gravity will be:
a=GM/r^2
We also know that the acceleration required for uniform circular motion (assuming the orbit is a perfect circle) is given by:
a=v^2/r
So in order to work based upon this principle we need:
v^2/r=GM/r^2
v^2=GM/r
v=sqrt(GM/r).
Now subbing in G=6.67430E-11 m^3/(kg s^2)
M=5.97E+24 kg
and r=(6371 + 400) km (to account for the radius of Earth and the height of the ISS above it), we end up with:
v=7.7 km/s.
Quite close to the reported speed of 7.66 km/s.
Doing the same for a plane flying at roughly 10 km (35 000 ft) we instead end up with
v=7.9 km/s
Conversely most large planes these days cruise at less than 1000 km/hr, i.e. much less than 300 m/s.
At such a low speed gravity is simply far too strong.
We can also see just what acceleration they would need to stay in the air like that:
a=v^2/r
=0.014 m/s^2.
Much lower than the 9.8 m/s^2 for Earth.
So it is quite clear that planes don't use the same principles as satellites.
To further show that is nonsense, If they did, just what is the point of the wings on an aircraft?
If they don't use air for lift, there is no reason to have such ridiculously large wings.
We can also observe what happens as planes take off, where as the planes gain speed on the runway, the wings start bending upwards, as if they are generating lift with this lift pushing them up, eventually being great enough to also lift the plane.
You're the one that seems to be confused.
If that was the case, you wouldn't be claiming that satellites and planes use the same principles to fly, and would have been able to refute the math rather than insulting me. And you wouldn't have claimed I'm a flat Earther.
So it sure seems like you are the one who is confused.
I have plenty of objects in my house that, proportionally, have more surface area than weight compared to a plane, but they aren't magically able to fly just because wishing it.
Do they have an aerodynamic shape that generates lift? Because surface area isn't everything. You need a specific shape to generate lift. Different shapes will generate different amounts of lift. Some shapes, like those found on car spoilers generate a downforce instead of lift due to their shape.
Then you need speed. Are these objects just sitting on your desk, or are they travelling at 1000 km/hr?
Your fantasy of planes being able to work on a flat earth is just that: fantasy.
You mean your fantasy of planes needing a round Earth is just that, fantasy.
Just like your fantasy of water flowing down a simple sink showing Earth rotates is just that, fantasy.
-
And again:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We're not talking about looking down at the ground then looking up, so why are you trying to use this nonsense?
It isn't nonsense. It is a simple question which refutes your claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
If a RE doesn't have a horizon then you would be able to answer it.
If the RE doesn't have a horizon then directionality doesn't matter. You could look in any direction and still not see a horizon.
This question clearly shows it does have a horizon, as somewhere between looking straight down and seeing the ground and looking straight up and seeing the sky you will reach a point where the top portion of your vision has sky and the bottom portion has land/sea.
These portions will meet, with the horizon separating them.
This shows the RE does have the horizon.
If instead you want to claim that it does have a horizon but it would be below the FOV of a level tube/scope you can change your argument to reflect that, i.e. admit that the RE does have a horizon and say it isn't at eye level.
Then we can move forward with the argument you are yet to refute and discuss just where the horizon would visually appear to be on a RE, and thus if it can be seen through a level scope/level tube.
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line.
You have repeated that same lie, just like you have repeated the lie that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
That doesn't make it true.
And I notice you completely ignored the other issue:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
Going to admit that your simple setup in no way refutes the RE model?
Or will you continue being dishonest and jumping between topics to pretend you haven't been refuted countless times?
-
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
I need to know specifics. Should I use the curvature of the globe's surface, or should I use some random stretch of road that curves downward at an arbitrary rate?
Yes
Whats your issue, sceppy?
You gave a vague experiment with an easily provably incorrsct hypothesis which was debunked by jjas attempt.
Now youre telling Silo here to just do it.
Do what?
Your theory was alteady disproven.
Unless you have a new point you want to make.
Or can we expect to do you lr dance of two rolls only for you to further find fault.
Spell it out properly
Or do it yourself FFS.
-
And again:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We're not talking about looking down at the ground then looking up, so why are you trying to use this nonsense?
It isn't nonsense. It is a simple question which refutes your claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
If a RE doesn't have a horizon then you would be able to answer it.
If the RE doesn't have a horizon then directionality doesn't matter. You could look in any direction and still not see a horizon.
This question clearly shows it does have a horizon, as somewhere between looking straight down and seeing the ground and looking straight up and seeing the sky you will reach a point where the top portion of your vision has sky and the bottom portion has land/sea.
These portions will meet, with the horizon separating them.
This shows the RE does have the horizon.
If instead you want to claim that it does have a horizon but it would be below the FOV of a level tube/scope you can change your argument to reflect that, i.e. admit that the RE does have a horizon and say it isn't at eye level.
Then we can move forward with the argument you are yet to refute and discuss just where the horizon would visually appear to be on a RE, and thus if it can be seen through a level scope/level tube.
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line.
You have repeated that same lie, just like you have repeated the lie that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
That doesn't make it true.
And I notice you completely ignored the other issue:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
Going to admit that your simple setup in no way refutes the RE model?
Or will you continue being dishonest and jumping between topics to pretend you haven't been refuted countless times?
And you (sceppy) have been repeatedly told the outline of a basketball is the horizon line.
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
You saw them too, and haven't been able to identify any flaw in them other than baseless claims that they are somehow faked. Where is your evidence that they are not exactly what they appear to be?
Where are your counterexample photos?
-
Sceptimatic, Shifter just posted a video which trashes your stylish avatar. Check it out, sometime.
You're a science denier, and what you believe is the earth is not spherical, space does not exist, our solar system dies not exist, the universe does not exist, and you have been lied to, and deceived.
I'd love to know which authorities you choose to trust and which authorities you choose to distrust. I'm a government worker, so I'm curious.
Everyone's a government worker, so what's your point?
Really? You get a government paid salary?
Have you performed my table at the beach experiment yet, or do you need me to post up step by step photos?
By all means post it step by step. Show me what you're trying to prove, then I'll rip it to bits and send you back to try again, by showing you your issues. Unless you can nail it and shut me up.
Let's see.
No worries! So, just to clarify, this is what you believe, yes? The horizon is always at a person's eyeline.
(https://i.ibb.co/wBKqnKn/Horizon1.jpg)
-
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking. Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
I never mentioned magnetism, so who's being ignorant.
I was just curious to know why you mentioned an iron ball specifically. Water will run around a ball of any material and fall off the bottom. But why does it fall of just the bottom? Why doesn't it fall sideways or upwards if there is no other force around to stop it? Iron is a ferrous material and therefore magnetic but water isn't magnetic. So the water couldn't care less what the ball was made of. On the other hand if you were to pour a load of small iron ball bearings over a larger iron ball you would see them stick to the top of it. This showing that magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Because you have self-declared gravity to be non-existent, nonsense (which you are of course fully entitled to do) you naturally have to find an alternative explanation for what you observe. Unsuccessfully up to now I might add.
If you could somehow make an iron ball that had a mass greater than that of Earth but small enough to fit in your hand then you would find that water most definitely would stick to it. Along with everything else in your vicinity which wasn't tied down I might add. That's my prediction anyway.
All of what you said is nothing other than wild speculation.
-
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line. It's theoretical.
Yes, and??? What does you telling us anything prove? You could equally tell me there is intelligent life on Mars.. Just because YOU tell us anything it doesn't magically make it true.
Situation is then.. On the one hand you accuse us of being 'indoctrinated because we apparently simply accept what we are told re Earth being a globe. But obviously if you 'repeatedly tell' us something, such as your theoretical horizon line' then that is different and we are just expected (by you) to accept it without a grain of real evidence.. You can't provide any evidence because as you have also repeatedly told us... your model is purely hypothetical and theoretical.
Your mind is so full of... well let's just say stuff that you would like to be true, and so in your mind is true. You can't prove any of it by your own admission because it is all theoretical and hypothetical. For the rest of us there is 'indoctrination'. On balance I think I'll stick with the indoctrination in that case. At least with indoctrination comes some real and proper measurable evidence which is more than can be said for anything you come up with.
You go with a silly globe when you can clearly see simple logic dictates it is absolutely not...if you're prepared to take away the silly magic.
-
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
I need to know specifics. Should I use the curvature of the globe's surface, or should I use some random stretch of road that curves downward at an arbitrary rate?
Either follow it or don't.
You don't seem to want to do anything and if so, fair enough. You aren't creating any issues with me, just yourself.
-
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
I need to know specifics. Should I use the curvature of the globe's surface, or should I use some random stretch of road that curves downward at an arbitrary rate?
Yes
Whats your issue, sceppy?
You gave a vague experiment with an easily provably incorrsct hypothesis which was debunked by jjas attempt.
Now youre telling Silo here to just do it.
Do what?
Your theory was alteady disproven.
Unless you have a new point you want to make.
Or can we expect to do you lr dance of two rolls only for you to further find fault.
Spell it out properly
Or do it yourself FFS.
Do it for yourself. If you can't grasp it or don't want to, then fine. It's not an issue to me with you people.
-
And again:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We're not talking about looking down at the ground then looking up, so why are you trying to use this nonsense?
It isn't nonsense. It is a simple question which refutes your claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
If a RE doesn't have a horizon then you would be able to answer it.
If the RE doesn't have a horizon then directionality doesn't matter. You could look in any direction and still not see a horizon.
This question clearly shows it does have a horizon, as somewhere between looking straight down and seeing the ground and looking straight up and seeing the sky you will reach a point where the top portion of your vision has sky and the bottom portion has land/sea.
These portions will meet, with the horizon separating them.
This shows the RE does have the horizon.
If instead you want to claim that it does have a horizon but it would be below the FOV of a level tube/scope you can change your argument to reflect that, i.e. admit that the RE does have a horizon and say it isn't at eye level.
Then we can move forward with the argument you are yet to refute and discuss just where the horizon would visually appear to be on a RE, and thus if it can be seen through a level scope/level tube.
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line.
You have repeated that same lie, just like you have repeated the lie that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
That doesn't make it true.
And I notice you completely ignored the other issue:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
Going to admit that your simple setup in no way refutes the RE model?
Or will you continue being dishonest and jumping between topics to pretend you haven't been refuted countless times?
And you (sceppy) have been repeatedly told the outline of a basketball is the horizon line.
And you have repeatedly been told this is a false representation of your so called globe...meaning you are not stood on your basketball.
And try and understand that the horizon line is theoretical and also impossible if the Earth was a globe we supposedly walk upon.
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
You saw them too, and haven't been able to identify any flaw in them other than baseless claims that they are somehow faked. Where is your evidence that they are not exactly what they appear to be?
Where are your counterexample photos?
I think any honest person can see the dpe.
There's no flaw in them because you set them up for your own ends, not mine.
This is why you won't go further, because you were backed into a corner and didn't expect it.
-
Sceptimatic, Shifter just posted a video which trashes your stylish avatar. Check it out, sometime.
You're a science denier, and what you believe is the earth is not spherical, space does not exist, our solar system dies not exist, the universe does not exist, and you have been lied to, and deceived.
I'd love to know which authorities you choose to trust and which authorities you choose to distrust. I'm a government worker, so I'm curious.
Everyone's a government worker, so what's your point?
Really? You get a government paid salary?
Have you performed my table at the beach experiment yet, or do you need me to post up step by step photos?
By all means post it step by step. Show me what you're trying to prove, then I'll rip it to bits and send you back to try again, by showing you your issues. Unless you can nail it and shut me up.
Let's see.
No worries! So, just to clarify, this is what you believe, yes? The horizon is always at a person's eyeline.
(https://i.ibb.co/wBKqnKn/Horizon1.jpg)
It has to be....always. No amount of experiments will alter that, unless they're bogus.
-
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
I need to know specifics. Should I use the curvature of the globe's surface, or should I use some random stretch of road that curves downward at an arbitrary rate?
Either follow it or don't.
You don't seem to want to do anything and if so, fair enough. You aren't creating any issues with me, just yourself.
You don't seem to want to provide any specifics. Do you want to me go by your first diagram (Level ground), or do you want me to go by JJA's setup (a sloping road of any given grade), or do you want me to go by your second diagram ( 5.5 degree straight slope)?
We know about you and excuses...
I will come up with them every time you do not show what I'm asking for.
...so what are you asking for?
-
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking. Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
I never mentioned magnetism, so who's being ignorant.
I was just curious to know why you mentioned an iron ball specifically. Water will run around a ball of any material and fall off the bottom. But why does it fall of just the bottom? Why doesn't it fall sideways or upwards if there is no other force around to stop it? Iron is a ferrous material and therefore magnetic but water isn't magnetic. So the water couldn't care less what the ball was made of. On the other hand if you were to pour a load of small iron ball bearings over a larger iron ball you would see them stick to the top of it. This showing that magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Because you have self-declared gravity to be non-existent, nonsense (which you are of course fully entitled to do) you naturally have to find an alternative explanation for what you observe. Unsuccessfully up to now I might add.
If you could somehow make an iron ball that had a mass greater than that of Earth but small enough to fit in your hand then you would find that water most definitely would stick to it. Along with everything else in your vicinity which wasn't tied down I might add. That's my prediction anyway.
All of what you said is nothing other than wild speculation.
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
You go with a silly globe when you can clearly see simple logic dictates it is absolutely not...if you're prepared to take away the silly magic.
We go with the perfectly sane globe, backed up by mountains of evidence that you are yet to show a problem with.
You are the one who relies upon silly magic and a completely absence of logic, not us.
Simple logic dictates Earth is not flat. Simple logic dictates Earth is curved.
You are yet to present any logic indicating Earth isn't a globe. Instead you just dismiss it with ridicule and strawmen.
You don't seem to want to do anything
Or, he is getting you to provide details of just what you want so you then don't just go and dismiss it like you always do.
But of course, you don't want that. You always want to be able to have some excuse to dismiss it.
And you have repeatedly been told this is a false representation of your so called globe
And again, you repeating the same lies doesn't magically make it true.
The point is that ball is a valid representation of a round object, clearly showing how there is a region of your vision when looking at it where there is a division, below which you see the ball and above which you see the surroundings, i.e. the horizon.
Unless you are able to explain why standing on it should magically make it invisible or change that, your objection is irrelevant.
Especially when you can stand on such a ball and look down and still see the edge, and you can put a camera on it and still see the edge.
And try and understand that the horizon line is theoretical and also impossible if the Earth was a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Perhaps when you can start justifying that outright lie which has been refuted repeatedly, rather than just continually asserting it.
The simple question you outright refuse to address shows clearly why you are wrong.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Until you can actually provide an answer for what visually separates the land/sea and sky on the RE, simple logic dictates that a RE MUST have a horizon.
The only way out would be to appeal to something blocking your view to the horizon, which would apply equally well on a FE.
I think any honest person can see the dpe.
And they know it is you who is trying to dupe people.
This is why you won't go further, because you were backed into a corner and didn't expect it.
Again, you have cornered no one.
You were clearly refuted by simple evidence, but rather than accept you were wrong, you just insulted him claiming he was conning you.
Then you come up with a needless complication which helps in no way and demand he does that.
The reason he won't go further is because to all sane people, he has clearly refuted your blatant lie, and you will never accept that you are wrong, nor can you provide any justification (which can withstand even a tiny amount of scrutiny) for why your modification does anything other than make the entire exercise harder?
Because so far the only "justification" you have is that it makes aligning it while pointing down harder, but it just makes aligning it in general harder and thus doesn't make producing a deceitful result harder than an honest one and thus in no way helps to produce an honest result.
That means you are just dismissing it because it shows you are wrong and you want to come up with some excuse and make it harder. You are not doing it for any technical reason. You are just doing it because it shows you are wrong.
And with you just dismissing everything, your refusal to provide all the requirements before the experiment, just so you can then dismiss whatever else is provided which refutes you, further lessens any motivation to do the experiment.
As pointed out plenty of times, if you want one which actually makes it harder to con people then you want a water level, like the first photo you rejected because you showed you were wrong.
It has to be....always. No amount of experiments will alter that, unless they're bogus.
No it doesn't, as simple logic and plenty of experiments show.
Your refusal to accept evidence and logic which shows otherwise, and with you just ignoring it or dismissing it as a con-job shows your position is not based upon any desire for the truth and instead is just a blind belief with no connection to reality.
And again, you ignore the explanation for why your attempt at refuting the RE with a ball and water is wrong:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
Going to admit that your simple setup in no way refutes the RE model?
-
https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ (https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/)
The claim that the horizon always rises to eye level is very common and quite old. One early claims are from Samuel Rowbotham in his book “Earth not a Globe” from 1881. From page 172: “…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…” This is also the topic of his experiment 15 in the book. Sadly this experiment is horribly conceived and falls far short of an actual scientific experiment.
Is this what you base your assertion on, sceptimatic?
From Quora:
Samuel Rowbotham (aka “Parallax”) was the L Ron Hubbard of flat earthery, the inventor of ‘zeteticism’, and author of “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe.” Nearly all flerf pseudo-science originates there - nothing much has been added in the 150-odd years since. Victorian morons were fantastically well-educated compared to modern internet morons, and Rowbotham had a grasp of astronomy and trigonometry and was able to produce spurious calculations and proofs that modern flerfers can only gaze at in wonder.
Not so sure of the "well-educated", but would still agree what they did was better than YouTube research.
-
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
I need to know specifics. Should I use the curvature of the globe's surface, or should I use some random stretch of road that curves downward at an arbitrary rate?
Either follow it or don't.
You don't seem to want to do anything and if so, fair enough. You aren't creating any issues with me, just yourself.
You don't seem to want to provide any specifics. Do you want to me go by your first diagram (Level ground), or do you want me to go by JJA's setup (a sloping road of any given grade), or do you want me to go by your second diagram ( 5.5 degree straight slope)?
We know about you and excuses...
I will come up with them every time you do not show what I'm asking for.
...so what are you asking for?
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
-
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
No. It's a reality.
-
https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ (https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/)
The claim that the horizon always rises to eye level is very common and quite old. One early claims are from Samuel Rowbotham in his book “Earth not a Globe” from 1881. From page 172: “…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…” This is also the topic of his experiment 15 in the book. Sadly this experiment is horribly conceived and falls far short of an actual scientific experiment.
Is this what you base your assertion on, sceptimatic?
From Quora:
Samuel Rowbotham (aka “Parallax”) was the L Ron Hubbard of flat earthery, the inventor of ‘zeteticism’, and author of “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe.” Nearly all flerf pseudo-science originates there - nothing much has been added in the 150-odd years since. Victorian morons were fantastically well-educated compared to modern internet morons, and Rowbotham had a grasp of astronomy and trigonometry and was able to produce spurious calculations and proofs that modern flerfers can only gaze at in wonder.
Not so sure of the "well-educated", but would still agree what they did was better than YouTube research.
The horizon does not rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
-
Re your reply #2570... yes and? So through your eyes everyone who has ever bought a decorative water feature for their garden like this has unwittingly proved that the Earth is not a globe have they?
Why is the water pouring off the ball and onto the ground then? Why is all the water moving in the same direction? What could possibly be causing that I wonder??? Any offers anyone? That will be a difficult one for Scepti to answer because he refuses to accept gravity exists. For the everyone else it should be a bit more straight forward.
-
Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball
I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking. Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
I never mentioned magnetism, so who's being ignorant.
I was just curious to know why you mentioned an iron ball specifically. Water will run around a ball of any material and fall off the bottom. But why does it fall of just the bottom? Why doesn't it fall sideways or upwards if there is no other force around to stop it? Iron is a ferrous material and therefore magnetic but water isn't magnetic. So the water couldn't care less what the ball was made of. On the other hand if you were to pour a load of small iron ball bearings over a larger iron ball you would see them stick to the top of it. This showing that magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Because you have self-declared gravity to be non-existent, nonsense (which you are of course fully entitled to do) you naturally have to find an alternative explanation for what you observe. Unsuccessfully up to now I might add.
If you could somehow make an iron ball that had a mass greater than that of Earth but small enough to fit in your hand then you would find that water most definitely would stick to it. Along with everything else in your vicinity which wasn't tied down I might add. That's my prediction anyway.
All of what you said is nothing other than wild speculation.
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
No. It's a reality.
So does that mean you were wrong, and not all of what they said was wild speculation?
But again, such a small ball like in your video is not representative of Earth. Just like I explained before:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
And again you ignore the simple question that shows you are wrong, and ignore the explanation for why your attempt at using water on a small ball is a pathetic strawman which in no way refutes the RE.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
There you go projecting again and repeating the same pathetic lies.
Evidence clearly shows that it is not always at eye level.
Simple logic dictates it cannot be at eye-level.
If it was at eye level due to perspective (or convergance as you like to call it), then it would need to be infinitely far away. That is clearly not the case.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You have already admitted that is pure BS by admitting that you can see ground by looking down.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Again, any sane person would recognise that it creates a horizon, just all other balls are observed to do.
So how about you stop repeating the same pathetic lies and instead start dealing with these simple refutations of your outright lies?
Repeatedly ignoring them just shows how dishonest you are and how little you care about the truth.
Grow up.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:
He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
-
And again:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We're not talking about looking down at the ground then looking up, so why are you trying to use this nonsense?
It isn't nonsense. It is a simple question which refutes your claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
If a RE doesn't have a horizon then you would be able to answer it.
If the RE doesn't have a horizon then directionality doesn't matter. You could look in any direction and still not see a horizon.
This question clearly shows it does have a horizon, as somewhere between looking straight down and seeing the ground and looking straight up and seeing the sky you will reach a point where the top portion of your vision has sky and the bottom portion has land/sea.
These portions will meet, with the horizon separating them.
This shows the RE does have the horizon.
If instead you want to claim that it does have a horizon but it would be below the FOV of a level tube/scope you can change your argument to reflect that, i.e. admit that the RE does have a horizon and say it isn't at eye level.
Then we can move forward with the argument you are yet to refute and discuss just where the horizon would visually appear to be on a RE, and thus if it can be seen through a level scope/level tube.
I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line.
You have repeated that same lie, just like you have repeated the lie that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
That doesn't make it true.
And I notice you completely ignored the other issue:
Once more, your model is a small ball being held just above a much larger and much more massive ball. (or in your fantasy, it is a small ball being held above a flat Earth).
But this is not the RE model that you are claiming to refute.
The RE model you are claiming to refute is a ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
As such, your test is entirely useless and in no way refutes the RE, nor is it any evidence against the RE.
The observation that we obtain from such a setup are what is expected in the mainstream model.
Going to admit that your simple setup in no way refutes the RE model?
Or will you continue being dishonest and jumping between topics to pretend you haven't been refuted countless times?
And you (sceppy) have been repeatedly told the outline of a basketball is the horizon line.
And you have repeatedly been told this is a false representation of your so called globe...meaning you are not stood on your basketball.
And try and understand that the horizon line is theoretical and also impossible if the Earth was a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Is your issue that its not an actual line?
Like
Drawing a line in the sand?
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
You saw them too, and haven't been able to identify any flaw in them other than baseless claims that they are somehow faked. Where is your evidence that they are not exactly what they appear to be?
Where are your counterexample photos?
I think any honest person can see the dpe.
There's no flaw in them because you set them up for your own ends, not mine.
This is why you won't go further, because you were backed into a corner and didn't expect it.
Why do you refuse to teach us right?
If we keep duping ourselfs and setting it up incorrectly?
Clear all doubt
Show us the way
-
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
No. It's a reality.
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
-
https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ (https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/)
The claim that the horizon always rises to eye level is very common and quite old. One early claims are from Samuel Rowbotham in his book “Earth not a Globe” from 1881. From page 172: “…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…” This is also the topic of his experiment 15 in the book. Sadly this experiment is horribly conceived and falls far short of an actual scientific experiment.
Is this what you base your assertion on, sceptimatic?
From Quora:
Samuel Rowbotham (aka “Parallax”) was the L Ron Hubbard of flat earthery, the inventor of ‘zeteticism’, and author of “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe.” Nearly all flerf pseudo-science originates there - nothing much has been added in the 150-odd years since. Victorian morons were fantastically well-educated compared to modern internet morons, and Rowbotham had a grasp of astronomy and trigonometry and was able to produce spurious calculations and proofs that modern flerfers can only gaze at in wonder.
Not so sure of the "well-educated", but would still agree what they did was better than YouTube research.
The horizon does not rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
Ffs
You already admitted that me at 6ft, my wheel chair grandfather at 4ft and some radom guy on a mountain at 1000ft will all have diffrent "eye level".
So either the flat earth horizon is moving, or "rises to eye level" is not a thing.
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
So, this is what you believe.......
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
I take it, Sceptimatic, you also believe this.......
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
Even though in your avatar depiction of Earth, Earth isn't flat - it's curved? Please explain?
(This might explain the noticeable absence of actual flat earthers who have helped you out in this thread? You're not a flat earther at all - you're a globe earth denier, and gold panning earth believer)
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
You saw them too, and haven't been able to identify any flaw in them other than baseless claims that they are somehow faked. Where is your evidence that they are not exactly what they appear to be?
Where are your counterexample photos?
I think any honest person can see the dpe.
There's no flaw in them because you set them up for your own ends, not mine.
This is why you won't go further, because you were backed into a corner and didn't expect it.
That's not an answer. How exactly did I dupe you?
Do you have any evidence, any specific reason for your claim?
Why won't you perform and post your own experiment?
-
How to experiment:
Step 1: Pose a Testable Question. ...
Step 2: Research the Topic. ...
Step 3: State a Hypothesis. ...
Step 4: Design Your Experiment. ...
Step 5: Perform the Experiment. ...
Step 6: Collect Data. ...
Step 7: Conclusions.
So far sceppy has completed half of 1, none of 2, i think hes made a 3 (you only see 1inch?), left 4 to us to interperation, refuses to 5, and skipped right to 7 all on his own.
-
Everyone, everywhere, ever tried the spirit level thing is in on the scam.
It is scary world one really thinks like that.
-
No
We were all duped apparently
Only sceppy is the smartest and he selfishly refuses to teach us
-
It is tragic, I know :(
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:
He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.
-
Is your issue that its not an actual line?
Like
Drawing a line in the sand?
It's not an issue, to me. The issue is you and your like minded thinkers.
I've said multiple times the line is theoretical.
-
Why do you refuse to teach us right?
If we keep duping ourselfs and setting it up incorrectly?
Clear all doubt
Show us the way
Help yourselves. I've explained plenty and you know it.
-
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
No. It's a reality.
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:
He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.
I'm not following. Trying the same what? What is the issue you have with this demonstration? He even has the Total Station cross hairs for you. Yeah!
Is your schtick here still, "It's a dupe, fake..." If so, talk about being bullied and constrained by a narrative. Just so happens to be a narrative of one, your own. Is everything fake if it doesn't conform to your personal narrative?
-
https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ (https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/)
The claim that the horizon always rises to eye level is very common and quite old. One early claims are from Samuel Rowbotham in his book “Earth not a Globe” from 1881. From page 172: “…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…” This is also the topic of his experiment 15 in the book. Sadly this experiment is horribly conceived and falls far short of an actual scientific experiment.
Is this what you base your assertion on, sceptimatic?
From Quora:
Samuel Rowbotham (aka “Parallax”) was the L Ron Hubbard of flat earthery, the inventor of ‘zeteticism’, and author of “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe.” Nearly all flerf pseudo-science originates there - nothing much has been added in the 150-odd years since. Victorian morons were fantastically well-educated compared to modern internet morons, and Rowbotham had a grasp of astronomy and trigonometry and was able to produce spurious calculations and proofs that modern flerfers can only gaze at in wonder.
Not so sure of the "well-educated", but would still agree what they did was better than YouTube research.
The horizon does not rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
Ffs
You already admitted that me at 6ft, my wheel chair grandfather at 4ft and some radom guy on a mountain at 1000ft will all have diffrent "eye level".
So either the flat earth horizon is moving, or "rises to eye level" is not a thing.
A different eye level at for different people at different standpoints.
Nothing rises to any of those eye levels and nor does it dip. It is eye level at all times.
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.
Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.
Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20
(https://i.imgur.com/0cskRzJ.png)
Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?
-
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
No. It's a reality.
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.
the ball and the water in the video are on the ground in what i assume to be taken on earth.
earth being the thing that is very large and all things in the relative vicinity generally fall towards.
"towards" being "down" as already described to you.
may be you can try saying this out loud, slowly, so you understand.
using the "duped" math, my quick math i got 316SS at 7.87g/cm^3, 50cm diam = 514kg of ball.
using the F=GMm/r^2 = 6.67x10^-11x514xwater/0.25^2 = the weight of water x 0.000,000,5
wow
there's soooo much gravity created by that ball!
i'm amazed everyone's not flying towards it and getting stuck.
so far the math shows that your theory is non relevant and that oceans in the south pole would NOT start flying upwards.
and this math is matched with observed reality in that water in the south pole doesn't start falling off ("up") the earth.
-
https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ (https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/)
The claim that the horizon always rises to eye level is very common and quite old. One early claims are from Samuel Rowbotham in his book “Earth not a Globe” from 1881. From page 172: “…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…” This is also the topic of his experiment 15 in the book. Sadly this experiment is horribly conceived and falls far short of an actual scientific experiment.
Is this what you base your assertion on, sceptimatic?
From Quora:
Samuel Rowbotham (aka “Parallax”) was the L Ron Hubbard of flat earthery, the inventor of ‘zeteticism’, and author of “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe.” Nearly all flerf pseudo-science originates there - nothing much has been added in the 150-odd years since. Victorian morons were fantastically well-educated compared to modern internet morons, and Rowbotham had a grasp of astronomy and trigonometry and was able to produce spurious calculations and proofs that modern flerfers can only gaze at in wonder.
Not so sure of the "well-educated", but would still agree what they did was better than YouTube research.
The horizon does not rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
Ffs
You already admitted that me at 6ft, my wheel chair grandfather at 4ft and some radom guy on a mountain at 1000ft will all have diffrent "eye level".
So either the flat earth horizon is moving, or "rises to eye level" is not a thing.
A different eye level at for different people at different standpoints.
Nothing rises to any of those eye levels and nor does it dip. It is eye level at all times.
wowee..
if your EYE is allowed to rise and lower, why is it that EYE LEVEL isn't?
-
Is your issue that its not an actual line?
Like
Drawing a line in the sand?
It's not an issue, to me. The issue is you and your like minded thinkers.
I've said multiple times the line is theoretical.
right
theoretical as in not a physical line.
i see a very clear distinct of the water line and the sky.
do you not see this theoretical line?
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
-
Sceptimatic, your avatar is not a flat earth model.
It has a distinctive curve just like the globe, I see going on for North America on your avatar. By your own reasoning, Australia on your avatar should be at the bottom of the sea bed, along with most of South America and Africa, with the rest of the sea water defying every other logical natural law, and sticking to the sides of a bowl. Does water in your house, magically pool on your walls, and sit there, does it?
So, why are you carrying on about there being no curvature, when your own chosen model by Orlando Ferguson - a businessman from South Dakota, has the loopiest curvature anybody could possibly come up with? Seriously, the Angels standing on the four corners of Orlando's model (which you cropped out) makes more sense than the rest of it.
Now, address those last two images I posted about the horizon.
-
I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
And as repeatedly explained it does nothing to refute the RE.
All you are doing is showing that it won't stay on a small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
You are in no way showing it can't stick to a round Earth.
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
(and all of that is assuming gravity is the only significant force, which means the object needs to be large enough such that electrostatic interactions can't hold the water together)
Again, it in no way refutes the RE. It is entirely consistent with what is expected given the RE model.
It would be just as dishonest as holding a plate sideways and pouring water on it to show that Earth isn't flat as all the water would run off.
Again, you continually attack strawmen of the RE as you know you cannot refute the RE.
And also look at your dishonest double standard, where you reject us using a small ball to represent the RE with no valid objection as if us not standing on it magically changes everything and magically makes the ball invisible; while here you are using a small ball to try to represent the RE.
This again shows that your objections are not those based upon rational thought and instead it is based upon if they show you are wrong or not. You reject anything that shows you are wrong, but are happy to accept any nonsense which agrees with you or which you can dishonestly misrepresent to pretend you are correct.
Meanwhile, we accept the small round object provides some visual similarities but need to note the difference in distance and scale and understand how they impact observations on Earth, and clearly explain why your water on a ball is pure garbage which in no way refutes the RE, due to the fundamental distinction between your nonsense and the RE model.
And again, you ignore the extremely simple question that exposes your lies:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Unless you have an honest rational answer for this question, it indicates the RE does have a horizon.
There is no evidence...at all.
You choosing to dismiss the evidence as a con-job or ignore it doesn't mean there is none, it just means you are dishonest and wilfully ignorant.
There is plenty of evidence that shows Earth is round, and you have no rational objection to any of it. (for example, the fact that the horizon appears below eye level, with you being able to use the drop to calculate the radius of Earth)
Meanwhile, there is no evidence at all that Earth is flat rather than round.
-
I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.
If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 25kg it will fall off. If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 6 million, million, million, million kg then it won't.
You seem to be overlooking that small point which JB (who has the patience of a saint!) has tried to explain to you. So your next question will inevitably be something along the lines of 'Show me how you know the mass of 'your globe''. Well figure that out for yourself. That's what you are so passionate about isn't it? Finding things out for yourself. Except you of course. You are quite content to just sit on that throne of yours and dictate to everyone else what they should do.
There's plenty of information about that so it won't take you long. I won't waste time myself though as nothing I say will make a difference to what you want to believe.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
So, this is what you believe.......
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
Believe what? Looking down?
I take it, Sceptimatic, you also believe this.......
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
You forgot the domed sky.
Even though in your avatar depiction of Earth, Earth isn't flat - it's curved? Please explain?
Earth isn't all flat. You've been told this. Water shows the reality of flatness and this is the crux of the reality.
(This might explain the noticeable absence of actual flat earthers who have helped you out in this thread?
I don't need help.
You're not a flat earther at all - you're a globe earth denier, and gold panning earth believer)
That depends on what people like you deem as a , flat Earther.
Water level is flat. This is all that is required to know it's not a globe.
As for being a globe Earth denier. I dismiss the global model for reasons given.
A denier, in your word is back to the old bullying routine used to make a person feel they are committing the crime of going against authority. This shows it up for what it is without even needing further investigation.
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
You saw them too, and haven't been able to identify any flaw in them other than baseless claims that they are somehow faked. Where is your evidence that they are not exactly what they appear to be?
Where are your counterexample photos?
I think any honest person can see the dpe.
There's no flaw in them because you set them up for your own ends, not mine.
This is why you won't go further, because you were backed into a corner and didn't expect it.
That's not an answer. How exactly did I dupe you?
Do you have any evidence, any specific reason for your claim?
Why won't you perform and post your own experiment?
Anyone with a brain can see what you did. You aren't really duping me you are basically wilfully duping yourself. I know what I know.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:
He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.
I'm not following. Trying the same what? What is the issue you have with this demonstration? He even has the Total Station cross hairs for you. Yeah!
Is your schtick here still, "It's a dupe, fake..." If so, talk about being bullied and constrained by a narrative. Just so happens to be a narrative of one, your own. Is everything fake if it doesn't conform to your personal narrative?
Anyone can move a sight above or below a crosshair. You know this so why are you bothering with the same nonsense?
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.
Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.
Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20
(https://i.imgur.com/0cskRzJ.png)
Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?
There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it
-
So it is wild speculation for water to fall off a ball?
No. It's a reality.
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.
the ball and the water in the video are on the ground in what i assume to be taken on earth.
earth being the thing that is very large and all things in the relative vicinity generally fall towards.
"towards" being "down" as already described to you.
may be you can try saying this out loud, slowly, so you understand.
using the "duped" math, my quick math i got 316SS at 7.87g/cm^3, 50cm diam = 514kg of ball.
using the F=GMm/r^2 = 6.67x10^-11x514xwater/0.25^2 = the weight of water x 0.000,000,5
wow
there's soooo much gravity created by that ball!
i'm amazed everyone's not flying towards it and getting stuck.
so far the math shows that your theory is non relevant and that oceans in the south pole would NOT start flying upwards.
and this math is matched with observed reality in that water in the south pole doesn't start falling off ("up") the earth.
The math shows nothing about gravity.
The reality and logic of it is there for anyone to understand, that we do not walk upon a global spinning Earth..
-
https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ (https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/)
The claim that the horizon always rises to eye level is very common and quite old. One early claims are from Samuel Rowbotham in his book “Earth not a Globe” from 1881. From page 172: “…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…” This is also the topic of his experiment 15 in the book. Sadly this experiment is horribly conceived and falls far short of an actual scientific experiment.
Is this what you base your assertion on, sceptimatic?
From Quora:
Samuel Rowbotham (aka “Parallax”) was the L Ron Hubbard of flat earthery, the inventor of ‘zeteticism’, and author of “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe.” Nearly all flerf pseudo-science originates there - nothing much has been added in the 150-odd years since. Victorian morons were fantastically well-educated compared to modern internet morons, and Rowbotham had a grasp of astronomy and trigonometry and was able to produce spurious calculations and proofs that modern flerfers can only gaze at in wonder.
Not so sure of the "well-educated", but would still agree what they did was better than YouTube research.
The horizon does not rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
Ffs
You already admitted that me at 6ft, my wheel chair grandfather at 4ft and some radom guy on a mountain at 1000ft will all have diffrent "eye level".
So either the flat earth horizon is moving, or "rises to eye level" is not a thing.
A different eye level at for different people at different standpoints.
Nothing rises to any of those eye levels and nor does it dip. It is eye level at all times.
wowee..
if your EYE is allowed to rise and lower, why is it that EYE LEVEL isn't?
Eye level is eye level for horizon, theoretical line.
You can easily drop below a crosshair or go above it when looking out to your eye level horizon. It's so easy to play those games but you are duping nobody but yourselves in a deliberate manner.
Why in the hell you'd want to do that is beyond me.
-
Is your issue that its not an actual line?
Like
Drawing a line in the sand?
It's not an issue, to me. The issue is you and your like minded thinkers.
I've said multiple times the line is theoretical.
right
theoretical as in not a physical line.
i see a very clear distinct of the water line and the sky.
do you not see this theoretical line?
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
Yep, I see that theoretical line.
I'd see that theoretical line whether I looked above or below that crosshair.
-
Sceptimatic, your avatar is not a flat earth model.
It has a distinctive curve just like the globe, I see going on for North America on your avatar. By your own reasoning, Australia on your avatar should be at the bottom of the sea bed, along with most of South America and Africa, with the rest of the sea water defying every other logical natural law, and sticking to the sides of a bowl. Does water in your house, magically pool on your walls, and sit there, does it?
So, why are you carrying on about there being no curvature, when your own chosen model by Orlando Ferguson - a businessman from South Dakota, has the loopiest curvature anybody could possibly come up with? Seriously, the Angels standing on the four corners of Orlando's model (which you cropped out) makes more sense than the rest of it.
Now, address those last two images I posted about the horizon.
Paying attention to earlier posting about what you're trying to argue, is not a strong point of yours, I see.
You are getting weaker by the second by using angels and such and also using a model in its entirety as if I follow that.
You can clearly see I use it as the potential set up, only.
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
Have a think on this stuff and it'll save you trying to be clever and getting nowhere.
-
And as repeatedly explained it does nothing to refute the RE.
I think it massively refutes it. Just not to you and your like minded peers, which is understandable.
-
I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.
If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 25kg it will fall off. If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 6 million, million, million, million kg then it won't.
Of course....in your mind. This is what you've trained your mind into. You have absolutely no clue about it but it's in books, so....well, argue it along with a comfort zone of mass indoctrinated belief systems.
It means nothing and you know this.
So your next question will inevitably be something along the lines of 'Show me how you know the mass of 'your globe''. Well figure that out for yourself.
I can't figure anything out that is impossible to figure out. It's like telling me an old woman lives in a house but nobody has ever seen her, then asking me to guess what clothes she's wearing.
That's what you are so passionate about isn't it?
Finding things out for yourself.
Except you of course. You are quite content to just sit on that throne of yours and dictate to everyone else what they should do.
Nobody needs to do anything they don't want to. I see some that think they can show me some truth's but fail miserably. Including you.
There's plenty of information about that so it won't take you long.
You mean the woman in the house?
How do you know about the woman in the house?
I won't waste time myself though as nothing I say will make a difference to what you want to believe.
You certainly won't without showing real proof.
-
And as repeatedly explained it does nothing to refute the RE.
All you are doing is showing that it won't stay on a small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
You are in no way showing it can't stick to a round Earth.
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
(and all of that is assuming gravity is the only significant force, which means the object needs to be large enough such that electrostatic interactions can't hold the water together)
Again, it in no way refutes the RE. It is entirely consistent with what is expected given the RE model.
I think it massively refutes it.
And if you actually honestly thought that you wouldn't have just dishonestly cut out the explanation of why you were wrong. Instead you would have addressed it and clearly explained what you think is wrong with it.
Just like you continue to ignore the extremely simple question which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
The simple fact is you have nothing more than baseless, refuted lies.
Your lies in no way refute the RE.
Until you can actually address the issues raised, by explaining what is wrong with the refutation of your lies, and actually answer the simple questions, all you will have are pathetic, refuted, exposed lies; and all continuing to repeat these lies does is show you don't give a damn about the truth and are quite happy to sit here blatantly lying to everyone.
Water shows the reality of flatness and this is the crux of the reality.
You mean it shows flatness to be a myth?
As level water can obstruct the view in a way that only a curved surface can?
I dismiss the global model for reasons given.
And your reasons amount to pure BS.
You set up strawmen of both the RE model and reality to pretend they don't match.
The fact that you repeatedly ignore logical arguments and questions which show it to be BS show that you know your "reasons" are not justified in any way.
The fact you continually dismiss evidence as a con-job and refuse to provide your own to show what you claim should be seen further shows that your "reasons" are not justified and that your are knowingly rejecting reality.
Anyone with a brain can see what you did.
Yes, he provided evidence which clearly demonstrated that you were wrong.
Likewise, anyone with a brain can see what you are doing. As you don't want to admit you are wrong, you dismiss it as a conjob with no justification at all and throw in more ridiculous demands which do nothing except needlessly complicate the experiment.
If you honestly thought he was wrong, you would post your own evidence.
But as you know that will just show you are wrong as well, you don't.
There is no dip.
Then why do so many observations clearly prove there is one?
It sure seems like there is a dip and you are just rejecting reality because you don't like it.
The reality and logic of it is there for anyone to understand
And it clearly shows you are wrong.
Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Instead it is in free fall well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
What we observe is exactly what we expect for a RE.
Again, the fact that you continually ignore this and you continually make the same baseless lies shows you know this is the case.
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:
He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.
I'm not following. Trying the same what? What is the issue you have with this demonstration? He even has the Total Station cross hairs for you. Yeah!
Is your schtick here still, "It's a dupe, fake..." If so, talk about being bullied and constrained by a narrative. Just so happens to be a narrative of one, your own. Is everything fake if it doesn't conform to your personal narrative?
Anyone can move a sight above or below a crosshair. You know this so why are you bothering with the same nonsense?
So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.
Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.
Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20
(https://i.imgur.com/0cskRzJ.png)
Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?
There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it
I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
-
But to me that does not appear to be the case.
It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.
It's impossible to be anything other.
However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.
You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:
He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):
(https://i.imgur.com/jFzwu86.png)
You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.
I'm not following. Trying the same what? What is the issue you have with this demonstration? He even has the Total Station cross hairs for you. Yeah!
Is your schtick here still, "It's a dupe, fake..." If so, talk about being bullied and constrained by a narrative. Just so happens to be a narrative of one, your own. Is everything fake if it doesn't conform to your personal narrative?
Anyone can move a sight above or below a crosshair. You know this so why are you bothering with the same nonsense?
So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?
And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.
-
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.
Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.
-
So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?
It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.
Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.
Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20
(https://i.imgur.com/0cskRzJ.png)
Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?
There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it
I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
How in the hell can you use a dip?
-
And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.
It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.
-
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.
Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.
Its not convex or concave.
Its a fknig ball.
Get your own theory in order before you try taking on the ball.
-
So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?
It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.
No
We dont understand.
Please feel free to take your own picture and highlight to us what we re supposed to notice.
Teach us something.
If cross hairs dont matter then what are you on about?
Because you definitely made jja dance through hoops in an attempt to prove somehting... what was it you were trying to prove?
-
And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.
It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.
Verified what?
You went out and took an eye level, leveled, two tube photo?
Show us then.
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.
Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.
Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20
(https://i.imgur.com/0cskRzJ.png)
Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?
There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it
I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
How in the hell can you use a dip?
Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.
(https://i.imgur.com/WFZ0AxP.png)
So, what's your answer?
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
-
So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?
It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
-
The level of stupid is amazing.
Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?
You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.
The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about. Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.
There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.
Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.
Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.
Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20
(https://i.imgur.com/0cskRzJ.png)
Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?
There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it
I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
How in the hell can you use a dip?
Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.
(https://i.imgur.com/WFZ0AxP.png)
So, what's your answer?
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
hoold up
are you saying that sailors used a crows nest incorrectly all these years?
they didn't need to go up that high and the ships at a distance would just rise to their eye level regardless?
woweee
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
Apparently. Scepti was of a mind once to say that all of the gazillion pressure gauges in the world measure pressure incorrectly. Not that anyone would notice. So yeah, not surprising if he goes full conspiracy here.
-
Sceptimatic, your avatar is not a flat earth model.
It has a distinctive curve just like the globe, I see going on for North America on your avatar. By your own reasoning, Australia on your avatar should be at the bottom of the sea bed, along with most of South America and Africa, with the rest of the sea water defying every other logical natural law, and sticking to the sides of a bowl. Does water in your house, magically pool on your walls, and sit there, does it?
So, why are you carrying on about there being no curvature, when your own chosen model by Orlando Ferguson - a businessman from South Dakota, has the loopiest curvature anybody could possibly come up with? Seriously, the Angels standing on the four corners of Orlando's model (which you cropped out) makes more sense than the rest of it.
Now, address those last two images I posted about the horizon.
Paying attention to earlier posting about what you're trying to argue, is not a strong point of yours, I see.
You are getting weaker by the second by using angels and such and also using a model in its entirety as if I follow that.
You can clearly see I use it as the potential set up, only.
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
Have a think on this stuff and it'll save you trying to be clever and getting nowhere.
Weaker than your avatar which is the potential set up of your model where you argue the earth is flat, but your earth avatar has clear curvature? <face palm> So, your avatar features a model which is nothing like the model in your head, that nobody here can comprehend, and that you can't even draw. (Even danang can draw his flat earth model.)
I have the picture in your avatar in it's entirery, and it has four angels drawn in it. That ludicrous drawing belongs in some Christian sex cult bible, not in any flat earth discussion of the physical shape of this world. (Because the earth in your avatar isn't flat.)
As for those two drawings I posted, have another look at them. Is that the theoretical horizon in each drawing, you continuously harp on about? Isn't that how you believe the horizon for each person works? Eyeline equals horizon line?
Yes or no?
-
was the two tube experiment to prove the horizon doesn't meet eye level or was it that you can't see 1in of height at XXX distance?
please clarify the reason for the experiment
you seem to be confused
and if WE'RE confused, it's because you aren't clear
clear it up.
possibly run the experiment yourself and let us know where we went wrong in our thinking.
aaah but you dodge.
keep dodging, duck dodgers
seriously
what was your point?
that the horizon isn't a thing?
it rises to eye level?
things don't disappear bottom-up?
you can't see more than 1inch because the two-tube setup?
-
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.
Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.
Its not convex or concave.
Its a fknig ball.
Get your own theory in order before you try taking on the ball.
It's not a ball, at all.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
-
So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?
It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.
No
We dont understand.
Please feel free to take your own picture and highlight to us what we re supposed to notice.
Teach us something.
If cross hairs dont matter then what are you on about?
Because you definitely made jja dance through hoops in an attempt to prove somehting... what was it you were trying to prove?
Corsshairs only matter when the observation to the horizon is a legitimate level sight to the crosshair and then to the theoretical horizontal line.
This is why two scopes, both with frontal crosshairs and standing behind each other a few feet from each other....and horizontally levelled, tells a real story.
-
And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.
It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.
Verified what?
You went out and took an eye level, leveled, two tube photo?
Show us then.
Show yourself if you want to see a truth.
-
Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.
(https://i.imgur.com/WFZ0AxP.png)
So, what's your answer?
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Navigation is via a domed sky (in my opinion), so no need to try and use that.
How about you explain what this dip is.
-
hoold up
are you saying that sailors used a crows nest incorrectly all these years?
they didn't need to go up that high and the ships at a distance would just rise to their eye level regardless?
woweee
If they've been told they're looking over a globe, then yes, they've been under the wrong impression, in my honest opinion.
A crows nest like any higher vantage point, will show a greater distance to a theoretical horizon...and any object within that sight. Not over a globe but over water at an angle, allowing for greater scope.
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
Not at all. A scope is merely a magnifying tool like any other variation. It simply magnifies what is already in the distance being viewed. It doesn't see farther.
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
Apparently. Scepti was of a mind once to say that all of the gazillion pressure gauges in the world measure pressure incorrectly. Not that anyone would notice. So yeah, not surprising if he goes full conspiracy here.
They don't measure pressure incorrectly. They measure it how I said. The storyline about how it's measured, is tweaked to add in gravity, which is the nonsense like everything else in using it.
-
I have the picture in your avatar in it's entirery, and it has four angels drawn in it.
Mine has no angels but feel free to use them if you feel you must.
That ludicrous drawing belongs in some Christian sex cult bible, not in any flat earth discussion of the physical shape of this world. (Because the earth in your avatar isn't flat.)
I never said Earth was flat, so what are you banging on about?
As for those two drawings I posted, have another look at them. Is that the theoretical horizon in each drawing, you continuously harp on about? Isn't that how you believe the horizon for each person works? Eyeline equals horizon line?
Yes or no?
They mean nothing. You don't explain them as to be anything.
-
Flooded?
Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
Where this water level has pretty much all of Australia and large parts of Africa and South America completely underwater (i.e. flooded), while North America, Europe and Asia are completely dry, with no water at all.
That is what your nonsense has with a flat water level.
Of course, you can try to dry the south by lowering the water level and making more of your Earth bone dry, or you can try to wet the north by raising the water level and flooding even more.
But there is no way to have a flat water level match the
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded
And unlike your nonsense, it actually matches what is observed in reality.
That is one of the many difference between the globe model which matches reality and is backed up by mountains of evidence, and your nonsense with no connection to reality at all.
And again you ignore the refutation and question:
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
So going to admit your pathetic strawman in no way refutes the RE?
And once more:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Going to answer the question and admit that the RE does have a horizon?
How in the hell can you use a dip?
By measuring how far (in some angular measurement) the horizon is below eye level.
Then you use the simple mathematical relationship I have provided for you before (along with your elevation) to determine the radius:
cos(a)=R/(R+h)
It's so simple even you could do it.
You just need to make sure that refraction isn't a significant issue.
It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that
You are the one overlooking it because it kills of your FE fantasy.
Once more, the simple fact that water calm, level water obstructs the view to the bottom of a distant object, even though both the observer and the distant object are above water level shows that water is curved, specifically curved in a convex manner.
If water was flat, this would not happen.
So it is verified that water kills your FE fantasy.
We accept this, but you continue to reject this reality, because you have no concern for the truth.
Corsshairs only matter when the observation to the horizon is a legitimate level sight to the crosshair and then to the theoretical horizontal line.
So they don't matter at all when they show you are wrong is what you are saying?
This is why two scopes, both with frontal crosshairs and standing behind each other a few feet from each other....and horizontally levelled, tells a real story.
No, they don't. They just needlessly complicate it.
Once more, if someone was going to con you by pointing the scope not level, they can do the same with 2 scopes.
Either way, aligning them will be a pain.
So once more, 2 scopes is a needlessly complexity which does nothing.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Flooded?
Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
Any chance of making this image fit the forum?
-
Flooded?
Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
Any chance of making this image fit the forum?
Yes. It automatically fits as it has a default width of 100%.
Thus it automatically scales with your screen.
Now quit with the BS distraction and actually address the issue.
It doesn't matter where you place your flat water level, you CANNOT get the regions of Earth covered in water and not covered in water to match reality.
Your model predicts a massive annular ocean separating the north from the far south
That simply doesn't match reality at all.
And again, either clearly explain what is wrong with my explanation, or admit that your strawman in no way refutes the RE:
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
And again, either answer the question (and thus eventually admit the RE does have a horizon), or admit the RE does have a horizon:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Your continued deflection/avoidance of these simple issues show you know you are spouting BS.
-
Flooded?
Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
Any chance of making this image fit the forum?
Yes. It automatically fits as it has a default width of 100%.
Thus it automatically scales with your screen.
Now quit with the BS distraction and actually address the issue.
It doesn't matter where you place your flat water level, you CANNOT get the regions of Earth covered in water and not covered in water to match reality.
Your model predicts a massive annular ocean separating the north from the far south
That simply doesn't match reality at all.
And again, either clearly explain what is wrong with my explanation, or admit that your strawman in no way refutes the RE:
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
And again, either answer the question (and thus eventually admit the RE does have a horizon), or admit the RE does have a horizon:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Your continued deflection/avoidance of these simple issues show you know you are spouting BS.
Any chance of making it fit in the post?
-
What the hell, sceptimatic?
-
As for the gradient. Something similar to the one JJA was using.
I can't find a specific angle stated. Should I just use 7.98 inches per mile squared?
At best it'll show JJA up and even better, it will show that you do not bring a downward gradient back into view from a levelled point.
Are you saying the horizon would not be at eye level on a globe?
You saw JJA's photos, so what's your issue?
You saw them too, and haven't been able to identify any flaw in them other than baseless claims that they are somehow faked. Where is your evidence that they are not exactly what they appear to be?
Where are your counterexample photos?
I think any honest person can see the dpe.
There's no flaw in them because you set them up for your own ends, not mine.
This is why you won't go further, because you were backed into a corner and didn't expect it.
That's not an answer. How exactly did I dupe you?
Do you have any evidence, any specific reason for your claim?
Why won't you perform and post your own experiment?
Anyone with a brain can see what you did. You aren't really duping me you are basically wilfully duping yourself. I know what I know.
If anyone with a brain can see, why can't you tell me what it is?
If you can't explain in words what is wrong with my photos, if you can't explain why you know something, then you don't really know it at all.
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
-
What the hell, sceptimatic?
What?
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
Let's see you put this set up together.
Let's see if you can do it legitimately.
-
And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.
Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.
Its not convex or concave.
Its a fknig ball.
Get your own theory in order before you try taking on the ball.
It's not a ball, at all.
Good one
The theory though, however truthful you feel it to be, is that its a ball.
-
hoold up
are you saying that sailors used a crows nest incorrectly all these years?
they didn't need to go up that high and the ships at a distance would just rise to their eye level regardless?
woweee
If they've been told they're looking over a globe, then yes, they've been under the wrong impression, in my honest opinion.
A crows nest like any higher vantage point, will show a greater distance to a theoretical horizon...and any object within that sight. Not over a globe but over water at an angle, allowing for greater scope.
Greater distance?
How you figure its able to be greater when the "haze" you mentioned limits an observers view.
Draw a right angled triangle.
Where the hypotnuse is longer than the base.
This isnt duped math.
Its a fking triangle so you should be able to do it.
So now just because youre looking downwards, magically the air allows you to see farther?
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
Apparently. Scepti was of a mind once to say that all of the gazillion pressure gauges in the world measure pressure incorrectly. Not that anyone would notice. So yeah, not surprising if he goes full conspiracy here.
They don't measure pressure incorrectly. They measure it how I said. The storyline about how it's measured, is tweaked to add in gravity, which is the nonsense like everything else in using it.
Untweak it for us and gice us the real measurements and calcualtions then.
Teach us something.
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
Not at all. A scope is merely a magnifying tool like any other variation. It simply magnifies what is already in the distance being viewed. It doesn't see farther.
Dossnt see farther... ok
In the same response bucket you said sailors in a crows nest could see farther.
Make up your mind you aee contradicting yourself within minutes.
-
And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.
It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.
Verified what?
You went out and took an eye level, leveled, two tube photo?
Show us then.
Show yourself if you want to see a truth.
Jja did it.
We ve all been outside
We re all duped indoctrined.
Please teach us something and show us what needs to be learned
Maybe you ciuld answer this question - Why you keep dodging?
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
Let's see you put this set up together.
Let's see if you can do it legitimately.
Please reiterate the purpose or the goal of the experiment
Because now youce added a vertical plumb line, for what reason, in an attempt to view the horizon?
Dafuq?
The diameter size of tube and lenfth of tube does matter but maybe you can clarify why it doesnt matter to you for the purpose of this experiment .
Or maybe you can just do it and show us what we re supposed to see and what weve been doing wrong with our lives.
-
Good one
The theory though, however truthful you feel it to be, is that its a ball.
No, it's not.
-
Greater distance?
How you figure its able to be greater when the "haze" you mentioned limits an observers view.
Draw a right angled triangle.
Where the hypotnuse is longer than the base.
This isnt duped math.
Its a fking triangle so you should be able to do it.
So now just because youre looking downwards, magically the air allows you to see farther?
Yep.
You can see farther because you are looking through less dense atmosphere on that angle.
The higher you go the farther you see because of the angle.
It's the very reason why crows nests and observation towers are used and also, lighthouses.
Angle makes all of the difference to what is seen over distance. Assuming decent conditions, of course.
-
Untweak it for us and gice us the real measurements and calcualtions then.
Teach us something.
Teach yourself by applying some basic logic. That's all you need.
Sitting with a head full of equations for everything when you have no clue of the physicality, is pointless.
-
No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?
Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.
Not at all. A scope is merely a magnifying tool like any other variation. It simply magnifies what is already in the distance being viewed. It doesn't see farther.
Dossnt see farther... ok
In the same response bucket you said sailors in a crows nest could see farther.
Make up your mind you aee contradicting yourself within minutes.
Instead of trying to twist, just understand that I'm talking about a scope on the level, not angled.
I know you know this and I know you like to play games....but....well, you carry on.
-
Jja did it.
We ve all been outside
We re all duped indoctrined.
Please teach us something and show us what needs to be learned
Maybe you ciuld answer this question - Why you keep dodging?
Stop trying to wet nurse everyone.
I'm not dodging.
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
-
Please reiterate the purpose or the goal of the experiment
Because now youce added a vertical plumb line, for what reason, in an attempt to view the horizon?
Dafuq?
The diameter size of tube and lenfth of tube does matter but maybe you can clarify why it doesnt matter to you for the purpose of this experiment .
Or maybe you can just do it and show us what we re supposed to see and what weve been doing wrong with our lives.
Ask your friend, silhouette, he wanted stuff adding in. I pointed to the one Jja bottled and he didn't seem to understand it, so I added a bit for clarity.
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
My points are made.
-
Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.
(https://i.imgur.com/WFZ0AxP.png)
So, what's your answer?
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Navigation is via a domed sky (in my opinion), so no need to try and use that.
How about you explain what this dip is.
HORIZON DIP: The Earth’s surface curves downwards, away from the plane of the astronomical horizon. So there should be a non-zero angle between the directions of the astronomical and true horizons. This angle is called the dip angle of the horizon. For a person standing on the ground, this angle is very small and mostly imperceptible. But you can measure the dip angle with a surveyor’s theodolite or its less technological predecessor, an astrolabe. And as your elevation increases, the dip angle increases as well. If you make these measurements with an instrument, you can verify that the dip angle is non-zero, and that it increases with the elevation of your observing position.
I understand your "opinion", but that is not fact based and only speaks to your own indoctrinated narrative and is not scientific nor truth seeking. You're still not answering the question...
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
Let's see you put this set up together.
Let's see if you can do it legitimately.
See, you did it again. You are implying I took my photos illegitimately somehow.
That's a baseless attack, as you are not providing any reasons or evidence that I did anything wrong.
So I ask again, how am I cheating, or trying to dupe you, or acting illegitimately?
Please answer this time. Give me a reason and your evidence for it that my photos are not exactly as portrayed.
-
Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.
(https://i.imgur.com/WFZ0AxP.png)
So, what's your answer?
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Navigation is via a domed sky (in my opinion), so no need to try and use that.
How about you explain what this dip is.
HORIZON DIP: The Earth’s surface curves downwards, away from the plane of the astronomical horizon. So there should be a non-zero angle between the directions of the astronomical and true horizons. This angle is called the dip angle of the horizon. For a person standing on the ground, this angle is very small and mostly imperceptible. But you can measure the dip angle with a surveyor’s theodolite or its less technological predecessor, an astrolabe. And as your elevation increases, the dip angle increases as well. If you make these measurements with an instrument, you can verify that the dip angle is non-zero, and that it increases with the elevation of your observing position.
I understand your "opinion", but that is not fact based and only speaks to your own indoctrinated narrative and is not scientific nor truth seeking. You're still not answering the question...
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Understand the angle and you'll understand how easy it is to do what you're claiming is done on a globe.
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
Let's see you put this set up together.
Let's see if you can do it legitimately.
See, you did it again. You are implying I took my photos illegitimately somehow.
That's a baseless attack, as you are not providing any reasons or evidence that I did anything wrong.
So I ask again, how am I cheating, or trying to dupe you, or acting illegitimately?
Please answer this time. Give me a reason and your evidence for it that my photos are not exactly as portrayed.
Take a look at your picture and see the gradient.
No way in hell could you see down that gradient if you have the tube, level.
Don't even bother trying to say you can. You simply can't..... this is why you won't do the other set up because you can't figure a way how to dupe it.
Yeah I'm calling you out...and for good reason.
-
Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.
(https://i.imgur.com/WFZ0AxP.png)
So, what's your answer?
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Navigation is via a domed sky (in my opinion), so no need to try and use that.
How about you explain what this dip is.
HORIZON DIP: The Earth’s surface curves downwards, away from the plane of the astronomical horizon. So there should be a non-zero angle between the directions of the astronomical and true horizons. This angle is called the dip angle of the horizon. For a person standing on the ground, this angle is very small and mostly imperceptible. But you can measure the dip angle with a surveyor’s theodolite or its less technological predecessor, an astrolabe. And as your elevation increases, the dip angle increases as well. If you make these measurements with an instrument, you can verify that the dip angle is non-zero, and that it increases with the elevation of your observing position.
I understand your "opinion", but that is not fact based and only speaks to your own indoctrinated narrative and is not scientific nor truth seeking. You're still not answering the question...
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Understand the angle and you'll understand how easy it is to do what you're claiming is done on a globe.
I do understand the angle. It's call the "dip". Which has already been explained and demonstrated to you. Now for the fourth time, you're still not answering the question...
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Why won't you just answer?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
Sceptimatic, this is your belief on a golden platter. (The horizon is a theoretical line dependent on the viewer's eyeline.)
What it also means is the lines of any level surface will converge on the theoretical horizon line. Yes?
Study the drawings. This is what you have been prattling on about.
Umm, you may not believe earth is a globe, but according to your avatar, it's a section of a ball? It's curved nevertheless, so why are you pushing your toilet roll experiment which supposedly proves there is no curvature?
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
My points are made.
Ok
Indulge us and restate the point again.
It seems to have changed and become convoluted.
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
Let's see you put this set up together.
Let's see if you can do it legitimately.
See, you did it again. You are implying I took my photos illegitimately somehow.
That's a baseless attack, as you are not providing any reasons or evidence that I did anything wrong.
So I ask again, how am I cheating, or trying to dupe you, or acting illegitimately?
Please answer this time. Give me a reason and your evidence for it that my photos are not exactly as portrayed.
Take a look at your picture and see the gradient.
No way in hell could you see down that gradient if you have the tube, level.
Don't even bother trying to say you can. You simply can't..... this is why you won't do the other set up because you can't figure a way how to dupe it.
Yeah I'm calling you out...and for good reason.
What's your evidence? So far it's just your own indoctrination saying something can't be based upon your opinion. Not based upon evidence. And you consider yourself a truth seeker? What's fake about this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Why don't you show us how it can't be done? Rather than just baselessly accuse someone of lying? JJA went out and did the experiment and all you have is to say is that it's a fake? That's a high charge that you should have the decency to back up.
- You started out with a kitchen roll tube.
- Then one with crosshairs
Experiment done. You won't accept the results because of your own indoctrination.
- Then it's two tubes
- Now it's two tubes with a plumb bob
You won't stop no matter what someone does. If it keeps showing you are wrong, you'll just add more stuff. Even though nothing done by anyone, including yourself, shows you are right. It's really amazing how you are way more indoctrinated into a belief system than anyone else here.
You really have crossed over the line here. Is everyone who demonstrates that you may not be correct about something immediately a liar and a cheat? And you have the gall to refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist"?
-
I do understand the angle. It's call the "dip". Which has already been explained and demonstrated to you. Now for the fourth time, you're still not answering the question...
So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go
Any? All of the above?
Why won't you just answer?
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
An angled view from a crows nest makes sense to see farther.
Using the moving lights under the dome and correlating them with positions on the water, etc, make sense.
None of it makes any sense when you relate it to a globe.
Start applying some logic to it. Think for yourself...you are allowed to, you know.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
Sceptimatic, this is your belief on a golden platter. (The horizon is a theoretical line dependent on the viewer's eyeline.)
What it also means is the lines of any level surface will converge on the theoretical horizon line. Yes?
Study the drawings. This is what you have been prattling on about.
Umm, you may not believe earth is a globe, but according to your avatar, it's a section of a ball? It's curved nevertheless, so why are you pushing your toilet roll experiment which supposedly proves there is no curvature?
I'm not sure what you think your pictures show.
And where is the section of a ball?
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
My points are made.
Ok
Indulge us and restate the point again.
It seems to have changed and become convoluted.
Nothing's changed from my side.
You're the one that's trying to change things.
-
What's your evidence? So far it's just your own indoctrination saying something can't be based upon your opinion. Not based upon evidence. And you consider yourself a truth seeker? What's fake about this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Why don't you show us how it can't be done? Rather than just baselessly accuse someone of lying? JJA went out and did the experiment and all you have is to say is that it's a fake? That's a high charge that you should have the decency to back up.
- You started out with a kitchen roll tube.
- Then one with crosshairs
Experiment done. You won't accept the results because of your own indoctrination.
- Then it's two tubes
- Now it's two tubes with a plumb bob
You won't stop no matter what someone does. If it keeps showing you are wrong, you'll just add more stuff. Even though nothing done by anyone, including yourself, shows you are right. It's really amazing how you are way more indoctrinated into a belief system than anyone else here.
You really have crossed over the line here. Is everyone who demonstrates that you may not be correct about something immediately a liar and a cheat? And you have the gall to refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist"?
I know what I know.
You people are trying to skew the experiments by using all kinds of shenanigans.
I'm ensuring there can be no cheating and you lot have bottled it, which I suspected would happen.
If you don't think you've bottled it then follow the instructions and make it impossible for me to argue your results.
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
My points are made.
Ok
Indulge us and restate the point again.
It seems to have changed and become convoluted.
Nothing's changed from my side.
You're the one that's trying to change things.
Wow.
You couldve restated it by now.
You must not know.
keep dodging a most simple and basic of questions.
So pathetic.
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
My points are made.
Ok
Indulge us and restate the point again.
It seems to have changed and become convoluted.
Nothing's changed from my side.
You're the one that's trying to change things.
Wow.
You couldve restated it by now.
You must not know.
keep dodging a most simple and basic of questions.
So pathetic.
I'm not playing your silly game of " oh I've forgot...what was it again?" Nonsense.
You know what's set out so why don't you refute it.
-
Using the moving lights under the dome and correlating them with positions on the water, etc, make sense.
None of it makes any sense when you relate it to a globe.
Start applying some logic to it. Think for yourself...you are allowed to, you know.
What?
What methodology do you propose one to use to correlate the reflected lights?
You cant even the articulate a tube experiment.
-
More complete dodging and avoidance to address anyhing.
A lot of hand waving with no point being made.
Make a point.
My points are made.
Ok
Indulge us and restate the point again.
It seems to have changed and become convoluted.
Nothing's changed from my side.
You're the one that's trying to change things.
Wow.
You couldve restated it by now.
You must not know.
keep dodging a most simple and basic of questions.
So pathetic.
I'm not playing your silly game of " oh I've forgot...what was it again?" Nonsense.
You know what's set out so why don't you refute it.
The point was either you can see 1inch or you cant see the ground.
Or is it something else?
Because 1. 1inch disproven by jja regardless of setup
2. You can clearly see the ground and the tube is mostly level.
Being perfectly level wont change the view by any relevant means.
And now youve added a pointless 2nd tube, cross hairs, and a vertical plumb line.
All to do what?
What was the point?
-
Using the moving lights under the dome and correlating them with positions on the water, etc, make sense.
None of it makes any sense when you relate it to a globe.
Start applying some logic to it. Think for yourself...you are allowed to, you know.
What?
What methodology do you propose one to use to correlate the reflected lights?
You cant even the articulate a tube experiment.
The tube experiment is there for all to see.
The mere fact that it's been bottled and has come to this tit for tat arguments, tells me a lot about you people. Especially you. Your modus operandi is to play games and have digs, which is fine by me but does you no favours.
You can see how frustrated you get and you actually create your own frustration amid your game playing, which I find very odd and amusing.
Put some effort in.
-
What's your evidence? So far it's just your own indoctrination saying something can't be based upon your opinion. Not based upon evidence. And you consider yourself a truth seeker? What's fake about this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Why don't you show us how it can't be done? Rather than just baselessly accuse someone of lying? JJA went out and did the experiment and all you have is to say is that it's a fake? That's a high charge that you should have the decency to back up.
- You started out with a kitchen roll tube.
- Then one with crosshairs
Experiment done. You won't accept the results because of your own indoctrination.
- Then it's two tubes
- Now it's two tubes with a plumb bob
You won't stop no matter what someone does. If it keeps showing you are wrong, you'll just add more stuff. Even though nothing done by anyone, including yourself, shows you are right. It's really amazing how you are way more indoctrinated into a belief system than anyone else here.
You really have crossed over the line here. Is everyone who demonstrates that you may not be correct about something immediately a liar and a cheat? And you have the gall to refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist"?
I know what I know.
You people are trying to skew the experiments by using all kinds of shenanigans.
I'm ensuring there can be no cheating and you lot have bottled it, which I suspected would happen.
If you don't think you've bottled it then follow the instructions and make it impossible for me to argue your results.
The only way for you to ensure it is shenanigna proof is for you to do it yourself.
So get on it you pathetic dodging mf.
-
The point was either you can see 1inch or you cant see the ground.
Or is it something else?
Because 1. 1inch disproven by jja regardless of setup
2. You can clearly see the ground and the tube is mostly level.
Being perfectly level wont change the view by any relevant means.
And now youve added a pointless 2nd tube, cross hairs, and a vertical plumb line.
All to do what?
What was the point?
JJA hasn't proved anything other than being unable to follow instruction without trying to dupe.
You know as well as anyone that, if his tube was levelled on that gradient, it would not be looking down it to the bottom.
He won't do the other experiment because he can't figure a way how to set it up to play the little shenanigans again.
It's a bit sad...but, there it is.
-
What's your evidence? So far it's just your own indoctrination saying something can't be based upon your opinion. Not based upon evidence. And you consider yourself a truth seeker? What's fake about this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/oSz9bow.png)
Why don't you show us how it can't be done? Rather than just baselessly accuse someone of lying? JJA went out and did the experiment and all you have is to say is that it's a fake? That's a high charge that you should have the decency to back up.
- You started out with a kitchen roll tube.
- Then one with crosshairs
Experiment done. You won't accept the results because of your own indoctrination.
- Then it's two tubes
- Now it's two tubes with a plumb bob
You won't stop no matter what someone does. If it keeps showing you are wrong, you'll just add more stuff. Even though nothing done by anyone, including yourself, shows you are right. It's really amazing how you are way more indoctrinated into a belief system than anyone else here.
You really have crossed over the line here. Is everyone who demonstrates that you may not be correct about something immediately a liar and a cheat? And you have the gall to refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist"?
I know what I know.
You people are trying to skew the experiments by using all kinds of shenanigans.
I'm ensuring there can be no cheating and you lot have bottled it, which I suspected would happen.
If you don't think you've bottled it then follow the instructions and make it impossible for me to argue your results.
The only way for you to ensure it is shenanigna proof is for you to do it yourself.
So get on it you pathetic dodging mf.
I know it so I'm comfortable with what I know.
-
I know it so I'm comfortable with what I know.
Yeah, rrright. I doubt you are winning many over. But then again that is not your goal, as you are content being the only one in the know.
-
Unless sceppy reveals any more insight, can we call this one?
10pg now of him dodging all questions and waving away everything else.
Garbage
-
Show me what I did wrong, or stop accusing me of trying to dupe you. All you are doing is personally attacking me with your accusations.
I've already explained what you did.
Don't waste your time pretending you didn't try to play games.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
If you explained it, please quote or point out where you showed exactly what I did to try and 'dupe you'.
I did your experiment, several times. I stopped following your requests for new conditions after you continued to claim I was faking things with no evidence.
As you are doing now. If you can't show what I did to 'cheat' then you are just simply attacking me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
Let's see you put this set up together.
Let's see if you can do it legitimately.
See, you did it again. You are implying I took my photos illegitimately somehow.
That's a baseless attack, as you are not providing any reasons or evidence that I did anything wrong.
So I ask again, how am I cheating, or trying to dupe you, or acting illegitimately?
Please answer this time. Give me a reason and your evidence for it that my photos are not exactly as portrayed.
Take a look at your picture and see the gradient.
No way in hell could you see down that gradient if you have the tube, level.
Don't even bother trying to say you can. You simply can't..... this is why you won't do the other set up because you can't figure a way how to dupe it.
Yeah I'm calling you out...and for good reason.
So... your reason for saying my picture is fake is you don't believe the results? Lets take a moment to process this.
You simply believe that my results are IMPOSSIBLE... so why should I bother doing any more experiments since you are very clearly saying you will just outright reject them.
This bears repeating. You reason for dismissing my results is that they conflict with your BELIEFS so must be fake. You are not operating from a place of reason here, you are outright admitting you will just reject any facts if they don't fir your ideas.
And you wonder why people stop jumping through hoops to try and show you how reality works.
You also still haven't explained how I "duped it". What exactly am I doing to fake things? You're claiming the tube isn't level? Prove it.
You literally can NOT have ever done this experiment if you think what I am showing isn't reality. It is. Go outside, take 5 minutes and do it yourself.
If you can't post your own version and show where I am trying to "dupe you", stop accusing me of lying.
-
This bears repeating. You reason for dismissing my results is that they conflict with your BELIEFS so must be fake. You are not operating from a place of reason here, you are outright admitting you will just reject any facts if they don't fir your ideas.
Are you surprised?
-
Just out of interest Scepti... since in your world the Sun and Moon are just holographic reflections with therefore no mass of their own, what drives the weather and controls the tides?
-
Flooded?
Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
Any chance of making this image fit the forum?
Yes. It automatically fits as it has a default width of 100%.
Thus it automatically scales with your screen.
Now quit with the BS distraction and actually address the issue.
It doesn't matter where you place your flat water level, you CANNOT get the regions of Earth covered in water and not covered in water to match reality.
Your model predicts a massive annular ocean separating the north from the far south
That simply doesn't match reality at all.
And again, either clearly explain what is wrong with my explanation, or admit that your strawman in no way refutes the RE:
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
And again, either answer the question (and thus eventually admit the RE does have a horizon), or admit the RE does have a horizon:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Your continued deflection/avoidance of these simple issues show you know you are spouting BS.
Any chance of making it fit in the post?
Any chance of being honest for once?
Again, it does automatically.
There is no need for me to do anything to "make it fit"
If you need more detail, this site has a CSS.
In this css you will find that it specifies all elements of the type "img" (i.e. image elements) have a property called "max-width" set to 100%
This means that images will be no more than 100% wide, unless you specifically do something to make it larger which overrides this CSS rule.
For example, when I make the browser as thin as I can using chrome, this is what it looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/Uhs5vAI.png)
Now stop with the blatant lies and deal with the massive issues in them.
Deal with the fact that your fantasy Earth has no chance of matching reality with flat water.
Deal with the fact that your attempt to refute the RE with water on a ball on a ball, in no way refutes the RE and instead is a pathetic strawman.
Deal with the simple question, which when answered honestly will show that the RE does have a horizon.
I've already explained what you did.
No, you didn't. You blatantly lied about him to dismiss the evidence which shows you are wrong.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
So you can then dismiss that as a con-job as well and demand more pathetic BS?
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
He is giving evidence which shows you are wrong.
You are just insulting him and dismissing his evidence as faking. Giving back what he gave out would be you going and taking your own picture showing how we magically can't see the ground through a level tube, and how we magically only see 1 inch of any distant object.
You have no justification for why you claim he is being dishonest, other than the fact that it shows you are wrong.
That is attacking him.
You can see farther because you are looking through less dense atmosphere on that angle.
The change in density is insignificant for such a small change in elevation and wouldn't change how far you can see.
Also note that is isn't just a case of seeing further, but you also see more of objects that are partially obscured by the RE.
It's the very reason why crows nests and observation towers are used and also, lighthouses.
No, the reason is the curvature of Earth.
Ask your friend, silhouette, he wanted stuff adding in.
Likely so you then don't latter add in more BS you need to just dismiss whatever is provided.
No way in hell could you see down that gradient if you have the tube, level.
Again, that is your blatant lie that he refuted.
You are dismissing him because he showed you are wrong.
Again, simple logic shows you can.
Remember this:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
The FOV and gradient determine if it can be seen.
If the gradient is a curve instead, the height also plays a role.
And your only "objection" is to repeatedly assert the same pathetic lie.
Yeah I'm calling you out...and for good reason.
No, you are insulting and attacking him for a horrible reason, because he showed you were wrong.
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
The black line is the round Earth that you hate so much.
The red line is the observer.
The grey line is eye-level.
The straight purple line is the line of sight to the edge of the visible region of Earth (the horizon), i.e. the line of sight tangent to Earth.
The angle between the grey and straight purple line (as indicated by the curved purple line) is the dip.
Just what is so difficult to understand?
I know, you reject the fact that dip exists, but that doesn't make it nonsense, it just means you are rejecting reality.
You cannot use your rejection of reality to try to justify your rejection of reality.
I'm ensuring there can be no cheating and you lot have bottled it, which I suspected would happen.
No, you aren't.
You are just dismissing evidence which shows you are wrong and adding in a needless copmlication.
Again, just how do 2 tubes help?
If someone was conning you and pointing the tube down, what stops them doing this:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
Having 2 tubes in no way helps to establish that the tubes are level.
All it does it make the experiment harder and waste more time of those people who are clearly showing you are wrong.
If you don't think you've bottled it then follow the instructions and make it impossible for me to argue your results.
Perhaps because you refuse to provide such instructions, likely because you know that following the instructions honestly will show you to be wrong and thus you always want a way out to dismiss reality to continue pretending your fantasy is correct.
Why don't YOU follow the instructions to make it impossible for you to argue your results?
You know what's set out so why don't you refute it.
It has been refuted, you just ignore the refutation.
The mere fact that it's been bottled and has come to this tit for tat arguments
But it hasn't.
Tit for tat would require you to provide evidence to counter the evidence that is provided, rather than just dismiss the evidence as a con-job.
Tit for tat would require you to have actually engaged with the rational arguments and simple questions posted, rather than just ignore or dismiss them.
So no, it isn't tit-for-tat.
Instead it is we have provided with plenty of evidence and logical arguments clearly showing that you are wrong; and in response you just bury your head in the sand and insult us.
Put some effort in.
Follow your own advice. Put some effort in. Do the experiment yourself and post your result.
And deal with the refutations of your nonsense, rather than continually ignore it or come up with pathetic excuses to dismiss it.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
Sceptimatic, this is your belief on a golden platter. (The horizon is a theoretical line dependent on the viewer's eyeline.)
What it also means is the lines of any level surface will converge on the theoretical horizon line. Yes?
Study the drawings. This is what you have been prattling on about.
Umm, you may not believe earth is a globe, but according to your avatar, it's a section of a ball? It's curved nevertheless, so why are you pushing your toilet roll experiment which supposedly proves there is no curvature?
I'm not sure what you think your pictures show.
And where is the section of a ball?
These pictures show what you have been saying all along. Don't you recognise your favourite theory? "The horizon always rises to eye level." They show, that on any level surface, all lines must converge with the theoretical horizon line.
So, here is your avatar, Sceptimatic, uncropped: (The angels are a nice touch, I don't know why you cropped them out.)
(https://i.ibb.co/bN75dFm/Orlando-Ferguson-flat1.jpg)
Here is your avatar up close, showing very distinctive curvature similar to the top 3rd of a ball:
(https://i.ibb.co/h7g0d8n/SQUARE-STATIONARY-EARTH-1893-Orlando-Ferguson-1.jpg)
Here is a picture, I think much more closely aligned to your cell earth model:
(https://i.ibb.co/1zYVJM6/Enclosed-Earth2.jpg)
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
And that's all of it correct? A crosshair along the line of sight that shows level left to right in my field of view. How exactly does this confirm the entire line of sight from my camera/eye to the crosshair at the end of the tube as being level?
-
Unless sceppy reveals any more insight, can we call this one?
10pg now of him dodging all questions and waving away everything else.
Garbage
Yeah, call it off. Tell your team it's a no go, captain.
-
So... your reason for saying my picture is fake is you don't believe the results? Lets take a moment to process this.
You simply believe that my results are IMPOSSIBLE... so why should I bother doing any more experiments since you are very clearly saying you will just outright reject them.
This bears repeating. You reason for dismissing my results is that they conflict with your BELIEFS so must be fake. You are not operating from a place of reason here, you are outright admitting you will just reject any facts if they don't fir your ideas.
And you wonder why people stop jumping through hoops to try and show you how reality works.
You also still haven't explained how I "duped it". What exactly am I doing to fake things? You're claiming the tube isn't level? Prove it.
You literally can NOT have ever done this experiment if you think what I am showing isn't reality. It is. Go outside, take 5 minutes and do it yourself.
If you can't post your own version and show where I am trying to "dupe you", stop accusing me of lying.
Give yourself a few seconds to process what I've said.
You do not get to set up a tube....LEVEL on a gradient like you show and be able to see down it as if you've somehow tilted your tube to look down that gradient.
Wise up for crying out loud.
-
Just out of interest Scepti... since in your world the Sun and Moon are just holographic reflections with therefore no mass of their own, what drives the weather and controls the tides?
The vortex and pressures created from the energy of the central sun that is taking the feed.
The central vortex is strong but the wider effects from it and dependent on the reflective properties around the sort of circle, create their own sort of spiralling winds which are dependent on those high and low pressures created.
-
No, you are insulting and attacking him for a horrible reason, because he showed you were wrong.
Don't be a hypocrite.
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
Sceptimatic, this is your belief on a golden platter. (The horizon is a theoretical line dependent on the viewer's eyeline.)
What it also means is the lines of any level surface will converge on the theoretical horizon line. Yes?
Study the drawings. This is what you have been prattling on about.
Umm, you may not believe earth is a globe, but according to your avatar, it's a section of a ball? It's curved nevertheless, so why are you pushing your toilet roll experiment which supposedly proves there is no curvature?
I'm not sure what you think your pictures show.
And where is the section of a ball?
These pictures show what you have been saying all along. Don't you recognise your favourite theory? "The horizon always rises to eye level." They show, that on any level surface, all lines must converge with the theoretical horizon line.
So, here is your avatar, Sceptimatic, uncropped: (The angels are a nice touch, I don't know why you cropped them out.)
(https://i.ibb.co/bN75dFm/Orlando-Ferguson-flat1.jpg)
Here is your avatar up close, showing very distinctive curvature similar to the top 3rd of a ball:
(https://i.ibb.co/h7g0d8n/SQUARE-STATIONARY-EARTH-1893-Orlando-Ferguson-1.jpg)
Here is a picture, I think much more closely aligned to your cell earth model:
(https://i.ibb.co/1zYVJM6/Enclosed-Earth2.jpg)
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
And that's all of it correct? A crosshair along the line of sight that shows level left to right in my field of view. How exactly does this confirm the entire line of sight from my camera/eye to the crosshair at the end of the tube as being level?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
-
Yeah, call it off. Tell your team it's a no go, captain.
Well, as long as you can admit you are not willing to engage in any form of rational discussion or debate and will just cling to your fantasies?
Because that seems to be the no-go, getting you to honestly and rationally engage.
You do not get to set up a tube....LEVEL on a gradient like you show and be able to see down it as if you've somehow tilted your tube to look down that gradient.
No, but you can see down through the non-0 FOV of the tube.
Unless you have an answer to what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
The fact that there is nothing to stop the blue-line from reaching the eye means you don't need to have the tube tilted down to see the ground.
Again, your objection is nothing more than he has clearly shown you to be wrong.
Don't be a hypocrite.
I'm not. I have provided you with rational arguments and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong, and you continue to ignore them.
Likewise, I'm not the one just dismissing evidence and insulting people.
That would be you.
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
So you know it makes perfect sense and are just lying?
You don't need a level sight, but again, all sights have some FOV and thus you can still see down.
The entire point is that angle. Do you understand that?
Do you understand that the purple line and grey line are not the same? Do you understand that they are separated by an angle?
That is if you had a scope that looked perfectly along the grey line (aligned with the cross hairs), in order to make it look along the purple line, again aligned with the crosshairs, you need to change the angle? That angle you need to change it by is the dip.
Just what isn't making sense about it? Not about your strawman and deflection, but about that angle of dip?
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon
And more pathetic lies from you.
Just what stops it?
Again, do you think round objects magically don't have edges? We can do it with other balls, so why shouldn't we be able to do it with Earth?
Again, this relates to the extremely simple question and argument you have been avoiding right from the start:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
And if he does and takes the photo will you simply admit you are wrong? Or will you continue to come up with pathetic excuses to dismiss it?
And you still ignore the simple arguments that show you are wrong.
Again, your completely non-flat Earth has no chance of matching the known regions of water/ocean on the real Earth with flat water.
A simple example is here (which as clearly established by the CSS rules of the site DOES FIT THE PAGE (so you saying/implying it doesn't is you just lying to get out of dealing with being wrong)):
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
This clearly shows how flat water would completely submerge the lower portions of Earth while leaving the top portions dry.
Moving it around wont help. Making it higher will result in more land being covered. Moving it lower will result in more ocean being made dry.
Even tilting it wont help, for example, you could try to tilt it to get most of the US having the correct coastline (or at least approximately), but then Aouth America would be dry, and Europe and Asia and Africa would be submerged.
The only way to try to have it match is if the water level curves to follow your non-flat Earth.
And again, you ignore the simple explanation of why your pathetic tiny ball sitting on a ball with some water on it in no way refutes the RE
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
Going to grow up and start addressing any of it honestly?
-
Going to grow up and start addressing any of it honestly?
I'm addressing it all as honestly as I believe.
Why don't you start.
-
I'm addressing it all as honestly as I believe.
And even that is a blatant lie.
The simple fact that you continue to ignore simple questions and make pathetic excuses which don't hold up to any scrutiny shows that you are not addressing it honestly.
You can't even answer a simple question because you know it would show your claims to be outright lies.
If you wish to disagree, why not start by answering it?
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Anything other than a direct simple answer to this question shows that you are not addressing it all honestly.
-
I'm addressing it all as honestly as I believe.
And even that is a blatant lie.
-
I'm addressing it all as honestly as I believe.
And even that is a blatant lie.
And there you go confirming it.
No attempt at all to engage with the simple question which destroys your claim. Instead you just ignore everything you don't like.
Or were you just trying to point out that I misread it.
With that you never said that you were addressing it honestly, instead you said you were addressing it as honestly as you believe. So if you don't believe honestly then you don't address it honestly.
Is that interpretation correct?
You aren't addressing it honestly, because you aren't believing honestly? Because you know the FE is a load of garbage and all the evidence clearly shows that Earth is round?
Like I said, grow up and start dealing with the fact that you are wrong.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
-
I'm addressing it all as honestly as I believe.
And even that is a blatant lie.
And there you go confirming it.
Confirming what?
-
So... your reason for saying my picture is fake is you don't believe the results? Lets take a moment to process this.
You simply believe that my results are IMPOSSIBLE... so why should I bother doing any more experiments since you are very clearly saying you will just outright reject them.
This bears repeating. You reason for dismissing my results is that they conflict with your BELIEFS so must be fake. You are not operating from a place of reason here, you are outright admitting you will just reject any facts if they don't fir your ideas.
And you wonder why people stop jumping through hoops to try and show you how reality works.
You also still haven't explained how I "duped it". What exactly am I doing to fake things? You're claiming the tube isn't level? Prove it.
You literally can NOT have ever done this experiment if you think what I am showing isn't reality. It is. Go outside, take 5 minutes and do it yourself.
If you can't post your own version and show where I am trying to "dupe you", stop accusing me of lying.
Give yourself a few seconds to process what I've said.
You do not get to set up a tube....LEVEL on a gradient like you show and be able to see down it as if you've somehow tilted your tube to look down that gradient.
Wise up for crying out loud.
So I 'somehow' tilted my tube, although you can't actually show any evidence for this other than your belief that it's just not possible to get the results I did.
You can't even show what you expect us to see instead.
Again, you're accusing me of cheating and dishonesty and lying, with no proof, not even the slightest shred of evidence. All you have in this argument are personal attacks.
So for crying out loud, stop saying I tilted the tube when it's clear that I did not. Look through a tube yourself! You will see the same thing.
-
So... your reason for saying my picture is fake is you don't believe the results? Lets take a moment to process this.
You simply believe that my results are IMPOSSIBLE... so why should I bother doing any more experiments since you are very clearly saying you will just outright reject them.
This bears repeating. You reason for dismissing my results is that they conflict with your BELIEFS so must be fake. You are not operating from a place of reason here, you are outright admitting you will just reject any facts if they don't fir your ideas.
And you wonder why people stop jumping through hoops to try and show you how reality works.
You also still haven't explained how I "duped it". What exactly am I doing to fake things? You're claiming the tube isn't level? Prove it.
You literally can NOT have ever done this experiment if you think what I am showing isn't reality. It is. Go outside, take 5 minutes and do it yourself.
If you can't post your own version and show where I am trying to "dupe you", stop accusing me of lying.
Give yourself a few seconds to process what I've said.
You do not get to set up a tube....LEVEL on a gradient like you show and be able to see down it as if you've somehow tilted your tube to look down that gradient.
Wise up for crying out loud.
So I 'somehow' tilted my tube, although you can't actually show any evidence for this other than your belief that it's just not possible to get the results I did.
You can't even show what you expect us to see instead.
Again, you're accusing me of cheating and dishonesty and lying, with no proof, not even the slightest shred of evidence. All you have in this argument are personal attacks.
So for crying out loud, stop saying I tilted the tube when it's clear that I did not. Look through a tube yourself! You will see the same thing.
You bottled it and basically that's all I can say to you, until you show me some honesty.
-
I'm addressing it all as honestly as I believe.
And even that is a blatant lie.
And there you go confirming it.
Confirming what?
Confirming your unwillingness to rationally and honestly address the massive issues with your nonsense.
Again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
This is not a difficult question to answer for any honest, rational person.
Yet you use whatever BS you can to deflect.
You bottled it and basically that's all I can say to you
That does seem to be all you can say. No rational objection at all.
He showed you were wrong, so you cry fowl.
How about you start showing honesty instead of asking those already showing it to do so?
Or is honesty another one of those words you pretend means something completely different?
-
So... your reason for saying my picture is fake is you don't believe the results? Lets take a moment to process this.
You simply believe that my results are IMPOSSIBLE... so why should I bother doing any more experiments since you are very clearly saying you will just outright reject them.
This bears repeating. You reason for dismissing my results is that they conflict with your BELIEFS so must be fake. You are not operating from a place of reason here, you are outright admitting you will just reject any facts if they don't fir your ideas.
And you wonder why people stop jumping through hoops to try and show you how reality works.
You also still haven't explained how I "duped it". What exactly am I doing to fake things? You're claiming the tube isn't level? Prove it.
You literally can NOT have ever done this experiment if you think what I am showing isn't reality. It is. Go outside, take 5 minutes and do it yourself.
If you can't post your own version and show where I am trying to "dupe you", stop accusing me of lying.
Give yourself a few seconds to process what I've said.
You do not get to set up a tube....LEVEL on a gradient like you show and be able to see down it as if you've somehow tilted your tube to look down that gradient.
Wise up for crying out loud.
So I 'somehow' tilted my tube, although you can't actually show any evidence for this other than your belief that it's just not possible to get the results I did.
You can't even show what you expect us to see instead.
Again, you're accusing me of cheating and dishonesty and lying, with no proof, not even the slightest shred of evidence. All you have in this argument are personal attacks.
So for crying out loud, stop saying I tilted the tube when it's clear that I did not. Look through a tube yourself! You will see the same thing.
You bottled it and basically that's all I can say to you, until you show me some honesty.
Why do you keep accusing me of being dishonest when you have no evidence? You can go check yourself with a tube in 5 minutes to see that I'm not lying, faking or cheating. Nobody is trying to dupe you.
So stop with the baseless accusations.
-
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
What should my eye/camera height be above the start of the slope?
-
Confirming your unwillingness to rationally and honestly address the massive issues with your nonsense.
There are no massive issues.
You believing there is or simply telling me there is, is down to you.
I address many things and you come out with the exact same stuff, so try and forgive me for not playing your game.
-
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
What should my eye/camera height be above the start of the slope?
Take a look at JJA's set up and use that as a close enough reference. I'm sure you can determine the height to the nearest foot.
-
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
What should my eye/camera height be above the start of the slope?
Take a look at JJA's set up and use that as a close enough reference. I'm sure you can determine the height to the nearest foot.
Do the tripods all need to be identical?
-
There are no massive issues.
There are. You just keep on choosing to ignore them.
You show this by still refusing to answer an extremely simple question which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Until you can actually answer this and in general address the logical argument I provided, there is a massive issue with your outright lie that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
But you know that the only honest way to actually answer the question is to admit that the RE does have a horizon, which means admitting you are wrong. So you will do whatever you can to avoid answering it.
I address many things and you come out with the exact same stuff
You address basically nothing. You come up with whatever pathetic BS you can to dismiss anything that shows you are wrong.
The reason I keep coming out with the exact same stuff is because you are yet to actually address it.
Again, if you think you have addressed it, provide a link to the post you addressed it in.
If you can't, then either address or stop repeating the same lies.
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
What should my eye/camera height be above the start of the slope?
Take a look at JJA's set up and use that as a close enough reference. I'm sure you can determine the height to the nearest foot.
Do the tripods all need to be identical?
Note that he appears to be trying to set it up with ridiculous extra lengths so the FOV is tiny to try to make the ground no longer visible.a
If you were to use tubes that were 1 inch in diameter, with a length of 2 feet (similar to JJA), with his 5 feet between the tubes and his extra 2 feet away from it, that gives you a total distance of 11 ft, assuming you are standing basically right at the plumbob. This gives a FOV of roughly 0.4 degrees.
-
The vortex and pressures created from the energy of the central sun that is taking the feed.
OK and what is the energy source of the central Sun?
I would also like to ask what you believe the age of your Earth is and what supporting evidence you have.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXbMPXN/Horizon3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JCjCyZB/Horizon2.jpg)
Sceptimatic, this is your belief on a golden platter. (The horizon is a theoretical line dependent on the viewer's eyeline.)
What it also means is the lines of any level surface will converge on the theoretical horizon line. Yes?
Study the drawings. This is what you have been prattling on about.
Umm, you may not believe earth is a globe, but according to your avatar, it's a section of a ball? It's curved nevertheless, so why are you pushing your toilet roll experiment which supposedly proves there is no curvature?
I'm not sure what you think your pictures show.
And where is the section of a ball?
These pictures show what you have been saying all along. Don't you recognise your favourite theory? "The horizon always rises to eye level." They show, that on any level surface, all lines must converge with the theoretical horizon line.
So, here is your avatar, Sceptimatic, uncropped: (The angels are a nice touch, I don't know why you cropped them out.)
(https://i.ibb.co/bN75dFm/Orlando-Ferguson-flat1.jpg)
Here is your avatar up close, showing very distinctive curvature similar to the top 3rd of a ball:
(https://i.ibb.co/h7g0d8n/SQUARE-STATIONARY-EARTH-1893-Orlando-Ferguson-1.jpg)
Here is a picture, I think much more closely aligned to your cell earth model:
(https://i.ibb.co/1zYVJM6/Enclosed-Earth2.jpg)
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
FIELD OF VIEW!!!
People dont see in 1 dimension.
They have a....
Wait for it
FIELD OF VIEW
Which is shown by the angled line.
FFS
This isnt even a mater of duped gravity of cgi.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
And that's all of it correct? A crosshair along the line of sight that shows level left to right in my field of view. How exactly does this confirm the entire line of sight from my camera/eye to the crosshair at the end of the tube as being level?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
Right o
Theres the diageam
Whats the point of usig a plumb line for verrical alignment?
How does this achieve your goal?
What was youe goal?
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
The circle is not to scale.
The circle is much much bigger.
Try and acknowledge it before you jump to conclusions.
You know
How you hypcritically have done while insisting we re not acknowledging (though we are) your denP.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
And that's all of it correct? A crosshair along the line of sight that shows level left to right in my field of view. How exactly does this confirm the entire line of sight from my camera/eye to the crosshair at the end of the tube as being level?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
By his diagram i assume he is in hopes that the ground angle is such that it dips at auch a hard angle the scope will block this by XX distance.
He even added an arbitrary 5ft to make sure his double tube has sufficient length to block the FIELD OF VIEW.
I assume this is his goal or point rhough he refuses to admit one.
That would mean though, if all lines extend straight, the viewer is on a fricking mountain that extends forever, not a ball earth.
I assume this to be his trick
Edit:
Ha i see jackB has beaten me to it
-
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
What should my eye/camera height be above the start of the slope?
Take a look at JJA's set up and use that as a close enough reference. I'm sure you can determine the height to the nearest foot.
Do the tripods all need to be identical?
Nope. As long as the set up in the diagram is adhered to.
-
The vortex and pressures created from the energy of the central sun that is taking the feed.
OK and what is the energy source of the central Sun?
I would also like to ask what you believe the age of your Earth is and what supporting evidence you have.
Possibly a super carbon.
-
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
FIELD OF VIEW!!!
People dont see in 1 dimension.
They have a....
Wait for it
FIELD OF VIEW
Which is shown by the angled line.
FFS
This isnt even a mater of duped gravity of cgi.
Yep, people have a field of view. They also have a tunnel vision filed of view, which is what we're dealing with, which you're struggling to understand.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
And that's all of it correct? A crosshair along the line of sight that shows level left to right in my field of view. How exactly does this confirm the entire line of sight from my camera/eye to the crosshair at the end of the tube as being level?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
Right o
Theres the diageam
Whats the point of usig a plumb line for verrical alignment?
How does this achieve your goal?
What was youe goal?
The plumb line ensures that the two tubes cannot be set up without level. It means the plumb line and balanced level will correspond with both crosshairs at the end of each tube, meaning they look level over the gradient and not looking down on it by duping an angle for a level.
I'm sure you understand this, even if you pretend not to.
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
The circle is not to scale.
The circle is much much bigger.
Try and acknowledge it before you jump to conclusions.
You know
How you hypcritically have done while insisting we re not acknowledging (though we are) your denP.
I know the circle is not to scale so don't try and use if to convince me of a so called dip.
You're using it as if you see an edge to your circle and using this as real life on your supposed globe,
Like I said earlier. It's a theoretical horizon, not a skim over a supposed globe as some kind of edging.
I'm sure you're not really struggling.
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
FIELD OF VIEW!!!
People dont see in 1 dimension.
They have a....
Wait for it
FIELD OF VIEW
Which is shown by the angled line.
FFS
This isnt even a mater of duped gravity of cgi.
Yep, people have a field of view. They also have a tunnel vision filed of view, which is what we're dealing with, which you're struggling to understand.
just struggling to figure out why you're purposfully ignoring the points brought to you.
jackB has already told you mnay many times and even gone to the effort to calculate the angled field of view.
your continance to dismiss this is pure lunacy.
admit there is some angle as jackB has calculated.
to claim there is zero dip is ignorant and stupid beyond stupid because this level of stupid does not require a globe or flat earth.
angle is rise over run.
if your tube has a diameter and a length, we can calculate it.
so please, insist one more time that the dip is fictional and then imediately contradict yourself by admitting it is a thing, the thing that is the field of view.
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
And that's all of it correct? A crosshair along the line of sight that shows level left to right in my field of view. How exactly does this confirm the entire line of sight from my camera/eye to the crosshair at the end of the tube as being level?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
Right o
Theres the diageam
Whats the point of usig a plumb line for verrical alignment?
How does this achieve your goal?
What was youe goal?
The plumb line ensures that the two tubes cannot be set up without level. It means the plumb line and balanced level will correspond with both crosshairs at the end of each tube, meaning they look level over the gradient and not looking down on it by duping an angle for a level.
I'm sure you understand this, even if you pretend not to.
i understand that a plumb line measures vertical alignment.
which is why i said several times now - VERTICAL ALIGNMENT.
which is NOT a necessary requirement for your LEVEL HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT.
do you know what a vertical plumb line checks for?
so again, what is the point of the plumb line except an attempt to make JJA look more like a crazy person to his neighbours.
you might as well have requested he also wear a hat, with a feather, while drinking a single plum floating in perfume served in a mans hat.
it serves no purpose.
unless you know what your purpose was?
care to reitierate the reason for the experiment?
-
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AxEC0YH.png)
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon, so the explanation is bogus.
The dip is fictional. It's simply an angle from whichever elevated vantage point is taken.
The circle is not to scale.
The circle is much much bigger.
Try and acknowledge it before you jump to conclusions.
You know
How you hypcritically have done while insisting we re not acknowledging (though we are) your denP.
I know the circle is not to scale so don't try and use if to convince me of a so called dip.
You're using it as if you see an edge to your circle and using this as real life on your supposed globe,
Like I said earlier. It's a theoretical horizon, not a skim over a supposed globe as some kind of edging.
I'm sure you're not really struggling.
maybe you could answer this.
using the round earth theory, staying in the theory whether it be true or not, when seeing past the "edge" of the circle, what's left to see? - sky!
the sky is what you would expect to see.
is that a fair statement or not, strictly within the round earth theory.
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
I haven't removed any quote and you know this.
-
just struggling to figure out why you're purposfully ignoring the points brought to you.
Don't bother trying to copy JackBlack.
I'm not ignoring anything.
-
i understand that a plumb line measures vertical alignment.
which is why i said several times now - VERTICAL ALIGNMENT.
which is NOT a necessary requirement for your LEVEL HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT.
do you know what a vertical plumb line checks for?
so again, what is the point of the plumb line except an attempt to make JJA look more like a crazy person to his neighbours.
you might as well have requested he also wear a hat, with a feather, while drinking a single plum floating in perfume served in a mans hat.
it serves no purpose.
unless you know what your purpose was?
care to reitierate the reason for the experiment?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Have a close look. Take 5 minutes to look before you type and take your time in typing, as well.
-
maybe you could answer this.
using the round earth theory, staying in the theory whether it be true or not, when seeing past the "edge" of the circle, what's left to see? - sky!
the sky is what you would expect to see.
is that a fair statement or not, strictly within the round earth theory.
Nope.
You're massively neglecting the very thing that creates the horizon, which is atmospheric convergence of light to the eye and has no bearing on any lines of any sort.
Your globe would offer nothing more than sky on a level and nothing more than ground on a downward angle.
Of course you can have a basketball on a table top and look at the diameter against a background but your globe would not offer you this because you would be on it, not looking at it as if it was separate from your view.
Your background would be sky if you were stood on a globe in the scenario you think you're in.
The globe is absolute utter nonsense.
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
I haven't removed any quote and you know this.
sure
regardless of delete vs not delete then
answer the question still.
-
just struggling to figure out why you're purposfully ignoring the points brought to you.
Don't bother trying to copy JackBlack.
I'm not ignoring anything.
then address them instead of this bullshit semantics
-
maybe you could answer this.
using the round earth theory, staying in the theory whether it be true or not, when seeing past the "edge" of the circle, what's left to see? - sky!
the sky is what you would expect to see.
is that a fair statement or not, strictly within the round earth theory.
Nope.
You're massively neglecting the very thing that creates the horizon, which is atmospheric convergence of light to the eye and has no bearing on any lines of any sort.
Your globe would offer nothing more than sky on a level and nothing more than ground on a downward angle.
Of course you can have a basketball on a table top and look at the diameter against a background but your globe would not offer you this because you would be on it, not looking at it as if it was separate from your view.
Your background would be sky if you were stood on a globe in the scenario you think you're in.
The globe is absolute utter nonsense.
no
the questions was to remain within the scope of a globe earth as per the model.
you're saying the model doesn't work.
why not?, as it is shown to not be impossible in its own context.
your claim is one would NOT - see water then distinctly not see water as the ball earth dips away.
however, the diagram shows you would see water, and then distinctly not see it.
so somewhere the diagram or your understanding of the english language is not correct.
"FIELD OF VIEW".
you claim to understand yet every statement following you continue to beileve people see in 1dimension and only along the straight level line, and that people are incapable of looking down, or seeing anything that is down.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/3aa92156-d16d-4c54-9ae4-be494fa13ec1
if you want introduce denP, then separately provide your own diagram of this converging light reflection and show this is a superior model - which you haven't and continue to deflect and dodge.
-
i understand that a plumb line measures vertical alignment.
which is why i said several times now - VERTICAL ALIGNMENT.
which is NOT a necessary requirement for your LEVEL HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT.
do you know what a vertical plumb line checks for?
so again, what is the point of the plumb line except an attempt to make JJA look more like a crazy person to his neighbours.
you might as well have requested he also wear a hat, with a feather, while drinking a single plum floating in perfume served in a mans hat.
it serves no purpose.
unless you know what your purpose was?
care to reitierate the reason for the experiment?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Have a close look. Take 5 minutes to look before you type and take your time in typing, as well.
FFS
yes you put a fucktard cross on there.
it does nothing as a vertical plumb line aligns vertically!
if you want a horizontal level, add a horizontal bubble float level.
take your own 5mins and ask how a vertically hung string is going to achieve your horizontal level.
POS.
-
maybe you could answer this.
using the round earth theory, staying in the theory whether it be true or not, when seeing past the "edge" of the circle, what's left to see? - sky!
the sky is what you would expect to see.
is that a fair statement or not, strictly within the round earth theory.
Nope.
You're massively neglecting the very thing that creates the horizon, which is atmospheric convergence of light to the eye and has no bearing on any lines of any sort.
Your globe would offer nothing more than sky on a level and nothing more than ground on a downward angle.
Of course you can have a basketball on a table top and look at the diameter against a background but your globe would not offer you this because you would be on it, not looking at it as if it was separate from your view.
Your background would be sky if you were stood on a globe in the scenario you think you're in.
The globe is absolute utter nonsense.
https://i.redd.it/d4e9grcsjxh21.jpg
a basket ball on a table where the "sky" is clearly distinct theoretically in line with the ball.
utter nonsense this very easily provable claim you chose to want to contest.
-
Note that he appears to be trying to set it up with ridiculous extra lengths so the FOV is tiny to try to make the ground no longer visible.a
If you were to use tubes that were 1 inch in diameter, with a length of 2 feet (similar to JJA), with his 5 feet between the tubes and his extra 2 feet away from it, that gives you a total distance of 11 ft, assuming you are standing basically right at the plumbob. This gives a FOV of roughly 0.4 degrees.
I believe we're still at 1.75 inch tubes, unless he's changed the parameters again.
-
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
-
And yet again you ignore the extremely simple question that shows beyond any doubt you are wrong.
This shows just how effective this question is at destroying your BS.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Until you have an answer, this confirms the RE does have a horizon and you claiming it doesn't is wilful rejection of reality.
Nope. As long as the set up in the diagram is adhered to.
Again, how does the extra tube, and the vertical plumb in any way help establish that the setup is level?
Why do you need all the extra distance?
The plumb line ensures that the two tubes cannot be set up without level.
No, it doesn't, because it is vertical.
Do you understand the difference between vertical and horizontal?
Even if you attach a crosshair to it, that gives you alignment left to right, not front to back.
Again, it is just another needless complication that solves nothing.
If you want something to actually confirm level, then like has already been suggested and provided, use water.
You want a rectangle made of tubes, partially filled with water, where the water is free to flow around the rectangle.
Then hold it up so that 2 of the tubes are vertical, and the water will self-level. That applies even if the tubes are at an angle, the water will still self-level.
Yep, people have a field of view. They also have a tunnel vision filed of view, which is what we're dealing with, which you're struggling to understand.
No, with this diagram and line of inquiry we are dealing with the measured angle of dip to the horizon. Which you're struggling to understand.
Again, do you accept that there is a difference in angle between the purple and grey lines? If so, THAT IS YOUR DIP!
If not, then considering they cross, why aren't they the same line?
Just what is so hard to understand?
But you do also seem to fail to understand tunnel vision as well. Even with tunnel vision, your FOV is not 0.
I'm not ignoring anything.
You sure seem to be.
You repeatedly ignore the simple question that shows beyond any doubt that the RE must have a horizon.
Likewise you ignored the simple logical argument that shows not only does the RE have a horizon, for simple observations close to sea-level it will appear to be at roughly eye-level, and easily appear through a level tube/scope.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore a simple question with a diagram to show you don't get magic tunnel vision where you magically only see 1 inch of any object.
Likewise you ignore the to-scale diagram showing how even through a small tube you can see the ground, relatively close and thus it wouldn't magically prevent you from seeing it.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore how all your nonsense demands are doing is needlessly complicating the setup and adding extra length, while in no way ensuring that the setup is level, and thus is just a pathetic excuse to dismiss the evidence showing you are wrong.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore a simple explanation of why your strawman of water on a ball on a ball in no way refutes the RE.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore the diagram and explanation of how your non-flat Earth cannot have the oceans match what is observed in reality with a flat water level.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore how level water proves the globe.
Likewise you are now ignoring the explanation of dip on the globe and instead pretending it makes no sense at all.
The question really shouldn't be what are you ignoring, it should be what aren't you ignoring.
And that is quite simple, things which are not directly related to the topic, as they don't show you are wrong, they just show how dishonest you are.
You're massively neglecting the very thing that creates the horizon
And that is another thing you are ignoring, the very thing that creates the horizon.
Once more, as we know it does not vary depending on optics, it has absolutely nothing to do with resolution.
As we can produce a clear image of it (rather than only ever getting blurry images), we know it has nothing to do with limited visibility through the atmosphere.
As it is only a finite distance away, we know it has nothing to do with perspective.
The only adequate explanation of the horizon (i.e. an explanation which actually works to explain what causes it) is that Earth is round, and the horizon is the point where your line of sight is tangent to it.
This also explains why the bottom of distant objects are obscured and the object appears to have sunk. Because the curvature continues past the horizon and thus an object further away than the horizon has its base at an angle below the horizon.
If it was the atmosphere obscuring the view, you would have a blurry region rather than a clear horizon, and the bottom of the object (falsely assuming Earth is flat) would be in that region of blurriness.
If it was just perspective, the bottom would still be clearly visible, just as well resolved as the top.
Your globe would offer nothing more than sky on a level and nothing more than ground on a downward angle.
As clearly shown by the diagram you chose to ignore, the fact that the globe has a DIP means you can look down and still see sky. You would only see only ground when your FOV doesn't include the horizon and instead is entirely below it.
And likewise, by another diagram you chose to ignore, the ability to see ground through a level FOV depends upon the size of that FOV, the radius of Earth, and your elevation above Earth.
But if we completely ignore reality and just accept your factually incorrect statements, you have a big problem. It is self contradictory with any FOV greater than 0.
Time for another diagram for you to ignore:
(https://i.imgur.com/jSyD9KP.png)
This shows 2 FOVs.
The one shown with black boundaries is a perfectly level FOV.
The one shown in grey is a FOV on a downwards angle.
The region shown in blue is only included in the level FOV, and thus you only see sky.
The region shown in green is only included in the downwards FOV, and thus you only see ground.
But what about the red region? It is included in both FOVs.
So do you only see sky, making your statement that you only see ground through a downwards FOV false?
Or do you only see ground, making your statement that you only see sky through a level FOV false?
Or do you see both ground and sky, making both of those statements of yours false?
And before you object to their size, it doesn't matter.
A level FOV, which is not 0, will ALWAYS include some portion looking below level.
This can be included in a downwards FOV.
If you just ignore the top section of the level FOV, that gives a downwards FOV.
The only way to not have anything below level in a level FOV is for that FOV to have a size of 0.
The globe is absolute utter nonsense.
No, only your pathetic denial of it.
-
I believe we're still at 1.75 inch tubes, unless he's changed the parameters again.
That would increase the FOV to 0.76 degrees. Still quite small.
And that is still assuming you take the picture right at the crosshairs.
The other big issue I have realised is that the crosshairs could end up taking up a large portion of the FOV.
You would need something rigid for the horizontal part of the plumbob.
Assuming you use a rod that is 1/10th of an inch in diameter, and you view it from 1 foot away (so the total FOV is now down to ~0.7 degrees), that rod is already taking up 0.47 degrees of the FOV, leaving roughly 0.1 degree on either side.
Even a 1 mm thick piece of twin would take up 0.19 degrees.
And that means you aren't going to likely see the cross hairs at the other end. In order to do so you will end up with nothing but crosshairs.
-
But the point of this all?
It was to see 1 inch and not see ground.
Well whoopty doo
How does that disprove the ball horizon?
He refuses to restate the point or address anything for 10pg now.
He refuses to teach us his secret info yet tells us to "think more".
Or
Maybe the point just to have 5 monkeys debating a stupid experiment
-
I can't believe sceptimatic tells people to repeat his experiment that makes anybody who conducts it, look like a total fool, and people repeat it. It makes one wonder who the real idiots are in this thread.
If sceptimatic told you all to make yourselves goggles filled with special blue dye, that would allow you all to see into the spirit world, I think you would all do it.
Sceptimatic should be praised for the number of people he has pranked to look through toilet tubes, especially out in public.
Seriously, if he can get you all looking through toilet tubes, what will he have you all doing next? Do I need to purchase a kaleidoscope for the next experiment, sceptimatic, or will drinking a bottle of whiskey beforehand, suffice?
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
I haven't removed any quote and you know this.
sure
regardless of delete vs not delete then
answer the question still.
Nothing's been deleted but it's better for you to pretend in order to make it look like I'm deflecting, Mr dishonest.
-
just struggling to figure out why you're purposfully ignoring the points brought to you.
Don't bother trying to copy JackBlack.
I'm not ignoring anything.
then address them instead of this bullshit semantics
All addressed.
-
you claim to understand yet every statement following you continue to beileve people see in 1dimension
You're making out one dimension to what I'm saying. I'm giving out nothing of the sort.
Tunnel vision is not one dimensional.
I've already mentioned a compressed FOV, so what's the issue?
-
i understand that a plumb line measures vertical alignment.
which is why i said several times now - VERTICAL ALIGNMENT.
which is NOT a necessary requirement for your LEVEL HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT.
do you know what a vertical plumb line checks for?
so again, what is the point of the plumb line except an attempt to make JJA look more like a crazy person to his neighbours.
you might as well have requested he also wear a hat, with a feather, while drinking a single plum floating in perfume served in a mans hat.
it serves no purpose.
unless you know what your purpose was?
care to reitierate the reason for the experiment?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Have a close look. Take 5 minutes to look before you type and take your time in typing, as well.
FFS
yes you put a fucktard cross on there.
it does nothing as a vertical plumb line aligns vertically!
if you want a horizontal level, add a horizontal bubble float level.
take your own 5mins and ask how a vertically hung string is going to achieve your horizontal level.
POS.
It's not about the vertical string. That's merely a plumb line in its own right with an added balanced pencil/rod/stick with equal mass on each end to level balance to make a perfect crosshair point in which to use to line up with the other two on the tube ends.
Put your brain to work.
-
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
-
I can't believe sceptimatic tells people to repeat his experiment that makes anybody who conducts it, look like a total fool, and people repeat it. It makes one wonder who the real idiots are in this thread.
If sceptimatic told you all to make yourselves goggles filled with special blue dye, that would allow you all to see into the spirit world, I think you would all do it.
Sceptimatic should be praised for the number of people he has pranked to look through toilet tubes, especially out in public.
Seriously, if he can get you all looking through toilet tubes, what will he have you all doing next? Do I need to purchase a kaleidoscope for the next experiment, sceptimatic, or will drinking a bottle of whiskey beforehand, suffice?
Doing the experiment for yourself without the aid of alcohol, would suffice.
I have to admit I did laugh at the bold. ;D
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
I haven't removed any quote and you know this.
sure
regardless of delete vs not delete then
answer the question still.
Nothing's been deleted but it's better for you to pretend in order to make it look like I'm deflecting, Mr dishonest.
This was the question (one of many that remain unaddressed)
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
-
you claim to understand yet every statement following you continue to beileve people see in 1dimension
You're making out one dimension to what I'm saying. I'm giving out nothing of the sort.
Tunnel vision is not one dimensional.
I've already mentioned a compressed FOV, so what's the issue?
Fine then, you finally admit and reveal new info.
And from waht you say, your tunnel vision exoeriment does not invalidate the ball earth.
As per jckB diagram if all you were able to see is a near zero field of view you wiuld be looking out to sky.
So your experiment is pointless and proves nothing.
-
i understand that a plumb line measures vertical alignment.
which is why i said several times now - VERTICAL ALIGNMENT.
which is NOT a necessary requirement for your LEVEL HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT.
do you know what a vertical plumb line checks for?
so again, what is the point of the plumb line except an attempt to make JJA look more like a crazy person to his neighbours.
you might as well have requested he also wear a hat, with a feather, while drinking a single plum floating in perfume served in a mans hat.
it serves no purpose.
unless you know what your purpose was?
care to reitierate the reason for the experiment?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Have a close look. Take 5 minutes to look before you type and take your time in typing, as well.
FFS
yes you put a fucktard cross on there.
it does nothing as a vertical plumb line aligns vertically!
if you want a horizontal level, add a horizontal bubble float level.
take your own 5mins and ask how a vertically hung string is going to achieve your horizontal level.
POS.
It's not about the vertical string. That's merely a plumb line in its own right with an added balanced pencil/rod/stick with equal mass on each end to level balance to make a perfect crosshair point in which to use to line up with the other two on the tube ends.
Put your brain to work.
Again
That doesnt level it with the items in front.
There are three axis of rotation.
Vertical horizontal and tilt.
Your plumb line with balancing pencil solves vert and tilt, not horizontal.
Keep failing at the most basic, nonround earth concepts.
Should we trust you with the shape of the world when you cant even comprehend simple things?
-
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
No need to do an experiment that has no point.
Unless sceppy has new info to reveal.
Keep dodging
Almost at 100pg.
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
I haven't removed any quote and you know this.
sure
regardless of delete vs not delete then
answer the question still.
Nothing's been deleted but it's better for you to pretend in order to make it look like I'm deflecting, Mr dishonest.
This was the question (one of many that remain unaddressed)
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
Let me make this clear seeing as you want to change things up.
If you look out to sea, you see YOUR theoretical horizon line.
If the person next to you who is the same eye height, doing the same as you, he/she will see their own horizon (theoretical) line, which will be as near exact to what you see (assuming equal vision).
If you then decide to stand on the shoulders of the person next to you, then your horizon changes. You see farther to your horizon than the other person (assuming equal starting vision).
All you've done is changed your vantage point but the both of you now do not see the near exact horizon.
The higher you go the more distant horizon you see.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
-
you claim to understand yet every statement following you continue to beileve people see in 1dimension
You're making out one dimension to what I'm saying. I'm giving out nothing of the sort.
Tunnel vision is not one dimensional.
I've already mentioned a compressed FOV, so what's the issue?
Fine then, you finally admit and reveal new info.
And from waht you say, your tunnel vision exoeriment does not invalidate the ball earth.
As per jckB diagram if all you were able to see is a near zero field of view you wiuld be looking out to sky.
So your experiment is pointless and proves nothing.
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
-
Again
That doesnt level it with the items in front.
There are three axis of rotation.
Vertical horizontal and tilt.
Your plumb line with balancing pencil solves vert and tilt, not horizontal.
Keep failing at the most basic, nonround earth concepts.
Should we trust you with the shape of the world when you cant even comprehend simple things?
Engage your brain.
-
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
No need to do an experiment that has no point.
Unless sceppy has new info to reveal.
Keep dodging
Almost at 100pg.
There's no point to anything that goes against a globe, with you people. That's nothing new to me and people like you have no wish to question that narrative you were set up with from the cradle to present.
I get it but only you can alter your own mindset, if you choose to step outside of the box.
-
Again
That doesnt level it with the items in front.
There are three axis of rotation.
Vertical horizontal and tilt.
Your plumb line with balancing pencil solves vert and tilt, not horizontal.
Keep failing at the most basic, nonround earth concepts.
Should we trust you with the shape of the world when you cant even comprehend simple things?
Engage your brain.
Do me a favour and google image search this phrase "pitch roll yaw".
Let me know how having two affects the 3rd.
-
The horison does not always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level.
No rising or falling. It is exactly at eye level.
But youve agreed that peoples height of eye level can change.
So he horizon must be moving with them for some reason.
Or youre wrong.
Which is it?
If its moving
Why is it moving or perceived to move?
The horizon will only move if the person changes elevation. You've been told this, so how are you struggling?
i see you've removed your quote so i'll put it back in there and better highlight it so all can see your contradiction.
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
I haven't removed any quote and you know this.
sure
regardless of delete vs not delete then
answer the question still.
Nothing's been deleted but it's better for you to pretend in order to make it look like I'm deflecting, Mr dishonest.
This was the question (one of many that remain unaddressed)
if the person moves, the eye level moves, therefore the horizon is moving.
if hte horizon is not really moving, then it is perceived to move.
why is there a perceived movement?
Let me make this clear seeing as you want to change things up.
If you look out to sea, you see YOUR theoretical horizon line.
If the person next to you who is the same eye height, doing the same as you, he/she will see their own horizon (theoretical) line, which will be as near exact to what you see (assuming equal vision).
If you then decide to stand on the shoulders of the person next to you, then your horizon changes. You see farther to your horizon than the other person (assuming equal starting vision).
All you've done is changed your vantage point but the both of you now do not see the near exact horizon.
The higher you go the more distant horizon you see.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
Again
No ones changing anything
Just ponting out your contradictions...
Or
Possibly difficult to graso because you refuse to apply any diagrms
Eitherway
None of what you just said explains why the perception is that horizon will rise to eye level.
The horizon does not rise to meet eye level in either the flat or round earth.
So your insistance of this premise starts you off on the wrong foot right away.
-
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
No need to do an experiment that has no point.
Unless sceppy has new info to reveal.
Keep dodging
Almost at 100pg.
There's no point to anything that goes against a globe, with you people. That's nothing new to me and people like you have no wish to question that narrative you were set up with from the cradle to present.
I get it but only you can alter your own mindset, if you choose to step outside of the box.
There is no point.
Because your experiment ona flatearth with a near zero field of view will have a similar problem.
If you insist on seeing "plumb" level and not looking down, you wont see ground.
Parallel lines.
Look up the definition.
-
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
So you're saying, if I line up these five sets of crosshairs, the 1st of which is a horizontal line across a plumb-bob string and the other 4 being at each end of 2 tubes (which according to you makes this line of sight level) that I should see the horizon centered on the crosshairs because the horizon is at eye-level... correct?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
You just ignored two questions.
-
All addressed.
Again, just what have you actually addressed? Because I don't see anything relevant to the topic that you have addressed.
You refuse to even address the refutation of your lies by answering a simple question.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And you refuse to answer simple questions about the experiment you propose because you want an excuse to dismiss it later.
This shows you will not honestly address anything.
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon
No it doesn't. So far the only results provided clearly indicate you DO see the horizon/ground through a level tube, just like you would expect on a RE.
So it in no way proves Earth isn't round.
-
Clearly sceppy has been put into a corner and is retreating to his only fall back of "nu-uh".
Refuses to outline his own experiment.
Refuses to acknowledge the purpose of hisbexperiment.
Refuses to do his own experiment.
Refuses to provide hisbown diagram.
Done.
Unless he intends to reveal new information
-
Again
That doesnt level it with the items in front.
There are three axis of rotation.
Vertical horizontal and tilt.
Your plumb line with balancing pencil solves vert and tilt, not horizontal.
Keep failing at the most basic, nonround earth concepts.
Should we trust you with the shape of the world when you cant even comprehend simple things?
Engage your brain.
Do me a favour and google image search this phrase "pitch roll yaw".
Let me know how having two affects the 3rd.
What are you getting at?
Are you going back to a pretence of me saying one dimensional?
Making your own nonsense up is doing you no favours.
-
No ones changing anything
Just ponting out your contradictions...
There are no contradictions.
What there is plenty of is twisting and misunderstanding from your side. You create your own issues.
-
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
No need to do an experiment that has no point.
Unless sceppy has new info to reveal.
Keep dodging
Almost at 100pg.
There's no point to anything that goes against a globe, with you people. That's nothing new to me and people like you have no wish to question that narrative you were set up with from the cradle to present.
I get it but only you can alter your own mindset, if you choose to step outside of the box.
There is no point.
Because your experiment ona flatearth with a near zero field of view will have a similar problem.
If you insist on seeing "plumb" level and not looking down, you wont see ground.
Parallel lines.
Look up the definition.
What are you talking about?
-
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
So you're saying, if I line up these five THREE sets of crosshairs, the 1st of which is a horizontal line across a plumb-bob string and the other 4 being at each end of 2 tubes (which according to you makes this line of sight level) that I should see the horizon centered on the crosshairs because the horizon is at eye-level... correct?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 5 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
You just ignored two questions.
Pay attention.
-
All addressed.
Again, just what have you actually addressed? Because I don't see anything relevant to the topic that you have addressed.
Don't worry yourself about it.
-
Clearly sceppy has been put into a corner and is retreating to his only fall back of "nu-uh".
Refuses to outline his own experiment.
Refuses to acknowledge the purpose of hisbexperiment.
Refuses to do his own experiment.
Refuses to provide hisbown diagram.
Done.
Unless he intends to reveal new information
Make sure you stick to it.
-
I can't believe sceptimatic tells people to repeat his experiment that makes anybody who conducts it, look like a total fool, and people repeat it. It makes one wonder who the real idiots are in this thread.
Curiosity part of being human. I've done the experiments for him (and others) here because it's fun. I certainly don't expect them to change his mind, I do them for myself.
This isn't the only site I visit, and I do a lot more experiments and demonstrations for people about legitimate subjects that people are curious about. Demonstrating scientific principles is enjoyable, no matter who is reading or watching them.
If you don't want to join in, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to. Just have fun with whatever you do, which you clearly are. :)
-
Such inciteful answers and ressponses.
Teflon sceppy teahcing us all one dodge at a time.
-
I can't believe sceptimatic tells people to repeat his experiment that makes anybody who conducts it, look like a total fool, and people repeat it. It makes one wonder who the real idiots are in this thread.
Curiosity part of being human. I've done the experiments for him (and others) here because it's fun. I certainly don't expect them to change his mind, I do them for myself.
This isn't the only site I visit, and I do a lot more experiments and demonstrations for people about legitimate subjects that people are curious about. Demonstrating scientific principles is enjoyable, no matter who is reading or watching them.
If you don't want to join in, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to. Just have fun with whatever you do, which you clearly are. :)
JJA, relax. I'm on nightshift, and am grumpy from sleep deprivation and trying to sleep in 38 degree heat. You realise I've tried the toilet roll experiment myself? Only to establish it's trickery, but nevertheless.
I'm surprised sceptimatic didn't demand we dip one end of the toilet roll in wet black enamel paint to put against our eye, to improve the effectiveness.
-
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
[/quote]
But you haven't actually done or shown your experiment. So you have proven nothing.
-
I can't believe sceptimatic tells people to repeat his experiment that makes anybody who conducts it, look like a total fool, and people repeat it. It makes one wonder who the real idiots are in this thread.
Curiosity part of being human. I've done the experiments for him (and others) here because it's fun. I certainly don't expect them to change his mind, I do them for myself.
This isn't the only site I visit, and I do a lot more experiments and demonstrations for people about legitimate subjects that people are curious about. Demonstrating scientific principles is enjoyable, no matter who is reading or watching them.
If you don't want to join in, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to. Just have fun with whatever you do, which you clearly are. :)
JJA, relax. I'm on nightshift, and am grumpy from sleep deprivation and trying to sleep in 38 degree heat. You realise I've tried the toilet roll experiment myself? Only to establish it's trickery, but nevertheless.
I'm surprised sceptimatic didn't demand we dip one end of the toilet roll in wet black enamel paint to put against our eye, to improve the effectiveness.
I'm relaxed, that was me not being angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
I do get told that a lot. :)
-
I can't believe sceptimatic tells people to repeat his experiment that makes anybody who conducts it, look like a total fool, and people repeat it. It makes one wonder who the real idiots are in this thread.
Curiosity part of being human. I've done the experiments for him (and others) here because it's fun. I certainly don't expect them to change his mind, I do them for myself.
This isn't the only site I visit, and I do a lot more experiments and demonstrations for people about legitimate subjects that people are curious about. Demonstrating scientific principles is enjoyable, no matter who is reading or watching them.
If you don't want to join in, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to. Just have fun with whatever you do, which you clearly are. :)
JJA, relax. I'm on nightshift, and am grumpy from sleep deprivation and trying to sleep in 38 degree heat. You realise I've tried the toilet roll experiment myself? Only to establish it's trickery, but nevertheless.
I'm surprised sceptimatic didn't demand we dip one end of the toilet roll in wet black enamel paint to put against our eye, to improve the effectiveness.
Hats off to you. A bit of fun goes a long way. ;D
-
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
But you haven't actually done or shown your experiment. So you have proven nothing.
I have and I know what's what.
You could easily do it and show the truth but you refuse because you were caught out.
-
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
But you haven't actually done or shown your experiment. So you have proven nothing.
I have and I know what's what.
You could easily do it and show the truth but you refuse because you were caught out.
You haven't caught me out on anything, you just keep claiming I'm lying and faking the images but have yet to point out ANY evidence. What about the photo proves it's fake?
As for your experiment, you keep claiming you performed it, but where are your photos? You have shown nothing. Did the dog eat your homework? ::)
You have provided ZERO evidence to back any of your claims up here. Done nothing but call me a liar.
-
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
So you're saying, if I line up these 3 (before you eventually change it to 5 once someone has done this experiment) sets of crosshairs, the 1st of which is a horizontal line across a plumb-bob string and the other 2 being at the ends of 2 tubes (which according to you makes this line of sight level) that I should see the horizon centered on the crosshairs because the horizon is at eye-level... correct?
Do you see my plumb line has a cross, making a a vertically plumb and level crosshair?
Are you saying 3 sets of crosshairs can only align in a straight line along a 'level' line of sight, and cannot be aligned at any up or down angle other than level?
I'm not ignoring anything.
So what stops that blue line?
Do the experiment or don't. No need for further instruction.
You just ignored two three questions.
-
All addressed.
Again, just what have you actually addressed? Because I don't see anything relevant to the topic that you have addressed.
Don't worry yourself about it.
And there you go ignoring everything again, because you know that honestly addressing any of it will show you are wrong.
Again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Again
That doesnt level it with the items in front.
There are three axis of rotation.
Vertical horizontal and tilt.
Your plumb line with balancing pencil solves vert and tilt, not horizontal.
Keep failing at the most basic, nonround earth concepts.
Should we trust you with the shape of the world when you cant even comprehend simple things?
Engage your brain.
Do me a favour and google image search this phrase "pitch roll yaw".
Let me know how having two affects the 3rd.
What are you getting at?
Are you going back to a pretence of me saying one dimensional?
Making your own nonsense up is doing you no favours.
We will just focus on your nonsense, no need to make up any of our own.
What he is saying is quite clear, and is the same as he said before.
As we live in 3D, there are 3 orthogonal axis that you can rotate around (which really can be aligned anyway).
A vertical axis is for Yaw, this would be turning left or right.
A horizontal axis, passing from front to back, is for roll, this would be lowering one side while raising the other, i.e. lower your left side while raising your right.
Another horizon axis, passing from left to right, is for pitch, this would be for tilting to look further up or down.
Your plumbob setup only fixes roll. It in no way fixes pitch.
This means that even with that setup, you can still angle the camera up and down.
i.e. it does nothing except move the camera further back.
There are no contradictions.
There are plenty, you just choose to ignore them.
Like you claim that we can't see the ground through a level tube because magic makes the light come in parallel so through a 1 inch tube we only see 1 inch, but then for a distant object like a plane you claim we can see more than 1 inch.
That is a direct contradiction. Sure you try to cover it up with nonsensical BS, but there is no way to believe those 2 statements without a contradiction.
My experiment proves you do not see a downward curving horizon, meaning your Earth is absolutely 100% NOT the globe you think we walk upon.
But you haven't actually done or shown your experiment. So you have proven nothing.
I have and I know what's what.
You could easily do it and show the truth but you refuse because you were caught out.
Really?
Where have you shown it?
Because plenty of us have done the experiment, or an equivalent one.
And guess what? the results show you are wrong. But unlike you, some have been good enough to post their results here for all to see.
And what is your response? Rejecting the evidence as a con-job and repeating the same outright lies.
You have no basis for your claims at all and even simple logic shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
This simple question and image shows you don't magically just see parallel to the tube, and thus you can see ground.
-
@JackBlack
Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
IF I understand your question properly AND scepti's posit - the answer is more tubes in front of the first one! I think that is why they felt they were so critical.
-
@JackBlack
Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
IF I understand your question properly AND scepti's posit - the answer is more tubes in front of the first one! I think that is why he felt they were so critical.
I don't think you understand it right, because more tubes won't help.
He only felt two (is it now three?) tubes was critical well after pictures were posted proving him wrong. Then he added more conditions, like multiple tubes.
But more tubes can't save him. You can add as many tubes as you like, that blue line will always exist. All you can do is change the angle of the blue line, you can't make that blue line go away. You can always see downward (or upward, or sideways) out of a non-infinite tube.
-
@JackBlack
Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
IF I understand your question properly AND scepti's posit - the answer is more tubes in front of the first one! I think that is why he felt they were so critical.
I don't think you understand it right, because more tubes won't help.
He only felt two (is it now three?) tubes was critical well after pictures were posted proving him wrong. Then he added more conditions, like multiple tubes.
But more tubes can't save him. You can add as many tubes as you like, that blue line will always exist. All you can do is change the angle of the blue line, you can't make that blue line go away. You can always see downward (or upward, or sideways) out of a non-infinite tube.
We are talking about a gradient and level sighting through a tube.
You cheated and it's clear to see why.
-
We are talking about a gradient and level sighting through a tube.
You cheated and it's clear to see why.
No, you were refuted, with solid evidence and you are now trying to cheat, and it is clear to see why.
The entire basis of your argument against the RE is that the RE couldn't possibly have a horizon and that you magically can't see below the level of a tube.
But both of those are defeated by simple logical arguments and questions you refuse to answer.
So it is clear why you are trying to cheat, because you don't want to admit you are wrong and admit you have no argument against the RE (or even admit that one of your arguments is pure nonsense).
Again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Those 2 questions are all that is needed to show you are spouting pure BS.
Your repeated avoidance of these simple questions (that even a child could likely answer) show that you have no case at all and are just spouting pure BS.
-
No, you were refuted, with solid evidence and you are now trying to cheat, and it is clear to see why.
You know better than that.
-
No, you were refuted, with solid evidence and you are now trying to cheat, and it is clear to see why.
You know better than that.
I know better than expect you to admit it.
Just like I know better than to expect you to actually address the multitude of issues with your nonsense, such as by answering the simple questions you refuse to because you know answering them will show you know your claims are BS.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Figured out how to lie your way out of them yet?
-
Figured out how to lie your way out of them yet?
Out of, what?
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
A coupla questions. Are we still dealing with toilet rolls here, or have we moved up to discarded Christmas wrapping rolls? Why is the little man in the diagram dressed in a bright yellow chicken little costume instead of a fluoro yellow g-string? Will it help have a birdseye view of the tubes? Oh, and can I use hair from any part of my body to make the cross hairs?
I haven't seen a photo from who has done this yet, but I'm eagerly looking forward to it! I might even do it myself on the busiest hill in town, but would have to order my chicken costume first.
-
I know better than expect you to admit it.
Just like I know better than to expect you to actually address the multitude of issues with your nonsense, such as by answering the simple questions you refuse to because you know answering them will show you know your claims are BS.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Figured out how to lie your way out of them yet?
Out of, what?
Out of the questions in the post you chose to ignore yet again, as you have no answer and know that answering them will show you are wrong.
Here they are again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
-
I've already told you, so either do it or don't.
'Honesty', I've got that much so far. You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then. Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.
This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/85NX16pv/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
A coupla questions. Are we still dealing with toilet rolls here, or have we moved up to discarded Christmas wrapping rolls? Why is the little man in the diagram dressed in a bright yellow chicken little costume instead of a fluoro yellow g-string? Will it help have a birdseye view of the tubes? Oh, and can I use hair from any part of my body to make the cross hairs?
I haven't seen a photo from who has done this yet, but I'm eagerly looking forward to it! I might even do it myself on the busiest hill in town, but would have to order my chicken costume first.
Dress how you want to and do the experiment with christmas paper end rolls if you feel the need.
And you can use hair from your unfurled bun if you want to. ;)
-
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Why would the blue line reach the eye?
-
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Why would the blue line reach the eye?
Because it's in the field of view.
So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?
-
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Why would the blue line reach the eye?
Because it's in the field of view.
So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?
No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.
-
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Why would the blue line reach the eye?
Because it's in the field of view.
So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?
No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.
Ok, not sure what that means. But if I am seeing an amount of an object that is greater than 2" in real life, what would prevent me from seeing the blue line?
-
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Why would the blue line reach the eye?
Because it's in the field of view.
So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?
No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.
Ok, not sure what that means. But if I am seeing an amount of an object that is greater than 2" in real life, what would prevent me from seeing the blue line?
Nothing would stop you seeing the blue line with a fish eye, human eye, wide view, lens.
You have a great field of view. But I'm not talking about that so why are you people using it?
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
-
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/PJaBULc.png)
Why would the blue line reach the eye?
Because it is light, travelling through the air, with no obstruction to stop it. Without the tube there, it gets there just fine, and the tube clearly doesn't obstruct the path.
If there was no tube, do you think the blue line would get there?
Do I need to rephrase it?
Why can the green line reach the eye, but not the blue one?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
And don't forget the other one:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.
Again, does the building magically compress to be only 2 inches tall?
If not, you need to have light come from above and/or below the tube just like that blue line.
Nothing would stop you seeing the blue line with a fish eye, human eye, wide view, lens.
You have a great field of view. But I'm not talking about that so why are you people using it?
Because it clearly establishes that the blue line is capable of reaching the eye.
Just like the orange line is also capable of reaching the eye when no tube is used.
So the issue is what does the tube do?
It is clear that it blocks the orange line, because that would otherwise intersect the tube.
i.e. in order for the orange line to reach your eye, with the tube there, it needs to go through the wall of the tube.
But that isn't the case for the blue line, so what stops the blue line?
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
It's like mining. Endless repetition with very little reward.
Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...
Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.
-
Haha yes almost there.
A new nugget of revelation.
"Compressed"
JackB
Can you add a far away tree.
And then add ever shrinking tree that fits the field of view.
While noting the bottom of the tree is NOT in line with the blue line.
So the tube limits the fov and the trees bottom is cut off to the viewer?
-
@JackBlack
Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
IF I understand your question properly AND scepti's posit - the answer is more tubes in front of the first one! I think that is why he felt they were so critical.
I don't think you understand it right, because more tubes won't help.
He only felt two (is it now three?) tubes was critical well after pictures were posted proving him wrong. Then he added more conditions, like multiple tubes.
But more tubes can't save him. You can add as many tubes as you like, that blue line will always exist. All you can do is change the angle of the blue line, you can't make that blue line go away. You can always see downward (or upward, or sideways) out of a non-infinite tube.
We are talking about a gradient and level sighting through a tube.
You cheated and it's clear to see why.
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
-
For the upteenth time
What is the purpose of the experiment.
What physical property of seeing things through a tube do you hope to achieve or acomplish.
If you saw in one dimension, or near zero field of view
And looked straight level
All you would see is sky.
This is admited in jackBs circle diagram model of a globle and can be addmitted in your flat earth theory as well.
So yoyre not proving anything useful
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
I did. And you changed it. And I did it again. And you changed it again.
Show me where I cheated. Point out what in the photos shows I tilted the tube or did whatever it is you are accusing me of.
Don't just call me a liar. That's just attacking me, not my experiment.
I've proven you wrong this entire thread. If all you have are insults, maybe that should tell you something.
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
It's like mining. Endless repetition with very little reward.
Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...
Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.
Yeah, like a computer game, once you've been through the grind once it loses it's appeal.
I know what you mean about the nuggets though. Occasionally he gets so trapped in a corner and people stop him doing his normal diversions (having to explain gravity in your own words is a favourite) he has to invent something completely new. The kitchen roll compression one is pretty amusing.
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
Why was this ok as a proposed experiment a ways back?
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/yrFkf9Z.jpg)
Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.
Is this an acceptable set up?
Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):
(https://i.imgur.com/uUfSGMX.png)
With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pOAIIHa.jpg)
The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY6Nrj0.png)
Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.
And now it's not and you need two tubes 5' apart and plumb line. What changed? Your main gripe at the time was there wasn't some sort of uncut video showing the level tube from the side swinging around to the back, viewing end, showing the level view. Why change the experiment?
-
For the upteenth time
What is the purpose of the experiment.
What physical property of seeing things through a tube do you hope to achieve or acomplish.
If you saw in one dimension, or near zero field of view
And looked straight level
All you would see is sky.
This is admited in jackBs circle diagram model of a globle and can be addmitted in your flat earth theory as well.
So yoyre not proving anything useful
So you admit you can't see a downward curve oir stood level plumb and level on a gradient with a level tube.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along.
Someone needs to tell JJA.
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
I did. And you changed it. And I did it again. And you changed it again.
Show me where I cheated. Point out what in the photos shows I tilted the tube or did whatever it is you are accusing me of.
Don't just call me a liar. That's just attacking me, not my experiment.
I've proven you wrong this entire thread. If all you have are insults, maybe that should tell you something.
All you've done is proven yourself to be insincere.
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
Why was this ok as a proposed experiment a ways back?
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/yrFkf9Z.jpg)
Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.
Is this an acceptable set up?
Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):
(https://i.imgur.com/uUfSGMX.png)
With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pOAIIHa.jpg)
The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY6Nrj0.png)
Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.
And now it's not and you need two tubes 5' apart and plumb line. What changed? Your main gripe at the time was there wasn't some sort of uncut video showing the level tube from the side swinging around to the back, viewing end, showing the level view. Why change the experiment?
I'm still waiting for your set up you said you'd do.
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
It's like mining. Endless repetition with very little reward.
Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...
Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.
Yeah, like a computer game, once you've been through the grind once it loses it's appeal.
I know what you mean about the nuggets though. Occasionally he gets so trapped in a corner and people stop him doing his normal diversions (having to explain gravity in your own words is a favourite) he has to invent something completely new. The kitchen roll compression one is pretty amusing.
The desperate craziness when pressed is pretty good. Its also kind of silly though, we end up with Magic Laser Vision Kitchen rolls to rescue his bizarre idea that you can not see an apparent edge of a round object. (although... Maybe that is why I have such a hard time finding my beer)
My favorite though is still the moon. Not only is there no moon, not only is it just a hologram, but it is in fact a ...
Magic Reflected Hologram.
Learn something everyday
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
It's like mining. Endless repetition with very little reward.
Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...
Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.
Yeah, like a computer game, once you've been through the grind once it loses it's appeal.
I know what you mean about the nuggets though. Occasionally he gets so trapped in a corner and people stop him doing his normal diversions (having to explain gravity in your own words is a favourite) he has to invent something completely new. The kitchen roll compression one is pretty amusing.
The desperate craziness when pressed is pretty good. Its also kind of silly though, we end up with Magic Laser Vision Kitchen rolls to rescue his bizarre idea that you can not see an apparent edge of a round object. (although... Maybe that is why I have such a hard time finding my beer)
My favorite though is still the moon. Not only is there no moon, not only is it just a hologram, but it is in fact a ...
Magic Reflected Hologram.
Learn something everyday
I'm glad you are learning.
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
Why was this ok as a proposed experiment a ways back?
Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.
Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/yrFkf9Z.jpg)
Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.
Is this an acceptable set up?
Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):
(https://i.imgur.com/uUfSGMX.png)
With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pOAIIHa.jpg)
The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY6Nrj0.png)
Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.
And now it's not and you need two tubes 5' apart and plumb line. What changed? Your main gripe at the time was there wasn't some sort of uncut video showing the level tube from the side swinging around to the back, viewing end, showing the level view. Why change the experiment?
I'm still waiting for your set up you said you'd do.
Of course you simply dodge the question: What changed?
I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."
You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.
-
I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."
You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.
It's clear you are trying to figure a way out of it, because I've backed you into a corner.
You whine about me making the test more stringent but you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side against mine.
You clearly cannot.
Maybe check back to who's being sincere.
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
Too true, Jimmy!
At page 100, Sceptimatic is automatically elevated to moderator status, and one of the current moderators (of his choice) must step down. (Much like Trump)
This is quite a crowning achievement for sceptimatic and the flat earth society. You couldn't push this much s#!t uphill, but sceptimatic has managed to push it for 100 pages, (and he doesn't even think earth is flat. :-*)
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
Too true, Jimmy!
At page 100, Sceptimatic is automatically elevated to moderator status, and one of the current moderators (of his choice) must step down. (Much like Trump)
This is quite a crowning achievement for sceptimatic and the flat earth society. You couldn't push this much s#!t uphill, but sceptimatic has managed to push it for 100 pages, (and he doesn't even think earth is flat. :-*)
When you see Bull and smell Bull and then literally look around you to see you're surrounded by Bull crap, then the conclusion has to be simple. Don't get trampled by it or bogged down in it.
Thankfully I walk around it but I still throw the odd field buoy to those like yourself who look like they're sinking in it, only to find you're wallowing.
-
If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.
I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
I did. And you changed it. And I did it again. And you changed it again.
Show me where I cheated. Point out what in the photos shows I tilted the tube or did whatever it is you are accusing me of.
Don't just call me a liar. That's just attacking me, not my experiment.
I've proven you wrong this entire thread. If all you have are insults, maybe that should tell you something.
All you've done is proven yourself to be insincere.
How? You never give any details.
You keep calling me a liar and insulting me, and every time you provide no reasons. No evidence. Nothing.
It's a perfect example of attacking the messenger because you can't argue with the photos shown.
-
OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!
Just 6 more pages to push through now. I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.
Too true, Jimmy!
At page 100, Sceptimatic is automatically elevated to moderator status, and one of the current moderators (of his choice) must step down. (Much like Trump)
This is not scepti's first rodeo. He's got a few 100 page threads under his belt already. Though some got a lot shorter after he deleted all his own posts during a tantrum.
I'm just helping you guys out now with a bit of padding.
-
For the upteenth time
What is the purpose of the experiment.
What physical property of seeing things through a tube do you hope to achieve or acomplish.
If you saw in one dimension, or near zero field of view
And looked straight level
All you would see is sky.
This is admited in jackBs circle diagram model of a globle and can be addmitted in your flat earth theory as well.
So yoyre not proving anything useful
So you admit you can't see a downward curve oir stood level plumb and level on a gradient with a level tube.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along.
Someone needs to tell JJA.
Great everybody!
Scepoy just accepted a round earth curves away from you so that ships disapear bottom up because you cant see past the curve *.
Lets all go home now.
Congrats sceppy.
Great start off for the year.
(* Disclaimer - refracrtion)
Big year for you.
-
I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."
You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.
It's clear you are trying to figure a way out of it, because I've backed you into a corner.
You whine about me making the test more stringent but you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side against mine.
You clearly cannot.
Maybe check back to who's being sincere.
It's painfully clear that you are still dodging the simple question. Why did you change the experiment?
Why did you change it from a tube, with crosshairs, leveled, showing it's leveled throughout the experiment, to now:
2 tubes, 5' apart with a plumb bob somewhere in front of that
I'm not whining about you changing it, just asking why you did. I mean it's the definition of moving the goal posts and gives me pause to bother going through all that just to have you move them again. That's clear to everyone. Why it's not to you is the mystifying part. And the only reason why someone moves the goal posts and refuses to explain why they moved the goal posts is because they are backed into a corner. That, as well, is clear to everyone.
So why the change?
And have you done the 2 tubes 5' apart w/ crosshairs and a plumb bob with video showing level all the way through the experiment? If so, what were your results? Can we see the video? I'd like to know that you have validated it's right experiment/set-up before you change it again.
-
Sceppy do an experinent?
What??
Better luck getting heiwy to show us the meony exists for hsi stupid challenge
-
So you admit you can't see a downward curve oir stood level plumb and level on a gradient with a level tube.
No, he didn't.
Instead he said it depends on the FOV.
Again, 2 diagrams to clearly show this, first for a constant slope:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
The diagram has a single FOV (shown by the brown lines), and 3 different gradients.
The black one is going down at an angle that is half the FOV. As it is parallel, it will never be seen and remains the same vertical distance below the FOV at all times. It doesn't matter how the height is adjusted, if you start above the gradient, it will never be seen.
The blue one is going down at an angle much greater than half the FOV, and thus it gets further and further away. It will never be inside the FOV, and again that applies regardless of height.
But the purple one, which has a gradient less than half the FOV, is within the FOV.
As the gradient is less, the distance between it and the FOV gets smaller and smaller as you go out and thus it eventually enters the FOV.
This applies regardless of exactly what the slope is and how high above the ground you are.
So for a constant slope, the determining factor is if the gradient of the slope is less than half the FOV.
If it is, the slope can be seen eventually. If it isn't, it can't.
But for a curve, it is more complex than that. That is because the curve starts out like the purple line, with a gradient much less than the FOV (technically it starts out at 0), but as the distance increases, so does the slope, where it eventually gets to the black line, and then the blue line. One thing which can be useful to compare is a line tangent to the globe reaching the eye (i.e. the angle to the horizon). If this is included in the FOV (i.e. if this angle is less than half the FOV) you will see the curve, if it isn't, you won't.
Again, here is a simple diagram to illustrate that:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
We have 3 FOVs, at 2 different heights, and a single curve.
Starting with the high observation point, we have a purple line tangent to Earth going to the observation point. We see this angle is much less than the half of the brown FOV. As such, the brown FOV can see this curve.
The FOV intersects the curve at a slope much less than half the FOV.
But the much smaller top yellow FOV, has a FOV such that half the angle is now less than the angle to the horizon. This means that it can't see the ground. While the ground starts on a path that would intersect, it curves away too soon and/or too quickly and thus doesn't enter the FOV.
However, if we move this yellow FOV down, we get the bottom one. As this has a new observation point, it also gets a new line tangent to Earth, i.e. a new horizon and a new angle to the horizon. But at this new height this angle is now less than half the FOV so at this height it can be seen.
So with a curve, rather than just the FOV and a simple gradient determining it, it is determined by the radius of Earth, the size of the FOV, and the height of the observer.
i.e. the FOV must be greater than 2 times the angle of dip to the line tangent to the curve.
and the line tangent to the curve can be calculated as:
acos(r/(r+h)).
i.e. in order for the curve to be seen, then this must be true:
FOV>=2*acos(r/(r+h))
For a more complex curved path it obviously gets more complex.
But regardless, in both cases it is NEVER a simple case of THE GROUND CAN'T BE SEEN!
The only way to do that is have a FOV of 0.
Because a FOV of 0 will always result in half the FOV being less than the downwards slope, and always result in it being less than the angle to the horizon.
And that is what he said, a FOV of 0, or close enough to 0, you just see sky.
But with a large enough FOV, you see the ground.
That is what you need to let sink in. That is what you need to understand. That is what you need to refute to justify your position.
-
I see you chose to ignore the questions again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.
He did, the results showed you were wrong. Again, why don't you do the experiment and provide your results?
And again, the only reason you have for dismissing it as illegitimate is that it shows you are wrong.
So do you think "legitimate" means agrees with your fantasies?
All you've done is proven yourself to be insincere.
Projecting again I see.
He proved you were wrong, beyond any reasonable doubt.
But rather than even consider the evidence, as it demonstrated you were wrong, you rejected it and tried to make the experiment so much harder, for no valid reason.
You didn't provide any valid justification (it not agreeing with your lies, which it was provided to refute, is not justification); nor did you provide evidence to counter it.
The sole "reason" you dismiss it, is because it doesn't agree with your baseless lie, i.e. it shows you are wrong.
This shows you are insincere, not him.
And remember, all of this is based upon your entirely baseless claim that you refuse to justify in any away.
The burden is not on us to show your ridiculous claim is wrong, even though we have done so repeatedly in several ways.
The burden is on you to substantiate your claim, which you refuse to do, likely because you know you can't.
If you were sincere you would either accept the evidence and accept that you are wrong, or go out and do it yourself and post the evidence here.
I'm still waiting for your set up you said you'd do.
But you have now already rejected that setup.
JJA basically used that setup.
He had a level on the tube to show the tube was level, and took a photo through the tube showing clearly that you can see ground.
And you rejected it solely on the basis of it showing you were wrong.
Likewise, you refuse to commit. You refuse to accept or provide a set of conditions, such that when someone does the experiment following those conditions and gets and provides a result that does not agree with your claim you will simply admit you are wrong rather than dismissing it for the simple fact it shows you are wrong.
So what is the point in him doing it?
Will you accept it if he does it?
Or does he also need to jump through all the extra hoops you have provided with no justification?
because I've backed you into a corner.
You have backed no one into a corner.
The only one backed into a corner here is you, and you just continually ignore it.
You whine about me making the test more stringent
If someone was conning you, they could still meet all the same pathetic extras you have added on.
Your nonsensical complications merely make the entire thing more complex.
It in no way makes it a more accurate or honest test.
If anything, it is now nothing like your original test and original claim.
Your original claim was looking through a small kitchen roll tube, with it held to your eye.
Your new BS has 2 tubes and an extra 7 ft throw in. Last time I checked, holding a tube up to my eye is not holding it 7 ft away.
And you still haven't committed to accepting the results.
So why should anyone accept it?
If it is provided, you will just dismiss it and throw in even more needless complications.
you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side against mine.
The issue is not if it can be provided. It quite clearly can be provided and has repeatedly. Both in the form of actual evidence from reality, and in the form of a pure logical argument which cannot be as easily dismissed because you can't simply dismiss a logical argument as someone conning you.
The issue is if you will accept it.
Also notice which you engage with far more. For the logical arguments you just repeatedly ignore them or deflect.
It is only the evidence you even attempt to engage with, as you can easily make the conditions more ridiculously complex and claim that it is being faked.
Again, it is quite clear who is the one being insincere.
It is the one making baseless claims while repeatedly refusing to justify them.
It is the one who continually refuses to provide evidence.
It is the one dismissing evidence that shows they are wrong merely because it shows they are wrong.
It is the one adding needless complexities (which don't help in any way) in an attempt to pretend their dismissal is justified.
It is the one repeatedly ignoring simple questions and logical arguments which show beyond any sane doubt that they are wrong.
And that one is you, not us.
-
Why is the little man in the diagram dressed in a bright yellow chicken little costume
Could be a duck suit and he just got done trolling Nathan Thompson.
-
I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."
You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.
It's clear you are trying to figure a way out of it, because I've backed you into a corner.
You whine about me making the test more stringent but you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side against mine.
You clearly cannot.
Maybe check back to who's being sincere.
It's painfully clear that you are still dodging the simple question. Why did you change the experiment?
Why did you change it from a tube, with crosshairs, leveled, showing it's leveled throughout the experiment, to now:
2 tubes, 5' apart with a plumb bob somewhere in front of that
I'm not whining about you changing it, just asking why you did. I mean it's the definition of moving the goal posts and gives me pause to bother going through all that just to have you move them again. That's clear to everyone. Why it's not to you is the mystifying part. And the only reason why someone moves the goal posts and refuses to explain why they moved the goal posts is because they are backed into a corner. That, as well, is clear to everyone.
So why the change?
And have you done the 2 tubes 5' apart w/ crosshairs and a plumb bob with video showing level all the way through the experiment? If so, what were your results? Can we see the video? I'd like to know that you have validated it's right experiment/set-up before you change it again.
You don't have to change it. Just use the two tubes with crosshairs as I showed.
The extra was just a little bit more visual clarity on the level on the gradient.
Let's see what you produce without it or don't. It's up to you.
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
-
Sceppy do an experinent?
What??
Better luck getting heiwy to show us the meony exists for hsi stupid challenge
Stop getting wound up and take your time.
-
I see you chose to ignore the questions again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
I explained it. If your internet mates are honest they will show you.
It's not too many posts back.
-
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Yes I am telling the truth.
Once again you are insulting me and claiming I'm a liar without any evidence or reasons other than you don't like my results.
I did not angle it down. Anyone can do the same experiment I did and see that.
Where are the pictures you took of this experiment? What's the dimensions of the tube? How high off the ground was it? How did you determine it was level? How did you ensure your view was centered?
Post all the pictures of your experiment you took to carefully record your observations.
-
I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."
You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.
It's clear you are trying to figure a way out of it, because I've backed you into a corner.
You whine about me making the test more stringent but you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side against mine.
You clearly cannot.
Maybe check back to who's being sincere.
It's painfully clear that you are still dodging the simple question. Why did you change the experiment?
Why did you change it from a tube, with crosshairs, leveled, showing it's leveled throughout the experiment, to now:
2 tubes, 5' apart with a plumb bob somewhere in front of that
I'm not whining about you changing it, just asking why you did. I mean it's the definition of moving the goal posts and gives me pause to bother going through all that just to have you move them again. That's clear to everyone. Why it's not to you is the mystifying part. And the only reason why someone moves the goal posts and refuses to explain why they moved the goal posts is because they are backed into a corner. That, as well, is clear to everyone.
So why the change?
And have you done the 2 tubes 5' apart w/ crosshairs and a plumb bob with video showing level all the way through the experiment? If so, what were your results? Can we see the video? I'd like to know that you have validated it's right experiment/set-up before you change it again.
You don't have to change it. Just use the two tubes with crosshairs as I showed.
The extra was just a little bit more visual clarity on the level on the gradient.
Let's see what you produce without it or don't. It's up to you.
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
But you never took the photo to prove us all wrong?
We have to take your (some anonymous guy on the net who cant do basic math or use english) word at it while rejecting the word of others who have taken photos and videos?
Yes... makes sense.
-
I see you chose to ignore the questions again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
I explained it. If your internet mates are honest they will show you.
It's not too many posts back.
Words thrown back.
If you were honest you would show us the photo and prove us wrong.
Teach the world something.
-
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Yes I am telling the truth.
Once again you are insulting me and claiming I'm a liar without any evidence or reasons other than you don't like my results.
I did not angle it down. Anyone can do the same experiment I did and see that.
I know for certain that you did angle it down.
You won't do the further one's because you didn't expect to be hit with them. You thought you had an easy ride in dupoing.
You picked on the wrong one.
-
But you never took the photo to prove us all wrong?
We have to take your (some anonymous guy on the net who cant do basic math or use english) word at it while rejecting the word of others who have taken photos and videos?
Yes... makes sense.
You people spend most of your time calling me a liar and everything else. I accept it all and have no complaints.
I have nothing to prove to you people.
What I put forward is there for anyone to ponder or experiment on.
You people are here to guard the nonsense of a globe and are doing it by the book, as I would expect.
What I hope for is legitimate people to do it by their own free mind and question.
I admire anyone that does but I understand why most will not. Nobody wants to take part in questioning amid mass ridicule of you people when you lot go into posse mode.
I'm different. I stick to my guns when I believe I have a case, whether 1 million of you tell me I'm nuts and do not.
-
I see you chose to ignore the questions again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
I explained it. If your internet mates are honest they will show you.
It's not too many posts back.
Words thrown back.
If you were honest you would show us the photo and prove us wrong.
Teach the world something.
There's nothing I can show you that will prove you wrong. I know this.
If you believe you walk about on a 1000 mph spinning globe then I understand I have zero chance of doing anything to drain that thought process from you and nor do I care.
The one's that matter are those that can sit back and say " wait a minute...what the hell....how can we seriously be on a spinning ball."
And from that they start the whole process of realisation that they aren't.
Those are what matter. You don't.
-
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Yes I am telling the truth.
Once again you are insulting me and claiming I'm a liar without any evidence or reasons other than you don't like my results.
I did not angle it down. Anyone can do the same experiment I did and see that.
I know for certain that you did angle it down.
You won't do the further one's because you didn't expect to be hit with them. You thought you had an easy ride in dupoing.
You picked on the wrong one.
No you don't know because you can't provide any reason.
You just continue to call me a liar, as you just did again.
So... where are YOUR photos? Why are you afraid to post anything but calling people liars and insults?
Why won't you post pictures of your experiment that you claimed you performed?
-
You have nothing to show us because
There is nothing
Or
You lie and have not done the experiment
Either way both show failures on your behalf
-
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Yes I am telling the truth.
Once again you are insulting me and claiming I'm a liar without any evidence or reasons other than you don't like my results.
I did not angle it down. Anyone can do the same experiment I did and see that.
I know for certain that you did angle it down.
You won't do the further one's because you didn't expect to be hit with them. You thought you had an easy ride in dupoing.
You picked on the wrong one.
No you don't know because you can't provide any reason.
You just continue to call me a liar, as you just did again.
So... where are YOUR photos? Why are you afraid to post anything but calling people liars and insults?
Why won't you post pictures of your experiment that you claimed you performed?
To be fair you're likely a genuine person is everyday life.
I more think you're in denial rather than being a deliberate liar.
Most likely an embarrassment thing of believing you're scientific and realising you just may not be living on what you were told.
You're not alone on that score.
I was once a global believer and no way in hell would I be told it was different.
But...you know.... it just takes a bit of thought and the ability to not feel like you have to follow the crowd or the comfort of a back pat for ongoing conformity to the mainstream accepted stories.
-
You have nothing to show us because
There is nothing
Or
You lie and have not done the experiment
Either way both show failures on your behalf
I understand the way you think. I'm fine with it.
-
Let's put it this way.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
I ask any genuine person (not a globalist) to do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Yes I am telling the truth.
Once again you are insulting me and claiming I'm a liar without any evidence or reasons other than you don't like my results.
I did not angle it down. Anyone can do the same experiment I did and see that.
I know for certain that you did angle it down.
You won't do the further one's because you didn't expect to be hit with them. You thought you had an easy ride in dupoing.
You picked on the wrong one.
No you don't know because you can't provide any reason.
You just continue to call me a liar, as you just did again.
So... where are YOUR photos? Why are you afraid to post anything but calling people liars and insults?
Why won't you post pictures of your experiment that you claimed you performed?
To be fair you're likely a genuine person is everyday life.
I more think you're in denial rather than being a deliberate liar.
Most likely an embarrassment thing of believing you're scientific and realising you just may not be living on what you were told.
You're not alone on that score.
I was once a global believer and no way in hell would I be told it was different.
But...you know.... it just takes a bit of thought and the ability to not feel like you have to follow the crowd or the comfort of a back pat for ongoing conformity to the mainstream accepted stories.
Nice evasion. Another standard distraction and diversion from everything I said, again.
What are you even trying to say? That I'm somehow tilting the tube down because of denial? How does that even make any sense? YOu have yet to show one shred of evidence that my tube is tilted.
Yet you continue to refuse to even post a single picture, let alone a series of photos and explaining the size and details of your setup.
Through this entire debate, all you have done is call me a liar, dishonest, a fake and a fraud... and have provided ZERO evidence and done ZERO work.
I think the one in denial here is you... who can't even back up their claims about looking through a tube.
If you want to feel special because you make up your own version of the world, whatever. But don't go calling others liars because you don't like being reminded of the truth.
-
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube, and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight.
Lol. He "leveled" it FROM a level start point.
I imagine it went something like this -
1. Use a level
2. Look through the tube
3. See the ground through the tube
4. "Know" this cant be the case
5. Re-"level" the tube by pointing it upwards so you can no longer see the ground, as if you see the ground it cant be level.
6. Cheer you own genius and ponder the holographic moon.
-
I see you chose to ignore the questions again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
I explained it. If your internet mates are honest they will show you.
It's not too many posts back.
No, you didn't.
You repeatedly ignored it.
If you think you did, link to where you did, because I can't see it anywhere.
The closest you came to it was just throwing the question back.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
You don't have to change it. Just use the two tubes with crosshairs as I showed.
i.e. he has to change it.
His initial setup was a single tube, on a spirit level with a camera pointing into it.
There were no cross hairs and no second tube.
But now you are saying he needs 2 tubes and crosshairs on them.
That is a massive change.
So again why the change?
Was it just because JJA met your requirements, showing you the level on the tube, clearly demonstrating that even with a level tube you can still see the ground?
i.e. you were wrong, so you threw in needless complexity.
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight, so here's the thing. Am I telling lies and JJA is telling the truth with his set up DOWN a gradient?
Care to provide a photo? Or any kind of evidence?
And what kind of tube? A tiny drinking straw?
As you have shown that you are quite happy to lie, and you provide no evidence at all to justify your position, while JJA has provided evidence, I will accept that you are the liar here.
Also note that this directly contradicts your claim that the horizon is always at eye level.
If it was at eye level, why isn't it visible through the tube?
If anything, the rising slope should make it above eye level.
So either way, you are wrong. Either wrong that your experiment didn't let you see ground, or wrong that the horizon should always be at eye level.
Or both.
I know for certain that you did angle it down.
How? Just because it shows you are wrong and you "know" you can't be wrong?
Because there is nothing at all to indicate it was pointing down.
You won't do the further one's
For the simple reason that all you have done is needlessly complicate the experiment and reduce the FOV, with no justification at all for what magically makes it level.
Again, if someone was conning you by pointing the tube down, they would just con you by pointing your ridiculous setup down.
You people spend most of your time calling me a liar and everything else.
And providing evidence that shows you are wrong which you simply dismiss as fake with no justification and logical arguments that show you are wrong which you simply ignore or look for a pathetic excuse to get out of.
You people are here to guard the nonsense
If anything, we are here to guard the truth from your nonsense, and are doing quite well at it considering how much you need to ignore.
What I hope for is legitimate people to do it by their own free mind and question.
You mean for gullible fools to just accept your nonsense without thinking.
I'm different. I stick to my guns when I believe I have a case
Yet you clearly have no case.
If you did, you would have provided your own evidence and dealt with the logical arguments and simple questions.
There's nothing I can show you that will prove you wrong. I know this.
Sure there is.
Take a photo of the horizon from the top of a tall mountain, clearly showing it is at eye level. Preferably use a water level setup where the entire tube is visible and preferably with a video where you rotate the tube to show the water clearly flowing.
Alternatively, show a photo of a series of rules at different distances through a tube clearly showing how you see the exact same amount of the ruler.
Or actually address the arguments provided to show what is wrong with them and answer the simple questions.
If you believe you walk about on a 1000 mph spinning globe then I understand I have zero chance of doing anything to drain that thought process from you and nor do I care.
You mean to stop us accepting what all the evidence shows?
-
... do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Ok, enough dilly-dallying, let's cut to the chase.
What camera do I need to use?
-
Sceptimatic, could you define what you mean, when you say you believe the earth is definitely not a globe and is instead, "flattish"?
I must say, your choice of a rounded earth model in your avatar, while you are arguing there is no curvature to the earth, is interesting. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was a freudian slip, or your way of telling everyone your true thoughts.
But, getting back to your favourite topic the horizon..................
This is what you believe about the horizon, isn't it?
(https://i.ibb.co/nP7BYsw/one-point-perspective-demo.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/F3T81HL/perspective3.png)
All lines converge at a theoretical horizon, yes?
If so, you would agree then, that the lines of any level surface must line up perfectly with the horizon?
-
Through this entire debate, all you have done is call me a liar, dishonest, a fake and a fraud... and have provided ZERO evidence and done ZERO work.
Stop being so dramatic.
I receive it all from your lot en masse, so pull yourself together. It's not just one way traffic.
I think the one in denial here is you... who can't even back up their claims about looking through a tube.
I'm fine with the basics. You are not. It seems to scare you.
If you want to feel special because you make up your own version of the world, whatever. But don't go calling others liars because you don't like being reminded of the truth.
There are no truth's coming from your end.
-
I've looked up my street with nothing more than a plastic tube, and levelled it at a specific place from a level start point.
Up my street the gradient actually rises a little bit.
I do not see the road below my sight.
Lol. He "leveled" it FROM a level start point.
I imagine it went something like this -
1. Use a level
2. Look through the tube
3. See the ground through the tube
4. "Know" this cant be the case
5. Re-"level" the tube by pointing it upwards so you can no longer see the ground, as if you see the ground it cant be level.
6. Cheer you own genius and ponder the holographic moon.
It starts like this.
Stand up with your tube level.
Look up your street at that height and level.
Observe the car, wall, building within that direct vision and see no road or path.
Go out and try it and you are welcome to do it whilst laughing...but don't hold the tube or it'll unbalance it.
Looking through a telescope or naked eye or anything with a curved lens does not give you any brownie points with me but you may get a few pats on your little back from your internet mates, just for attempting to be clever.
If it's cold where you are, I suggest wrapping up warm. ;)
-
No, you didn't.
You repeatedly ignored it.
No. You repeatedly ignored it because it doesn't suit.
-
... do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Ok, enough dilly-dallying, let's cut to the chase.
What camera do I need to use?
Any camera you want to use as long as it can show the set up and direct through the crosshairs.
-
No, you didn't.
You repeatedly ignored it.
If you think you did, link to where you did, because I can't see it anywhere.
The closest you came to it was just throwing the question back.
No. You repeatedly ignored it because it doesn't suit.
I didn't ignore it because there was nothing to ignore. Like I said, if you think you have answered the simple questions, link to the post(s) where you did.
Your refusal to answer them again or link to the post where they were answered just shows that you have no answer and that you know the questions destroy your BS.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
I receive it all from your lot en masse, so pull yourself together. It's not just one way traffic.
Again, the fundamental difference is that is all you have, while you are being countered with evidence and logic which you simply ignore or dismiss.
I think the one in denial here is you... who can't even back up their claims about looking through a tube.
I'm fine with the basics. You are not. It seems to scare you.
If it scared him so much, why did he provide the photos showing you are wrong?
There are no truth's coming from your end.
Projecting again I see.
-
Sceptimatic, could you define what you mean, when you say you believe the earth is definitely not a globe and is instead, "flattish"?
I must say, your choice of a rounded earth model in your avatar, while you are arguing there is no curvature to the earth, is interesting. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was a freudian slip, or your way of telling everyone your true thoughts.
But, getting back to your favourite topic the horizon..................
This is what you believe about the horizon, isn't it?
(https://i.ibb.co/nP7BYsw/one-point-perspective-demo.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/F3T81HL/perspective3.png)
All lines converge at a theoretical horizon, yes?
If so, you would agree then, that the lines of any level surface must line up perfectly with the horizon?
Let me put this to you and I'll make it plain, in bold.
Do you seriously think the word, converge means parallel?
I'm pretty sure you can accept that this could not be a physical case.
Ok, so that leaves a theoretical convergence, whether it's a naked eye vanishing point or a theoretical horizon.
Something has to make that convergence which is amount of light from all sides, back to the eye.
For this to happen, you need different densities of matter to reflect that light back to our eye.
It creates a compression of that light from our focal point.
-
I didn't ignore it because there was nothing to ignore.
Which is why you repeatedly copy and paste.
-
Through this entire debate, all you have done is call me a liar, dishonest, a fake and a fraud... and have provided ZERO evidence and done ZERO work.
Stop being so dramatic.
I receive it all from your lot en masse, so pull yourself together. It's not just one way traffic.
It is one way traffic. Everyone else does all the work, you do nothing.
Dramatic is you saying that everyone else is lying to you and trying to trick you. Over a tube. Really.
Where are your pictures?
I think the one in denial here is you... who can't even back up their claims about looking through a tube.
I'm fine with the basics. You are not. It seems to scare you.
What basics? You haven't provided any.
Where are your pictures?
If you want to feel special because you make up your own version of the world, whatever. But don't go calling others liars because you don't like being reminded of the truth.
There are no truth's coming from your end.
There isn't ANYTHING coming from your end. My photos and truth is easily verified by anyone.
Where are your pictures?
-
Through this entire debate, all you have done is call me a liar, dishonest, a fake and a fraud... and have provided ZERO evidence and done ZERO work.
Stop being so dramatic.
I receive it all from your lot en masse, so pull yourself together. It's not just one way traffic.
It is one way traffic. Everyone else does all the work, you do nothing.
Dramatic is you saying that everyone else is lying to you and trying to trick you. Over a tube. Really.
Where are your pictures?
I think the one in denial here is you... who can't even back up their claims about looking through a tube.
I'm fine with the basics. You are not. It seems to scare you.
What basics? You haven't provided any.
Where are your pictures?
If you want to feel special because you make up your own version of the world, whatever. But don't go calling others liars because you don't like being reminded of the truth.
There are no truth's coming from your end.
There isn't ANYTHING coming from your end. My photos and truth is easily verified by anyone.
Where are your pictures?
When the heat was on, you backed away.
I'm ok with that. Just leave it at that.
I don't buy into your excuse that you couldn't find another end roll tube...but it doesn't matter now.
Never assume you're just going to be able to play little games and think I'm going to accept them without ensuring they are done properly.
-
When the heat was on, you backed away.
I'm ok with that. Just leave it at that.
I don't buy into your excuse that you couldn't find another end roll tube...but it doesn't matter now.
Never assume you're just going to be able to play little games and think I'm going to accept them without ensuring they are done properly.
Quit making up things that I never said.
Where are your pictures of the experiment you so carefully performed? Why won't you show them? What are you afraid of?
-
When the heat was on, you backed away.
I'm ok with that. Just leave it at that.
I don't buy into your excuse that you couldn't find another end roll tube...but it doesn't matter now.
Never assume you're just going to be able to play little games and think I'm going to accept them without ensuring they are done properly.
Quit making up things that I never said.
Where are your pictures of the experiment you so carefully performed? Why won't you show them? What are you afraid of?
If you want to carry on crying then let's do it in pm because this is becoming pointless.
Pm me if you decide to carry this on and don't get an answer from me in this topic.
If you feel you can do the experiment I set out then we can re-engage.
-
When the heat was on, you backed away.
I'm ok with that. Just leave it at that.
I don't buy into your excuse that you couldn't find another end roll tube...but it doesn't matter now.
Never assume you're just going to be able to play little games and think I'm going to accept them without ensuring they are done properly.
Quit making up things that I never said.
Where are your pictures of the experiment you so carefully performed? Why won't you show them? What are you afraid of?
If you want to carry on crying then let's do it in pm because this is becoming pointless.
Pm me if you decide to carry this on and don't get an answer from me in this topic.
If you feel you can do the experiment I set out then we can re-engage.
So now you are running away to avoid having to explain why you won't post all the pictures and documentation of your very carefully performed experiment that proves all of us wrong?
If you want to run away that's fine. I and others have posted plenty of actual evidence and experimental photos that stand up quite well in the total lack of anything from you.
You have spent a hundred pages issuing your demands and making claims. Surely you can handle being asked to show your own results.
Post all the pictures that show your experiment as you have described it, and demanded from others.
-
When the heat was on, you backed away.
I'm ok with that. Just leave it at that.
I don't buy into your excuse that you couldn't find another end roll tube...but it doesn't matter now.
Never assume you're just going to be able to play little games and think I'm going to accept them without ensuring they are done properly.
Quit making up things that I never said.
Where are your pictures of the experiment you so carefully performed? Why won't you show them? What are you afraid of?
If you want to carry on crying then let's do it in pm because this is becoming pointless.
Pm me if you decide to carry this on and don't get an answer from me in this topic.
If you feel you can do the experiment I set out then we can re-engage.
So now you are running away to avoid having to explain why you won't post all the pictures and documentation of your very carefully performed experiment that proves all of us wrong?
If you want to run away that's fine. I and others have posted plenty of actual evidence and experimental photos that stand up quite well in the total lack of anything from you.
You have spent a hundred pages issuing your demands and making claims. Surely you can handle being asked to show your own results.
Post all the pictures that show your experiment as you have described it, and demanded from others.
Pm me.
-
When the heat was on, you backed away.
I'm ok with that. Just leave it at that.
I don't buy into your excuse that you couldn't find another end roll tube...but it doesn't matter now.
Never assume you're just going to be able to play little games and think I'm going to accept them without ensuring they are done properly.
Quit making up things that I never said.
Where are your pictures of the experiment you so carefully performed? Why won't you show them? What are you afraid of?
If you want to carry on crying then let's do it in pm because this is becoming pointless.
Pm me if you decide to carry this on and don't get an answer from me in this topic.
If you feel you can do the experiment I set out then we can re-engage.
So now you are running away to avoid having to explain why you won't post all the pictures and documentation of your very carefully performed experiment that proves all of us wrong?
If you want to run away that's fine. I and others have posted plenty of actual evidence and experimental photos that stand up quite well in the total lack of anything from you.
You have spent a hundred pages issuing your demands and making claims. Surely you can handle being asked to show your own results.
Post all the pictures that show your experiment as you have described it, and demanded from others.
Pm me.
Why won't you just post all the pictures and documentation of your own experiment as you described it.
I accommodated you for quite a while, seems fair you post your own work now.
You are free to PM me any time you want, just as I am free to post in any thread I want. (Unless a moderator says otherwise to either.)
-
Secreacy of a private conversation?
Tha ks for sharing your knowledge with the rest of the world
-
Secreacy of a private conversation?
Tha ks for sharing your knowledge with the rest of the world
Nahhh, not really. Just saving all this whining on in the topic.
-
Pm me.
No.
Please share all your documentation and evidence, the intimate details of your "experiment." Any good experiment can withstand critical scrutiny and be performed elsewhere while achieving similar/identical results.
-
Scepti..
You talk about everyone except you being 'indoctrinated' for not 'knowing' the reality like you do. But if you do some research into the actual meaning of indoctrination you will see that historically it has been applied mostly to political or religious dictatorships. Nazi Germany being a classic case in point.
With indoctrination there is always one clear obvious source of the indoctrination. A supreme leader if you like. One person who is so passionate and committed to a single belief of ideology that they set conditions such as we see in communist regimes and the like. That is what indoctrination is really about.
Mainstream science could not be further from that. It is about a consensus of information and data which has been built up over many centuries and by many people. So many in fact that I lose track of who can be credited with which discovery. Just look at how and thick big a single volume of 'How's who' of science is. What remains though is that all the results of all the experiments and all the observations agree with each other and support each other. They can be freely and openly verified by anyone. Everything is documented. Basically the exact opposite of anything to do with your 'model'.
The evidence for science is just too much for your little brain to cope with. Your way of dealing with it? Dismiss it all as claptrap and deny all of all of it. Your 'model' is simply your way of trying to re-invent everything in a way that makes sense to you but no one else. How can all those billions and billions of water molecules possibly stick to a 'globe' you say? Well quite easily actually if you understand about gravity and the electromagnetic force.
You talk about stars, planets just being 'lights in the sky'. That's true. They are just lights in the sky to yours and my naked eye. But did you know that every source of light, whether it's just a dot of light in the sky or something bigger (like the Sun and Moon for instance) produces a spectrum? What is a spectrum? Well you probably know it better as a rainbow. Now there is a LOT of information we can glean from studying that spectrum. I mean a LOT of information. I wouldn't expect you to understand or be interested in any of that and you will simply take on the stance of denial as you always do. I would be fascinated to know what your explanation for the stars is. Some sort of holographic projection or reflection no doubt. If all the stars in the sky were just some sort of reflection from a single light source off your hypothetical dome then they would all produce the same spectral line pattern when observed through a spectroscope. Well guess what... they don't. Far from it in fact. That's how the spectral sequence was determined. Not by a single person but from contributions by many people. Feel free to deny it and dismiss it all. I'm sure you will. But its true. I have the equipment myself to analyse stellar spectra and I have done my own experiments and observations to prove it to myself.
You feel special because you think you know differently to everyone else. And since your model exists only in your hypothetical and theoretical mind then you are the only one who knows about your model. But I know a lot more about the real model that actually exists and that makes me feel even more special than you could ever imagine.
-
I didn't ignore it because there was nothing to ignore.
Which is why you repeatedly copy and paste.
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
If you actually bothered to answer them rather than repeatedly avoiding them I wouldn't need to continually copy them.
These questions easily destroy your insane claims, which is why you refuse to answer them. You have no answer that won't show your position is pure garbage.
I will keep repeating until you answer them or stop repeating the same lies.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you seriously think the word, converge means parallel?
When it is meant to be the convergence of parallel lines, YES.
That is the entire point of convergence, that parallel lines appear to converge.
The only one suggesting it is physical is you.
Most honest, rational people realise it is based upon vision and thus deal with angles and thus wouldn't claim anything as ridiculous as only being able to see 1 inch of an object through a 1 inch tube.
Something has to make that convergence
Which is simply distance making the angular size/angular separation smaller.
You don't need any magic air or anything of the like.
All you need is distance.
Or do you honestly think that if you were in a perfectly uniform medium, i.e. a constant density, then an object would visually appear to be the same size, regardless of distance to it?
When the heat was on, you backed away.
You mean when you dismissed his evidence without any valid reason, simply because it showed you were wrong, and added in a bunch of needless complexity which just serves to make the experiment harder to carry out, regardless of if one was doing it honestly or not, clearly show your objection has no merit at all and is simply because it shows you are wrong, and thus you will continue with such objections; he didn't rush out to perform your ridiculous new set up just for you to dismiss it as fake again and throw in even more conditions.
Meanwhile, he asked for a simple set of requirements from you such that when the result is provided you would simply accept it rather than dismiss it and you refused. You always want a way out, because you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong.
The question is if this is due to cognitive dissonance, or because you are a troll.
Post all the pictures that show your experiment as you have described it, and demanded from others.
Pm me.
Why?
Why can't you post your evidence into this thread like plenty of people have asked?
Is it because you have no evidence?
-
It starts like this.
Stand up with your tube level.
Look up your street at that height and level.
Observe the car, wall, building within that direct vision and see no road or path.
Oh. You must be in WorldCell 32C. Yeah, I heard the lighting is all messed up there, it’s bending all over the place in ways it shouldn’t. They should hopefully fix it soon. Also, just so you know, the gravity is off over there so they cranked up the AC to just blow things down to the ground.
We are all in the next cell over, 32B, just through the dome. Light is working right here, so roads and paths are definitely visible when viewed through cardboard tubes!
Good luck over there!
-
It starts like this.
Stand up with your tube level.
Look up your street at that height and level.
Observe the car, wall, building within that direct vision and see no road or path.
Oh. You must be in WorldCell 32C. Yeah, I heard the lighting is all messed up there, it’s bending all over the place in ways it shouldn’t. They should hopefully fix it soon. Also, just so you know, the gravity is off over there so they cranked up the AC to just blow things down to the ground.
We are all in the next cell over, 32B, just through the dome. Light is working right here, so roads and paths are definitely visible when viewed through cardboard tubes!
Good luck over there!
To be honest that sounds like a much more fun universe than ours. I wonder if they got stuck with the crappy slow light speed limit we have here or if it's faster, or maybe even instantaneous. That would be cool.
Where can I get a ticket to visit?
-
It starts like this.
Stand up with your tube level.
Look up your street at that height and level.
Observe the car, wall, building within that direct vision and see no road or path.
Oh. You must be in WorldCell 32C. Yeah, I heard the lighting is all messed up there, it’s bending all over the place in ways it shouldn’t. They should hopefully fix it soon. Also, just so you know, the gravity is off over there so they cranked up the AC to just blow things down to the ground.
We are all in the next cell over, 32B, just through the dome. Light is working right here, so roads and paths are definitely visible when viewed through cardboard tubes!
Good luck over there!
To be honest that sounds like a much more fun universe than ours. I wonder if they got stuck with the crappy slow light speed limit we have here or if it's faster, or maybe even instantaneous. That would be cool.
Where can I get a ticket to visit?
I think a FE in general would be cool (especially if infinite), or even better, multiple stacked FEs, assuming there is some way to travel between.
No need to worry about all this time zone nonsense which is such a pain.
No need with all these map distortions and figuring out which way is which.
No need for fancy calculations to determine where to point a satellite, or to calculate distance and direction between 2 points.
The same stars for everyone.
Lots of things would be so much simpler.
-
... do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Ok, enough dilly-dallying, let's cut to the chase.
What camera do I need to use?
Any camera you want to use as long as it can show the set up and direct through the crosshairs.
And what should I make the crosshairs of the tubes out of?
-
... do this experiment and see for yourself what I'm saying.
Ok, enough dilly-dallying, let's cut to the chase.
What camera do I need to use?
Any camera you want to use as long as it can show the set up and direct through the crosshairs.
And what should I make the crosshairs of the tubes out of?
I'm assuming he would want something hefty. Maybe 2 by 4s?
-
Sceptimatic, anything in these two youtube videos below, by Professor Dave, that would change your mind?
(http://)
(http://)
** Sceptimatic, see if point 10 in the first video sounds familiar to anybody you know.
NOTE: These two videos are that damn good, I considered giving them their own threads but considered that to be just too darn cruel.
-
Scepti..
You talk about everyone except you being 'indoctrinated' for not 'knowing' the reality like you do. But if you do some research into the actual meaning of indoctrination you will see that historically it has been applied mostly to political or religious dictatorships. Nazi Germany being a classic case in point.
With indoctrination there is always one clear obvious source of the indoctrination. A supreme leader if you like. One person who is so passionate and committed to a single belief of ideology that they set conditions such as we see in communist regimes and the like. That is what indoctrination is really about.
Mainstream science could not be further from that. It is about a consensus of information and data which has been built up over many centuries and by many people. So many in fact that I lose track of who can be credited with which discovery. Just look at how and thick big a single volume of 'How's who' of science is. What remains though is that all the results of all the experiments and all the observations agree with each other and support each other. They can be freely and openly verified by anyone. Everything is documented. Basically the exact opposite of anything to do with your 'model'.
The evidence for science is just too much for your little brain to cope with. Your way of dealing with it? Dismiss it all as claptrap and deny all of all of it. Your 'model' is simply your way of trying to re-invent everything in a way that makes sense to you but no one else. How can all those billions and billions of water molecules possibly stick to a 'globe' you say? Well quite easily actually if you understand about gravity and the electromagnetic force.
You talk about stars, planets just being 'lights in the sky'. That's true. They are just lights in the sky to yours and my naked eye. But did you know that every source of light, whether it's just a dot of light in the sky or something bigger (like the Sun and Moon for instance) produces a spectrum? What is a spectrum? Well you probably know it better as a rainbow. Now there is a LOT of information we can glean from studying that spectrum. I mean a LOT of information. I wouldn't expect you to understand or be interested in any of that and you will simply take on the stance of denial as you always do. I would be fascinated to know what your explanation for the stars is. Some sort of holographic projection or reflection no doubt. If all the stars in the sky were just some sort of reflection from a single light source off your hypothetical dome then they would all produce the same spectral line pattern when observed through a spectroscope. Well guess what... they don't. Far from it in fact. That's how the spectral sequence was determined. Not by a single person but from contributions by many people. Feel free to deny it and dismiss it all. I'm sure you will. But its true. I have the equipment myself to analyse stellar spectra and I have done my own experiments and observations to prove it to myself.
You feel special because you think you know differently to everyone else. And since your model exists only in your hypothetical and theoretical mind then you are the only one who knows about your model. But I know a lot more about the real model that actually exists and that makes me feel even more special than you could ever imagine.
Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.
So tell me something and let's deal with it bit by bit.
You see the light through your scope and whatever set up you have. You see a spectrum of colours and it let's you determine what the star is because you're looking back in time and that back in time is hitting your eyes, where the real time is at the actual star millions of years ago.
So tell me this. How are you seeing a spectrum of colour through a vacuum and also, how are you managing to see dots of light from something that has not obstruction from it's light back to your eyes.
Let me make this clear.
If someone shone a torch at your face from 50 feet away, you would see a small light but that light would engulf you and quite a wide area around you.
Why doesn't each star follow that suit?
Make the explanation as basic as possible because you're not getting out of this so easily.
-
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
Wrong and you're only wasting your own time doing this.
-
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
Wrong and you're only wasting your own time doing this.
Skip back two posts to my post, sit back with your tall glass of kool aid, and enjoy the videos. :)
-
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
Wrong and you're only wasting your own time doing this.
You are the one wasting time by repeatedly ignoring them/avoiding them.
If you had actually answered them you would be able to do so again, or link to where you did before.
But we both know you never answered them as any honest answer would show your claims to be pure garbage.
So I will continue asking:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Figured out an answer yet?
Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.
You mean that is something you don't like and dismiss as nonsense.
How are you seeing a spectrum of colour through a vacuum
If you are just looking through a simple scope, you see the light, of all colours, as nothing stops it.
If you want to see the spectrum as a separated spectrum, you will need something to split the colours up based upon wavelength.
Just what do you think the issue is?
how are you managing to see dots of light from something that has not obstruction from it's light back to your eyes.
By looking towards it. Not difficult to understand.
If someone shone a torch at your face from 50 feet away, you would see a small light but that light would engulf you and quite a wide area around you.
Why doesn't each star follow that suit?
Because a torch that does that, at that distance is much much brighter than a star, and torches typically have a lens or mirror to focus the light.
You can easily try it with different lights and see how as you change the intensity, the effects change.
For example, try it with a faint LED 50 feet away, see what happens.
-
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
Wrong and you're only wasting your own time doing this.
Skip back two posts to my post, sit back with your tall glass of kool aid, and enjoy the videos. :)
I have. It's just the usual junk.
And to think you gave me a load of bull about you questioning things.
Keep trying, though.
-
You are the one wasting time
I am wasting some of my time with answers to your posts but generally I'm fine with what I use my time for.
-
I am wasting some of my time with answers to your posts but generally I'm fine with what I use my time for.
That's a blatant lie and you know it.
You refuse to answer because you know it will show you are wrong.
Again, if you actually had answers you would have provided them rather than continually ignoring/avoiding the question.
Again, you start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
We know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
-
That's a blatant lie and you know it.
No it's not.
-
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
Wrong and you're only wasting your own time doing this.
Skip back two posts to my post, sit back with your tall glass of kool aid, and enjoy the videos. :)
I have. It's just the usual junk.
And to think you gave me a load of bull about you questioning things.
Keep trying, though.
Well, I am questioning the intrgrity of a person who can argue so much in favor of a flat earth, yet, the best model he can come up with, is a curvy earth. I'm also questioning how much LSD you had in your kool aid while you watched those two videos. Not your usual amount.
You didn't watch the videos, did you?
I was going to let you get to your 100 pages untraumatised, but I've changed my mind. I am going to lock you into a few beliefs, and then I'm going to crush those beliefs.
-
You didn't watch the videos, did you?
Yep. Just junk, like I said earlier.
I was going to let you get to your 100 pages untraumatised, but I've changed my mind. I am going to lock you into a few beliefs, and then I'm going to crush those beliefs.
Let's go, because you've done a pee poor job, so far.
-
Sceptimatic, why can't you answer the question regarding the blue line in this picture?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
I find it interesting you do not seem to think it is possible for it to reach the eye(s).
-
Sceptimatic, why can't you answer the question regarding the blue line in this picture?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
I find it interesting you do not seem to think it is possible for it to reach the eye(s).
No. I said it's impossible for it to reach the eye when looking through a tube that is levelled.
I made it clear enough.
-
Straight lines are straight lines.
Take your head.
Level it.
Look at the pciture.
Tilt your head slightly.
What changed?
Doss the picture care your head isnt screwed on straight?
-
Straight lines are straight lines.
Yep and a level tube offers this.
-
Ok thanks for another avoidance at addressing the question.
-
Ok thanks for another avoidance at addressing the question.
No avoidance.
-
Straight lines are straight lines.
Yep and a level tube offers this.
No, I showed pretty clearly that a level tube does not show that at all. Here, I'll post it again in case you forgot what performing and documenting an actual experiment looks like.
Why won't you post the pictures and details of your own experiment? Show us how it's done right with all your tubes and crosshairs and plumb lines.
Why are you afraid or incapable of doing your own experiment and showing it?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
-
Straight lines are straight lines.
Take your head.
Level it.
Look at the pciture.
Tilt your head slightly.
What changed?
Doss the picture care your head isnt screwed on straight?
Ok thanks for another avoidance at addressing the question.
No avoidance.
Straight lines are straight lines.
Yep and a level tube offers this.
I see two qiestion marks with zero response to them.
Looks loke avoidance to everyone here.
Maybe lets try a different appraoch.
What does leveling tube do.
Do you believe that the light rays show are the only light rays?
If the tube changes position, you will see different rays of lightcorrect?
-
If the tube changes position, you will see different rays of lightcorrect?
Correct.
-
Ok so then a level tube doesnt magically change the scenario as new rays of light will enter the tube and are at same angling as before
Tube angle doesnt do nothing.
-
Ok so then a level tube doesnt magically change the scenario as new rays of light will enter the tube and are at same angling as before
Tube angle doesnt do nothing.
Movement of a level tube will change the scene. It will alter the distance of the level vision through it.
-
What exactly do I need to get out of?
I know what I'm doing and what I'm seeing and how and why I'm seeing it. I don't expect you to agree or accept any of that because your belief of what light is, what stars are and why I am seeing the spectrum I do is obviously different to mine.
What I am asking you to do is explain what you think the stars are and why I see a different pattern of lines in different stars.
You are not getting out of that explanation either.
-
Ok so then a level tube doesnt magically change the scenario as new rays of light will enter the tube and are at same angling as before
Tube angle doesnt do nothing.
Movement of a level tube will change the scene. It will alter the distance of the level vision through it.
As has been explained before, you don't just see 'level' through a tube. You see up, down, sideways and in all directions. Human vision is not one dimensional.
Where are the pictures of your experiment? If we could see them, maybe we could figure out what has you confused.
Why not post them?
-
What exactly do I need to get out of?
I know what I'm doing and what I'm seeing and how and why I'm seeing it. I don't expect you to agree or accept any of that because your belief of what light is, what stars are and why I am seeing the spectrum I do is obviously different to mine.
What I am asking you to do is explain what you think the stars are and why I see a different pattern of lines in different stars.
You are not getting out of that explanation either.
I accept you have no answer to it.
-
Ok so then a level tube doesnt magically change the scenario as new rays of light will enter the tube and are at same angling as before
Tube angle doesnt do nothing.
Movement of a level tube will change the scene. It will alter the distance of the level vision through it.
As has been explained before, you don't just see 'level' through a tube. You see up, down, sideways and in all directions. Human vision is not one dimensional.
Where are the pictures of your experiment? If we could see them, maybe we could figure out what has you confused.
Why not post them?
Yes you do see up down, left and right and all around the tube.
Have you not been paying attention?
What you do not see is what is below that tube internal diameter.
-
I accept you have no answer to it.
And I accept that you obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about. Just tell me what you think the stars actually are then and why.
-
Ok so then a level tube doesnt magically change the scenario as new rays of light will enter the tube and are at same angling as before
Tube angle doesnt do nothing.
Movement of a level tube will change the scene. It will alter the distance of the level vision through it.
As has been explained before, you don't just see 'level' through a tube. You see up, down, sideways and in all directions. Human vision is not one dimensional.
Where are the pictures of your experiment? If we could see them, maybe we could figure out what has you confused.
Why not post them?
Yes you do see up down, left and right and all around the tube.
Have you not been paying attention?
What you do not see is what is below that tube internal diameter.
Yes you do. Did you miss my pictures? You can clearly see more than the tube diameter.
You are making no sense. You admit you can see down, but then say you can't see beyond the tubes size? If you are looking down, just what are you looking at?
Look at my picture again. See how it shows MUCH more than the internal tube diameter. I could fit a thousand of those tubes in the area shown at the end of the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
If your experiments show something different, post them.
Why won't you show your experiments?
-
I accept you have no answer to it.
And I accept that you obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about. Just tell me what you think the stars actually are then and why.
You placed a long essay out. I asked you a few questions. You can't answer them so don't waste your time going any further.
-
Yes you do see up down, left and right and all around the tube.
Have you not been paying attention?
What you do not see is what is below that tube internal diameter.
Yes you do. Did you miss my pictures? You can clearly see more than the tube diameter.
No you can't. You only see what's compressed into that diameter.
-
Simple question. Let's try it again. You maintain I have no clue. I get that but that's not unusual for you is it. According to you none of us have a clue about anything.. SO you tell me what YOU think the stars are and what evidence you have to support your claim.
If you can't or won't then I will accept that you have no clue.
How are you seeing a spectrum of colour through a vacuum
Light travel through a vacuum since it is an electromagnetic wave and hence doesn't need a medium to travel through.
If someone shone a torch at your face from 50 feet away, you would see a small light but that light would engulf you and quite a wide area around you
The torch emits light. We will assume it is white light so if I held a prism in the path of the light I would see a spectrum. A continuous spectrum that is. I would prefer them not to shine it in my face. Into my spectroscope would be preferable.
What I want to know from you is why I see lines in the spectra of stars, and why the line patterns are different between different colours of stars.
-
Yes you do see up down, left and right and all around the tube.
Have you not been paying attention?
What you do not see is what is below that tube internal diameter.
Yes you do. Did you miss my pictures? You can clearly see more than the tube diameter.
No you can't. You only see what's compressed into that diameter.
I'm not sure you understand what the words you are using mean.
If I look at my house 2 inch tube, are you saying my house is only 2 inches tall and got compressed? I can assure you my house is very tall and much bigger than any tube I've ever looked through.
I can see things bigger than 2 inches through a 2 inch tube.
Why won't you post your pictures and show us what you are seeing? Show everyone how you do a proper experiment.
-
I think this foolio is saying directly directly below the tube.
Which is irrelevant.
Because when i look straight without a tube, i cant see my feet.
So what ?
It proves nothing of the original of 1inch claim and also dossnt reuqire two tubes and a vert plumb line.
-
Simple question. Let's try it again. You maintain I have no clue. I get that but that's not unusual for you is it. According to you none of us have a clue about anything.. SO you tell me what YOU think the stars are and what evidence you have to support your claim.
If you can't or won't then I will accept that you have no clue.
You are well within your rights to accept I have no clue what the so called stars really are. I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions.
How about you tell me how you know they are what you're told?
How are you seeing a spectrum of colour through a vacuum
Light travel through a vacuum since it is an electromagnetic wave and hence doesn't need a medium to travel through.
How can a wave travel through your vacuum of, nothing?
If someone shone a torch at your face from 50 feet away, you would see a small light but that light would engulf you and quite a wide area around you
The torch emits light. We will assume it is white light so if I held a prism in the path of the light I would see a spectrum. A continuous spectrum that is. I would prefer them not to shine it in my face. Into my spectroscope would be preferable.
Let's try this one again.
You go along with the theory that your stars are huge and make your sun look like a speck, compared.
You see the light from each star as it was millions of years ago...or thousands,a s you're told, so how is this possible and why aren't you flooded with light on your Earth?
What I want to know from you is why I see lines in the spectra of stars, and why the line patterns are different between different colours of stars.
Explain how you do so that proves to you they are light years away and seen as in the past and not the present.
-
I'm not sure you understand what the words you are using mean.
If I look at my house 2 inch tube, are you saying my house is only 2 inches tall and got compressed?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
If you see a picture of your house on your TV that is in your house, is the house on TV the same size as the house your TV is in, by your vision?
I can assure you my house is very tall and much bigger than any tube I've ever looked through.
Yep, if you're not looking through that tube it fits into and you move towards it.
I can see things bigger than 2 inches through a 2 inch tube.
Yes you can. You can see things that are physically bigger than what you see through your tube if you take that tube away and move towards the object.
-
I think this foolio is saying directly directly below the tube.
Which is irrelevant.
Because when i look straight without a tube, i cant see my feet.
So what ?
It proves nothing of the original of 1inch claim and also dossnt reuqire two tubes and a vert plumb line.
Course you can see below when you do not use the tube. It's because you have a wider vision.
A classic case of you going right back to the beginning. I'm sat here smiling.
-
I'm not sure you understand what the words you are using mean.
If I look at my house 2 inch tube, are you saying my house is only 2 inches tall and got compressed?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
If you see a picture of your house on your TV that is in your house, is the house on TV the same size as the house your TV is in, by your vision?
I can assure you my house is very tall and much bigger than any tube I've ever looked through.
Yep, if you're not looking through that tube it fits into and you move towards it.
I can see things bigger than 2 inches through a 2 inch tube.
Yes you can. You can see things that are physically bigger than what you see through your tube if you take that tube away and move towards the object.
Yes, if I see a picture of my house on my TV, my real house is still several stories tall.
You are making no sense again. What changes between looking at my house and then lifting up a tube to look through it?
I'm seeing the same thing. The same light is reaching my eyes.
Why won't you just post your experimental pictures and show us what you are failing to describe?
The simple fact is I can see the ground through a level tube. If you can't... why are you afraid to show us?
-
The simple fact is I can see the ground through a level tube. If you can't... why are you afraid to show us?
No you can't.
Also, if you think the view of your house is the same from distance as it is being stood right next to it, then it's no wonder you're struggling.
-
The simple fact is I can see the ground through a level tube. If you can't... why are you afraid to show us?
No you can't.
Also, if you think the view of your house is the same from distance as it is being stood right next to it, then it's no wonder you're struggling.
I can see the ground through a level tube. I've shown you many times. Anyone else can too. Here is it AGAIN. See the ground? Simple.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
The real question is why won't you show us your own experiment?
What is it you're seeing and why are you desperately avoiding showing anyone? What are you afraid of? What are you hiding? Why keep running away from the question?
-
I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions
Which is? Why do you have to rely on guesswork?
-
Come on guys, one final push, then welcome to the 100 club!
-
I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions
Which is? Why do you have to rely on guesswork?
No answer to your so called stars then. Hmmm...and to think it's all on a platter for you.
-
No answer to your so called stars then.
Not from you so far no. Why?
You asked some questions. I answered them. Not to your satisfaction I'm sure but that's irrelevant. So now it's your turn to answer my question. What do you think the stars are and what makes them shine in your world/universe?
I know about the explanation given by mainstream astrophysics and my OWN observations support that entirely. But what are your stars? Stop avoiding answering questions you don't know the answers to. I'll accept your guesses.
-
I think this foolio is saying directly directly below the tube.
Which is irrelevant.
Because when i look straight without a tube, i cant see my feet.
So what ?
It proves nothing of the original of 1inch claim and also dossnt reuqire two tubes and a vert plumb line.
Course you can see below when you do not use the tube. It's because you have a wider vision.
A classic case of you going right back to the beginning. I'm sat here smiling.
smiling from the amazing troll game you got on here.
You, jackass, were asked to restate your position so we don't go all the way back becuase it's become so convoluted.
you refused to do it and we have to go back and assume you're still on about the same thing.
or saying things so void of english or descirption we can only guess at your meaning.
luckily this is a forum and other people have provided diagrams, and all on record.
so i'll pick just the few claims related to this tube business.
your claim was someone couldn't see the
ground through a tube,
that the horizon rises to eye level and
people don't see in 1dimension
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
your instance was that the blue line doesn't exists or doesn't exist?
clarify.
or that people don't and do see in 1dimension
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
here someone's pointed out that a tube doesn't do anything but obstruct the field of view, which you've admitted is a thing, and has hand drawn in a tube, which oho does not consequently affect the fact horizon doesn't rise to eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
while still saying stupid things like people are unable to look down or have a field of view
Here's a quick diagram. Genuine people....take time to understand what's being said with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
you claim to understand yet every statement following you continue to beileve people see in 1dimension
You're making out one dimension to what I'm saying. I'm giving out nothing of the sort.
Tunnel vision is not one dimensional.
I've already mentioned a compressed FOV, so what's the issue?
no, i see NOOO contradictions here.
anyone else?
-
That's a blatant lie and you know it.
No it's not.
Then why do you still refuse to answer?
They are extremely simple questions that any honest, rational person would be able to answer.
The first clearly establishes that the RE does have a horizon, no matter how much you wish to deny it, and the second clearly establishes that you can see things below the line of the tube.
So I'll just keep on asking until you actually answer them:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
No. I said it's impossible for it to reach the eye when looking through a tube that is levelled.
I made it clear enough.
You made it clear that all you have is a baseless assertion.
You have no justification for why that is the case.
And that is really what matters as your assertions are entirely worthless.
You need to be able to explain what stops that light from reaching the eye.
We know it can make it when the tube isn't there, just like the orange line.
But why shouldn't it when the tube is used?
We know the orange line can't make it as it hits the wall of the tube. But that isn't the case for the blue line.
There is literally nothing to stop the blue line.
So why doesn't it reach the eye?
JJA's experiment with the ruler shows this quite well:
(https://i.imgur.com/1A1yUvC.jpg)
And this diagram shows what is happening with the light:
(https://i.imgur.com/z3LszeO.png)
The red lines indicate how you claim the light magically goes.
But notice how that results in seeing the same section of the ruler, while the picture clearly shows that you see MORE of the ruler when it is further away.
That requires lines like the blue and purple.
The blue line goes downwards, just missing the bottom of the tube, allowing you to see the 5 cm mark when the ruler is close, but as the ruler is moved further away you can see the 4 cm mark.
The purple line goes upwards, just missing the top of the tube, allowing you to see the 9 cm mark when the ruler is close and the 10 cm mark when the ruler is further away.
So with all the evidence against you, and your inability to answer a simple question, why not just admit you are wrong?
You only see what's compressed into that diameter.
And by "compressed into that diameter" you mean things which perspective have made fit into that angular range, but that is still above and below the tube.
You even admit that there is no physical compression.
If I look at my house 2 inch tube, are you saying my house is only 2 inches tall and got compressed?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Then why does someone standing right next to it see it as much larger than 2 inches?
What magic causes it to be compressed?
But perhaps a simpler question, do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see the entire house? From top to bottom?
If you see a picture of your house
You are now looking at a picture, not directly at the house.
The picture can be smaller or larger, but it is irrelevant.
Yep, if you're not looking through that tube it fits into and you move towards it.
So you claim that simply by looking at a house through a tube it magically shrinks?
You can see things that are physically bigger
And that requires light to come in from above/below/to the side of the tube.
You go along with the theory that your stars are huge and make your sun look like a speck, compared.
You see the light from each star as it was millions of years ago...or thousands,a s you're told, so how is this possible and why aren't you flooded with light on your Earth?
That was already answered, and you chose to ignore it.
They are far away.
Their distance makes them appear not as bright.
Just like a light in your room appears to flood the room, but does basically nothing to the house across the road.
Explain how you do so that proves to you they are light years away and seen as in the past and not the present.
Parallax allows us to determine the distance.
The simple fact that light takes time to travel shows that we see them in the past, not the present.
-
You didn't watch the videos, did you?
Yep. Just junk, like I said earlier.
I was going to let you get to your 100 pages untraumatised, but I've changed my mind. I am going to lock you into a few beliefs, and then I'm going to crush those beliefs.
Let's go, because you've done a pee poor job, so far.
Lol! ;D You think so? Well, in that case, I'll let Martin Bryant know you'll be baking him a birthday cake with a file in the centre, and the engagement is still on. I'll also let Professor Dave know you'll be doing a YouTube video to refute those youtube videos you haven't watched yet.
Question time, and no fence sitting, Sceptimatic. I know you have commitment issues. :-*
Answer this: What shape is the Earth?
A) Spherical B) Curvy C) Flat D) Flattish E) It's too early in world history to know.
-
I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions
Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are? Because I'm pretty sure that he won't. He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?
Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.
You keep on about this 'we are told' business. But we are not just told because we can actually measure it. Thousands of both amateur and professional astronomers make these measurements themselves all the time. How? Because we have equipment that allows us to do it. Including me. So I am not just accepting 'what I am told' I am comparing what I am told with what I can actually measure. I have a specialist CCD camera (what is a CCD camera I hear you ask yourself) and a filter (star analyser 100) that acts as a transmission grating (what is that I hear you ask yourself) and that allows me to disperse the light of any star into its spectra (rainbow to you). I can then run the spectra through software (RSpec) which allows me to identify and measure the wavelengths of various absorption lines in the spectrum and thereby classify the star. Thus confirming what 'I am told'. What experiments can you do?
Yes we do see stars as they were in the past because again we can measure their distance. How? Well up to a certain distance we can use parallax and beyond that we can use other, photometric techniques. Your 'glowing ember' is not a bad analogy actually because a few stars do have much greater luminosity than the Sun does. Some stars are bright because they are relatively close. Others are bright because they are very distant and very luminous. We have tried and tested and re-tested methods of verifying all this.
I'm sorry if you find all this so hard to believe (probably because the big numbers involved cause brain overload) but it really is true. Deny it all you like but that won't change the truth of it.
However if you are so sure that the whole of stellar astrophysics has got it wrong, given all the evidence we have gathered over the last 150 years or so then you must have pretty compelling evidence which shows how and where we have got it wrong. However you cannot seem to bring yourself to answer a simple question such as what the stars are actually like in your opinion.
If you say you have already explained it elsewhere I'm damned if I can find those explanations anywhere. Perhaps you could help me? Because until someone can give me a better explanation then I will carry on accepting 'what I am told'. But not just because I have been told. Because I have made the effort to make the measurements myself and compare them with what 'I am told'. That's what you tell us to do isn't it? Go out and find out for ourselves. Well I have done just that thanks very much.
-
I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions
Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are? Because I'm pretty sure that he won't. He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?
I think they are projections from the super heated carbonite crystal array that pokes out of the north pole like the sun and moon projections. There's something about how the dome "breathes" too, which does something. Can't quite remember.
Oh, there's this from Jane's Compendium:
The Earth in the Denpressure Model
The Earth itself is a flat disc. It is centred at the North Pole, and right in the middle is a hot, bright light source formed of carbon, which functions the same way as a carbon arc light. This is the primary source of heat for the whole Earth, providing heat from under the ground also.
When you are far away from this light source, you get closer and closer to absolute zero. At a certain distance, even the air itself will freeze. This forms a dome, a solid barrier no human can reach because of the sheer cold of the temperatures it exists it. It extends around and above the disc of the Earth.
The light source is surrounded by crystal, which scatters the light up in a myriad specks. These reflect off the dome, creating what we see as stars. Similarly, the moon and Sun are also reflections of this central light. The Sun is the brightest, and so the hottest. The crystal is rotating, causing the motion of all the various lights.
Essentially, at the very centre of the world is a graphite electrode rapidly ascending and descending, beneath a layer of crystal. This crystal too ascends and descends, altering the inclination of the reflected stars, Sun and moon and thus being responsible for seasons.
The point where the Sun shines on the dome is heated up. With this extra warmth, the dome evaporates, rising up; then, when the Sun moves on, it cools down and refreezes again. In this way the dome can be said to ‘breathe,’ the roof going up and down.
As this follows from the denpressure model of molecules, the least dense molecules rise, and expand more and more as they do. When they run out of the energy to expand, this is where the dome forms.
-
Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.
Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.
-
No answer to your so called stars then.
Not from you so far no. Why?
You asked some questions. I answered them. Not to your satisfaction I'm sure but that's irrelevant. So now it's your turn to answer my question. What do you think the stars are and what makes them shine in your world/universe?
I know about the explanation given by mainstream astrophysics and my OWN observations support that entirely. But what are your stars? Stop avoiding answering questions you don't know the answers to. I'll accept your guesses.
I'm sure you've been around long enough to know my thoughts.
One thing though. I'm glad you've avoided answering my questions. It shows you have nothing at hand and it's simply back to looking it all up, which you can't be bothered to do...and...I accept that.
-
Then why do you still refuse to answer?
I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that.
-
You didn't watch the videos, did you?
Yep. Just junk, like I said earlier.
I was going to let you get to your 100 pages untraumatised, but I've changed my mind. I am going to lock you into a few beliefs, and then I'm going to crush those beliefs.
Let's go, because you've done a pee poor job, so far.
Lol! ;D You think so? Well, in that case, I'll let Martin Bryant know you'll be baking him a birthday cake with a file in the centre, and the engagement is still on. I'll also let Professor Dave know you'll be doing a YouTube video to refute those youtube videos you haven't watched yet.
Question time, and no fence sitting, Sceptimatic. I know you have commitment issues. :-*
Answer this: What shape is could the Earth be?
A) Spherical B) Curvy C) Flat D) Flattish E) It's too early in world history to know the entirety of what Earth is.
B C D and E = with my added extra.
-
I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions
Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are? Because I'm pretty sure that he won't. He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?
Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.
You keep on about this 'we are told' business. But we are not just told because we can actually measure it. Thousands of both amateur and professional astronomers make these measurements themselves all the time. How? Because we have equipment that allows us to do it. Including me. So I am not just accepting 'what I am told' I am comparing what I am told with what I can actually measure. I have a specialist CCD camera (what is a CCD camera I hear you ask yourself) and a filter (star analyser 100) that acts as a transmission grating (what is that I hear you ask yourself) and that allows me to disperse the light of any star into its spectra (rainbow to you). I can then run the spectra through software (RSpec) which allows me to identify and measure the wavelengths of various absorption lines in the spectrum and thereby classify the star. Thus confirming what 'I am told'. What experiments can you do?
Yes we do see stars as they were in the past because again we can measure their distance. How? Well up to a certain distance we can use parallax and beyond that we can use other, photometric techniques. Your 'glowing ember' is not a bad analogy actually because a few stars do have much greater luminosity than the Sun does. Some stars are bright because they are relatively close. Others are bright because they are very distant and very luminous. We have tried and tested and re-tested methods of verifying all this.
I'm sorry if you find all this so hard to believe (probably because the big numbers involved cause brain overload) but it really is true. Deny it all you like but that won't change the truth of it.
However if you are so sure that the whole of stellar astrophysics has got it wrong, given all the evidence we have gathered over the last 150 years or so then you must have pretty compelling evidence which shows how and where we have got it wrong. However you cannot seem to bring yourself to answer a simple question such as what the stars are actually like in your opinion.
If you say you have already explained it elsewhere I'm damned if I can find those explanations anywhere. Perhaps you could help me? Because until someone can give me a better explanation then I will carry on accepting 'what I am told'. But not just because I have been told. Because I have made the effort to make the measurements myself and compare them with what 'I am told'. That's what you tell us to do isn't it? Go out and find out for ourselves. Well I have done just that thanks very much.
Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.
Let's deal with this a little at a time.
Is this what is believed or am I wrong in saying this by your accounts?
If so, then briefly explain before I move on.
-
I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions
Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are? Because I'm pretty sure that he won't. He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?
I think they are projections from the super heated carbonite crystal array that pokes out of the north pole like the sun and moon projections. There's something about how the dome "breathes" too, which does something. Can't quite remember.
Oh, there's this from Jane's Compendium:
The Earth in the Denpressure Model
The Earth itself is a flat disc. It is centred at the North Pole, and right in the middle is a hot, bright light source formed of carbon, which functions the same way as a carbon arc light. This is the primary source of heat for the whole Earth, providing heat from under the ground also.
When you are far away from this light source, you get closer and closer to absolute zero. At a certain distance, even the air itself will freeze. This forms a dome, a solid barrier no human can reach because of the sheer cold of the temperatures it exists it. It extends around and above the disc of the Earth.
The light source is surrounded by crystal, which scatters the light up in a myriad specks. These reflect off the dome, creating what we see as stars. Similarly, the moon and Sun are also reflections of this central light. The Sun is the brightest, and so the hottest. The crystal is rotating, causing the motion of all the various lights.
Essentially, at the very centre of the world is a graphite electrode rapidly ascending and descending, beneath a layer of crystal. This crystal too ascends and descends, altering the inclination of the reflected stars, Sun and moon and thus being responsible for seasons.
The point where the Sun shines on the dome is heated up. With this extra warmth, the dome evaporates, rising up; then, when the Sun moves on, it cools down and refreezes again. In this way the dome can be said to ‘breathe,’ the roof going up and down.
As this follows from the denpressure model of molecules, the least dense molecules rise, and expand more and more as they do. When they run out of the energy to expand, this is where the dome forms.
That's not entirely accurate but it's a decent job that Jane made for what she grasped of the explanations.
Nobody else has got close to what she grasped.
-
Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.
Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.
Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.
-
Then why do you still refuse to answer?
I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that.
Do, you don't.
For these questions it is not a case of me not accepting the answer, it is you simply not providing an answer.
Agian, if you had an answer you would just provide it in that post of yours or link to where you have already done so.
But you know that the only answer to the first question shows that the RE does have a horizon, and the second shows there is nothing to stop the blue line and thus you can see things below the level of the tube. You don't want to admit either so you just refuse to answer, but you don't even have the integrity to actually refuse and state your refusal, instead you lie and claim to have already answered. Just like you ignore the rest of my post which shows you are wrong, repeatedly.
And now with more nonsense of yours brought up, an extra question gets thrown in from the last post which you also ignorred. There is no chance you answered it considering it was only asked in the last post which you ignored basically all of.
Grow up and answer the questions:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?
Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.
This comes down to what you mean by "engulf".
If you mean it is visible from half the Earth, then yes.
If you mean it brightly illumines half the Earth such that you can see clearly, then that is also based upon how much light it puts out and how far away it is.
For stars, they are also "visible" from half the Earth at any given time, but if that location is currently in daytime, then the brightness of the sun and sky (from scattered light from the sun) makes it to dim to see, just like a dark screen out in bright sun.
However they are too far away to brightly illuminate the surface.
Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.
i.e. we don't need to do anything except completely reject reality and what we see.
No thanks. I'll stick to reality.
-
Do, you don't.
?
-
Do, you don't.
?
You said "I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that."
He is replying: "Do (answer), you don't (answer)."
Is that why you won't you show your own experiment? You are afraid of answering? It's not hard to take pictures and document an experiment, some of us do it all the time.
Why won't you show your work?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
-
Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.
Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.
Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.
What does that even mean?
On the globe model you dont see it either as shown by jackb repeatedly.
-
Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.
Let's deal with this a little at a time.
Is this what is believed or am I wrong in saying this by your accounts?
If so, then briefly explain before I move on.
No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid. Dodge the questions and try and divert the subject as much as you like but it won't work with me. I asked you for your opinion about the nature of the stars and what evidence you have to back you up over the models held by mainstream physics.
Either you do that here and clearly and without saying you have already explained it elsewhere already or this discussion stops here and now. I have explained my side, I have answered a couple of questions from you. Now it's your turn. Try to do some explaining instead of just claiming.
-
Do, you don't.
?
You said "I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that."
He is replying: "Do (answer), you don't (answer)."
Is that why you won't you show your own experiment? You are afraid of answering? It's not hard to take pictures and document an experiment, some of us do it all the time.
Why won't you show your work?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
Has JB given you permission to answer for him?
-
Do, you don't.
?
You said "I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that."
He is replying: "Do (answer), you don't (answer)."
Is that why you won't you show your own experiment? You are afraid of answering? It's not hard to take pictures and document an experiment, some of us do it all the time.
Why won't you show your work?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
Has JB given you permission to answer for him?
Has JB given you permission to decide who is allowed to respond to his posts?
Have you ever actually answered a question and not deflected?
Why won't you show us your experiment? It's so simple that you should have no trouble setting up the equipment and taking all the required pictures.
Where are they?
-
Sceptimatic, why can't you answer the question regarding the blue line in this picture?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
I find it interesting you do not seem to think it is possible for it to reach the eye(s).
No. I said it's impossible for it to reach the eye when looking through a tube that is levelled.
I made it clear enough.
Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube? I need to know what material you are going to approve of.
-
Then why do you still refuse to answer?
They are extremely simple questions that any honest, rational person would be able to answer.
I think you have answered your own question ...
-
Then why do you still refuse to answer?
I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that.
Do, you don't.
For these questions it is not a case of me not accepting the answer, it is you simply not providing an answer.
Agian, if you had an answer you would just provide it in that post of yours or link to where you have already done so.
?
It's pretty easy to understand when you don't dishonestly strip away the context.
Once more, this is not a case of me not liking the answers you providing. It is simply you refusing to answer extremely simple questions because you know they show you are wrong.
If you had answers which didn't show you to be wrong you would happy provide them.
Now stop playing dumb, stop with your dishonest BS and answer the questions or admit you wont because they show you are wrong:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?
Has JB given you permission to answer for him?
Why would he need my permission to point out things you continually choose to ignore?
Then why do you still refuse to answer?
They are extremely simple questions that any honest, rational person would be able to answer.
I think you have answered your own question ...
I know.
But I want him to admit it, or answer the questions, or to just stop spouting BS.
Also, with topics like this, it isn't entirely clear if he truly believes Earth is flat and cognitive dissonance is preventing him from answering and admitting he is wrong; or if he is just a troll.
-
Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.
Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.
Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.
What does that even mean?
On the globe model you dont see it either as shown by jackb repeatedly.
Tell that to JJA.
-
No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid.
Then, spectate.
-
Has JB given you permission to decide who is allowed to respond to his posts?
No, bt I'm sure he'll feel weak with having a mentor.
-
Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube? I need to know what material you are going to approve of.
You choose.
-
It's pretty easy to understand when you don't dishonestly strip away the context.
Yep, you want to try and understand it instead of coming out with copy and paste, repeatedly.
If you want to play honestly then help yourself.
-
Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube? I need to know what material you are going to approve of.
You choose.
What would you use? This is important to me. I want this to be a "1st time go".... to pass the sceptimatic standard of excellence.
-
No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid.
Then, spectate.
A spectator is one who just watches while others do the work. Kind of like... you?
You spectate and watch while others conduct 'your' experiments and post the results for everyone to see and understand.
Where are the results of your experiment? Still afraid to show your work? Why won't you contribute anything to the discussion?
( I didn't get Solarwind's permission to reply here. Deal with it. )
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxncwaZ4f21qhg0wt.jpg)
-
Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube? I need to know what material you are going to approve of.
You choose.
What would you use? This is important to me. I want this to be a "1st time go".... to pass the sceptimatic standard of excellence.
Sewing cotton.
-
No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid.
Then, spectate.
A spectator is one who just watches while others do the work. Kind of like... you?
You spectate and watch while others conduct 'your' experiments and post the results for everyone to see and understand.
Where are the results of your experiment? Still afraid to show your work? Why won't you contribute anything to the discussion?
( I didn't get Solarwind's permission to reply here. Deal with it. )
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxncwaZ4f21qhg0wt.jpg)
Ok, no probs.
-
No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid.
Then, spectate.
A spectator is one who just watches while others do the work. Kind of like... you?
You spectate and watch while others conduct 'your' experiments and post the results for everyone to see and understand.
Where are the results of your experiment? Still afraid to show your work? Why won't you contribute anything to the discussion?
( I didn't get Solarwind's permission to reply here. Deal with it. )
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxncwaZ4f21qhg0wt.jpg)
Ok, no probs.
Glad you got it.
So where's your experimental photos?
-
Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.
Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.
Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.
What does that even mean?
On the globe model you dont see it either as shown by jackb repeatedly.
Tell that to JJA.
Then what are you on about, man!!!
Seriously
What is your point?
Clearly define it.
I ask all the others here just to ask sceppy here what the point of this tu-tube nonsense is supposedly to boof our brains and enlighten us all to some unknown domed cell denP truth?
Stand infront of a basket ball.
Can you see the back of it? (Without the obvious mirro aids)
No
Look at through a tube.
Can you see the back of it?
No.
So
What
Is
The
Point?
-
Then, spectate.
Another telling and typically dismissive response from you there. You are obviously not willing to engage in a discussion where real evidence is involved so you simply brush it aside.
I expected better even from you than that. I guess I will accept then that you simply have no clue as to what your stars might be.
-
Ooo 99.
Usually exciting.
However last 15pg have been basically one word avoidance answers by sceppy.
No new revelations into his psyche
-
Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.
Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.
Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.
What does that even mean?
On the globe model you dont see it either as shown by jackb repeatedly.
Tell that to JJA.
Then what are you on about, man!!!
Seriously
What is your point?
Clearly define it.
I ask all the others here just to ask sceppy here what the point of this tu-tube nonsense is supposedly to boof our brains and enlighten us all to some unknown domed cell denP truth?
Stand infront of a basket ball.
Can you see the back of it? (Without the obvious mirro aids)
No
Look at through a tube.
Can you see the back of it?
No.
So
What
Is
The
Point?
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
-
Then, spectate.
Another telling and typically dismissive response from you there. You are obviously not willing to engage in a discussion where real evidence is involved so you simply brush it aside.
I expected better even from you than that. I guess I will accept then that you simply have no clue as to what your stars might be.
You need to make up your mind. You're all over the place.
Tell me about your stars as I asked, if you want to engage.
-
Ooo 99.
Usually exciting.
However last 15pg have been basically one word avoidance answers by sceppy.
No new revelations into his psyche
Yep because it's been copy and paste from you lot, generally.
-
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
The point that you get shown is wrong every time?
This point?
The point you won't back up with pictures of your experiment?
You are at the point you won't even quote anyone asking about your experiment, let alone answer or god forbit, post pictures of.
Have I made my point?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
-
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
The point that you get shown is wrong every time?
This point?
The point you won't back up with pictures of your experiment?
You are at the point you won't even quote anyone asking about your experiment, let alone answer or god forbit, post pictures of.
Have I made my point?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
I don't think you have any point to make other than to try and cover up something that is blatantly obvious to any honest person.
-
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
The point that you get shown is wrong every time?
This point?
The point you won't back up with pictures of your experiment?
You are at the point you won't even quote anyone asking about your experiment, let alone answer or god forbit, post pictures of.
Have I made my point?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
I don't think you have any point to make other than to try and cover up something that is blatantly obvious to any honest person.
You have said this 20 times now. I've lost track how many ways you have called me dishonest and a liar.
And just like every other time, you don't say WHY it's obvious. No reasons. Zero proof.
If it was so obvious you could give actual reasons, but for some strange reason you can't and just ignore anyone asking about it.
The only person covering things up here is you, who still won't post all your pictures of your well documented and expertly performed experiment. Where are they? Why so scared to even talk about it?
Point taken?
-
You have said this 20 times now. I've lost track how many ways you have called me dishonest and a liar.
Prove me wrong then.
-
You have said this 20 times now. I've lost track how many ways you have called me dishonest and a liar.
Prove me wrong then.
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
So where are YOUR pictures of your well-documented and expertly performed experiment?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
-
You have said this 20 times now. I've lost track how many ways you have called me dishonest and a liar.
Prove me wrong then.
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
So where are YOUR pictures of your well-documented and expertly performed experiment?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
-
You have said this 20 times now. I've lost track how many ways you have called me dishonest and a liar.
Prove me wrong then.
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
So where are YOUR pictures of your well-documented and expertly performed experiment?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
Do you not understand how arguments work? I suppose not.
You need to give a reason, not just say it conflicts with your faith and beliefs so must somehow be all a lie.
Do you have any evidence the tube is not level? Any proof? Anything at all? No?
Why not show your own set of tubes, expertly leveled and carefully photographed from multiple angles with all the bells and whistles you demand from us.
I suppose because it's just easier to deny reality and accuse everyone else of being liars out to dupe you.
Where are your pictures?
-
You need to make up your mind. You're all over the place.
There's no mind making to be made up on my side. And there is positively loads of information out there about what the stars really are. You choosing to ignore all that does not change reality. Do you really think that just because you don't accept or believe something stops it being true?
What you need to do is to answer the question I put to you and stop avoiding it because you actually don't know. Each time you use different words to dodge providing an answer and try to deflect it back to me. Won't work.
I have already answered three questions you put to me against zero from you.
Just to recap. When you look into the night sky you see (to use your words) points of light. Those point of light vary in terms of brightness and (less obviously) colour. As long as you can see a light source you can obtain a spectrum (rainbow to use your words but same thing). When we look at the Suns spectrum we see a particular pattern of dark lines. When we look at the spectrum of other stars we also see dark lines but of different position and profile (thickness if you prefer).
So explain why you think the spectral lines vary with different stars? If they were just reflections of a single light source they would all be the same.
-
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
I have not read all 100 pages, but the discussion about the tube is fascinating. How can someone be so much in denial? Then comes the bolded part, and it kind of makes sense now. Sceptimatic is either defining "level" as "not being able to see down a slope through a toilet tube" or has his beliefs so deeply ingrained that he cannot accept the results of this experiment. Or, in other words, he has indoctrinated himself and no amount of evidence will sway him.
On the chance that we are talking about the first case, could you please define "level", Sceptimatic?
-
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
I have not read all 100 pages, but the discussion about the tube is fascinating. How can someone be so much in denial? Then comes the bolded part, and it kind of makes sense now. Sceptimatic is either defining "level" as "not being able to see down a slope through a toilet tube" or has his beliefs so deeply ingrained that he cannot accept the results of this experiment. Or, in other words, he has indoctrinated himself and no amount of evidence will sway him.
On the chance that we are talking about the first case, could you please define "level", Sceptimatic?
He insists you can't see the ground if you look through a level tube.
The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is he never looked through a tube in his life. He says he did, but maybe he used a block of wood or a brick instead by accident? I'm not sure he understands what a tube is.
-
It's pretty easy to understand when you don't dishonestly strip away the context.
Yep
But you still go and strip away the context to completely ignore the post.
you want to try and understand it instead of coming out with copy and paste, repeatedly.
If you want to play honestly then help yourself.
You mean my comment about how you repeatedly avoid questions? That is pretty easy to understand.
I post a question, and you repeatedly avoid it, and then just start claiming to have already answered it, even though you are completely incapable of providing the answer you claim to have already provided or linking to it.
Again, pretty easy to understand, you have no answer and using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid the simple questions.
If you mean I need to try to accept your outright lies, that would require you to actually respond honestly and answer the questions.
I won't accept the RE doesn't have a horizon if you can't tell me what is there to replace it as all logic indicates that it does have a horizon, just like all round objects have edges which you can't see beyond without moving the object or yourself.
So care to answer the question related to that?
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Because as far as I can tell, it should be like every other ball. Eventually as you lift your head you will reach a point where there is a division in your vision. Below this division you see land/sea, above you see sky. This division is the horizon.
So if you don't think the RE has a horizon, tell me what takes its place.
Likewise, all logical thought shows that tubes don't magically radically alter light. Again, with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
We know the orange line is stopped because it hits the wall of the tube.
We know we can see the blue and green lines (and even the red lines) without the tube, and they don't hit the wall of the tube, so the tube shouldn't stop them and thus even with the tube you should be able to see them. That means light from above and below the level of the tube is still capable of going into the tube and reaching your eyes.
This is also simple logic based upon the fact that your eyes see based upon angles and thus the tube should restrict your FOV to a smaller angle, but still an angle, meaning you can still see above and below level.
So if you want me to accept your lie that you can't see things from above or below the tube, you need to tell me what magic stops the blue line.
Likewise, with the new question:
Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?
This is already effectively shown by JJA.
But the important part of this is what follows. If this is the case, you have 2 options:
1 - the house magically shrinks and levitates, completely off the ground to prevent you seeing the ground. This is obviously pure fantasy nothing like reality.
2 - the house is still on the ground, and you can see the ground at the bottom of the house. This means you can see ground through a level tube and yet again shows you are wrong.
As each of these questions clearly shows you are wrong, and you have no interest in admitting that you are wrong, you do whatever you can to avoid them.
It truly is pathetic.
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
Except you haven't been making that point. You have been repeatedly asserting that outright lie, with no justification at all and ignoring the refutation.
The point is YOU CAN SEE BELOW THE TUBE!
That means you may be able to see down the curve, depending on your FOV, the radius of the curve and your height above it.
That is the fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated to you with logic and evidence, which you refuse to accept.
Again, the simple question you continue to avoid shows without any doubt that even through a level tube, you still have an angular FOV.
As you have an angular FOV, the following diagram applies:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
This clearly shows that your ability (or lack thereof) to see a downwards curve depends on your FOV and your height above it compared to its radius.
Yep because it's been copy and paste from you lot, generally.
You mean it has been repeated avoidance from you as you are unable to address simple issues so they kept getting brought up.
Once you honestly and rationally address them (not just dismiss or avoid them), they will no longer need to be brought up.
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
The point that you get shown is wrong every time?
This point?
The point you won't back up with pictures of your experiment?
You are at the point you won't even quote anyone asking about your experiment, let alone answer or god forbit, post pictures of.
Have I made my point?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
I don't think you have any point to make other than to try and cover up something that is blatantly obvious to any honest person.
You mean to try and clearly demonstrate something that is blatantly obvious to any honest person.
Meanwhile, your only points seem to be trying to dismiss and cover up that which is blatantly obvious.
What is blatantly obvious to any honest person, is that when you look through a level 1 inch tube is that your vision is still an angular FOV. They realise you don't magically have your vision restricted to 1 inch where you can only see 1 inch of any object. Instead, as the distance to the tube increases you can see more and more of the object and likewise see objects further from the middle of the FOV, including the ground.
Pretty much anyone who has looked through a tube knows this to be the case, but you keep on rejecting it, because you know it destroys your pathetic attack on the RE.
Prove me wrong then.
You have been proven wrong, repeatedly. You just keep on ignoring it.
The simple questions and diagrams you avoid prove you wrong.
Your inability to answer them proves you wrong.
JJAs photos prove you wrong.
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
That is your baseless, refuted assertion.
By the same complete absence of reasoning, if his tube was level so he can magically only see the size of the tube, he wouldn't be able to see the large portion of the trees or the power poles.
The fact he can shows your claims to be BS.
But like I said, I prefer the ruler example.
Unless you are going to claim he fabricated a fake ruler with fake markings on it to try to con you, that shows without a doubt that you can see above and below the level of the tube.
You cannot use your refuted claim to try to dismiss the refutation of that claim.
That is circular reasoning and amounts to "you're wrong because I say you're wrong"
It doesn't provide any justification for why he is wrong.
Now like I said, grow up, stop with the pathetic BS, and answer the questions.
-
Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense. I admire the patience of everyone who’s kept this up.
But why does it matter? I don’t walk around holding a toilet roll to my face, level or otherwise.
Scepti claims that on a globe earth, no horizon should ever be visible, but he’s incapable of explaining why he believes this (although I suspect he doesn’t really) without introducing a level tube.
The simplest case is if I stand in the open and look forward. What do i see without a piece of cardboard in my eye socket?
-
Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense.
Indeed. I would challenge you to find on any other forum on the Internet a discussion that can go on so long about something as mundane and simple as what you can see through a tube! I ask you?!?
I'm not actually that bothered about the tube discussion. That's for the others to argue about. I'm more interested in what Scepti thinks stars are. He tells me that they are lights in the sky. Which let's face it is very true. Beyond that visual description though he seems to find the rest challenging. Why do the patterns of lines in star 'rainbows' have lines which vary in position and shape so much?? I have asked several times now but each time Scepti comes back with various permutation of words which basically mean the same thing. Just because I happen to not feel it unnecessary to repeat information here which is already contained in countless other websites he seems to think that means I don't know. (I'll let you into a little secret here... I do know!.. but that's just between you and me OK!).
-
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
There is no level tube.
You're flogging a dead horse with these shenanigans.
-
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
I have not read all 100 pages, but the discussion about the tube is fascinating. How can someone be so much in denial? Then comes the bolded part, and it kind of makes sense now. Sceptimatic is either defining "level" as "not being able to see down a slope through a toilet tube" or has his beliefs so deeply ingrained that he cannot accept the results of this experiment. Or, in other words, he has indoctrinated himself and no amount of evidence will sway him.
On the chance that we are talking about the first case, could you please define "level", Sceptimatic?
I've physically seen what looking through a level tube shows. It does not show downward gradients. It simply doesn't, so it really is as simple as that.
Any HONEST person can prove this.
-
Now like I said, grow up, stop with the pathetic BS, and answer the questions.
All answered.
Don't mix up you not accepting them, as me not answering.
-
Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense. I admire the patience of everyone who’s kept this up.
But why does it matter? I don’t walk around holding a toilet roll to my face, level or otherwise.
Scepti claims that on a globe earth, no horizon should ever be visible, but he’s incapable of explaining why he believes this (although I suspect he doesn’t really) without introducing a level tube.
The simplest case is if I stand in the open and look forward. What do i see without a piece of cardboard in my eye socket?
Get your nut around why I use the tube.
I'll restate it.
It's to take away any wide angled view.
Paying attention can actually help in these cases.
-
Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense.
Indeed. I would challenge you to find on any other forum on the Internet a discussion that can go on so long about something as mundane and simple as what you can see through a tube! I ask you?!?
I'm not actually that bothered about the tube discussion. That's for the others to argue about. I'm more interested in what Scepti thinks stars are. He tells me that they are lights in the sky. Which let's face it is very true. Beyond that visual description though he seems to find the rest challenging. Why do the patterns of lines in star 'rainbows' have lines which vary in position and shape so much?? I have asked several times now but each time Scepti comes back with various permutation of words which basically mean the same thing. Just because I happen to not feel it unnecessary to repeat information here which is already contained in countless other websites he seems to think that means I don't know. (I'll let you into a little secret here... I do know!.. but that's just between you and me OK!).
Show me why your stars are so called light years away.
Can you do it or are you reliant on being told they are?
And also explain why we are not engulfed with the light from them if we see the light as it was millions of years ago.
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
-
Now like I said, grow up, stop with the pathetic BS, and answer the questions.
All answered.
Stop lying.
If you had answered them you would provide the answers again or provide a link to where you did.
The fact you can't, shows you haven't answered them.
Each time you ignore basically the entirety of my post and just post the same pathetic lie with absolutely nothing to back it up, it just further shows how dishonest you are, how little you care about the truth/reality, how willing you are to blatantly lie to everyone to try to promote your FE fantasy.
Again, if you have already answered, it should be trivial for you to provide the answers again. So like I said, grow up, stop with the pathetic BS, and answer the questions.
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
What magic stops the blue line:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
There is no level tube.
It sure looks like there is one. There is even a level to show that.
You're flogging a dead horse with these shenanigans.
Projecting yet again I see. Doing whatever you can to reject reality.
It does not show downward gradients. It simply doesn't, so it really is as simple as that.
Any HONEST person can prove this.
As repeatedly shown, IT ISN"T AS SIMPLE AS THAT!
Any HONEST person can show you to be spouting pure BS, as JJA has done.
DISHONEST people will reject that reality and instead continue to assert pure garbage like it being impossible to see a downwards gradient through a level tube.
HONEST people will realise it depends on the FOV and gradient.
Just like shown in this diagram, which like so many others, you are unable to show any fault with:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
DISHONEST people will continue to ignore that reality and continue to spout their blatant lies with no rebuttal to the arguments that show they are wrong.
Get your nut around why I use the tube.
You use it so you can ignore the fact that the RE does have a horizon, so that what you can pretend it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't, while repeatedly asserting that it doesn't.
As soon as you admit that it does it will raise the question of where it is, which will show that it should easily be viewed through a level tube unless you are quite high or the tube gives a tiny FOV.
You also use it to dishonestly pretend that it magically means you don't have a FOV at all and instead you just magically only see 1 inch of any object (except you then directly contradict that).
You are using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend your outright lies are true.
Even with a level tube you still have a FOV. This FOV is not limited to the physical vertical height of the tube, but instead is still based upon angles. This means you can still see things that are below the tube, if they are also far enough in front.
This means you can potentially see the ground below you.
Show me why your stars are so called light years away.
PARALLAX!
And also explain why we are not engulfed with the light from them
Because they are far away.
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
We can all see how stupid the BS you spout is.
-
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
I have not read all 100 pages, but the discussion about the tube is fascinating. How can someone be so much in denial? Then comes the bolded part, and it kind of makes sense now. Sceptimatic is either defining "level" as "not being able to see down a slope through a toilet tube" or has his beliefs so deeply ingrained that he cannot accept the results of this experiment. Or, in other words, he has indoctrinated himself and no amount of evidence will sway him.
On the chance that we are talking about the first case, could you please define "level", Sceptimatic?
I've physically seen what looking through a level tube shows. It does not show downward gradients. It simply doesn't, so it really is as simple as that.
Yes, downward slopes are invisible.
And the moon is a hologram.
:)
-
And also explain why we are not engulfed with the light from them if we see the light as it was millions of years ago.
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
Sorry to break it to you - youre the stupid one.
Try and grasp this before coming back with some sort of ill conceived retort
A ball of light floating in nothing ness.
The light extends outwards in all directions.
The light has a finite power output.
The power received is divided by the area the size of sphere it projects (outwardly) - radius - meaning how far away it is.
So.
In comparable sizes your feeble mind can comprehend -
Take a small led light.
Put it right up against your eyeball.
It will seem quite bright.
Then, in a pitch black gymnasium
Put that same light at the far corner and you opppsite.
You rhink youll be able to see it just as "brightly" when it was up against your eyeball?
-
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
Making ridiculous comments like that don't do anything to help your case. It just shows how completely ignorant and dismissive you are towards anything other than what you believe. I think the way your mind works is that if you can think it or imagine it then in your opinion it must be true. That's why you say everything in your model is just hypothetical and theoretical. That's why you don't bother to physically do any experiments. Because what you believe is evidence enough for you. You skip the actual testing bit and just jump from theory to conclusion.
Have you heard of the inverse square law for light intensity? In other words if you double your distance from a given light source the amount of energy from light radiation per unit area drops of by a factor of 4. 3 times by a factor of 9 etc.
Have you also noticed how the further away from an object you are the smaller it appears to be.
Now we are 'told' that the Sun is much nearer to us than any other star. Now consider how that fits in with the inverse square law. Light from the Sun is much brighter than any other star. We know that. If the other stars are much further away (as we are 'told') then according to the inverse square law they should also be much, much fainter. The Suns apparent magnitude is -26. The apparent brightness of Sirius, the next brightest star is -1.42. Thats a difference of 24.58 magnitudes. The stellar magnitude scale is logarithmic and so the difference in brightness between the Sun and Sirius is a very large number - 2.512^24.58. You could actually use that to work out how far away Sirius is.
Also think about this. If you live on the equator Orions belt passes overhead. If you live near the north pole then Orions belt skims the horizon. If you live in New Zealand you can also see Orions belt low in the north. In other words you can see Orions belt regardless of where you are on Earth so the light from the stars is 'engulfing' the whole of the Earth. However because the stars of Orions belt are a long, long way away the intensity of the light from those stars is very, very weak compared to that of the Sun. We don't see shadows cast by the stars of Orions belt but we can see them because our eyes are sensitive enough to detect the light. You will also note that no matter where in the world you observe the stars in Orions belt they always appear the same brightness. So that must mean we are always observing the stars from the same distance. If the stars were very near then their brightness would vary accordingly.
Going on the size relationship, the Sun covers an angle on the sky of 1/2 degree or 30'. That's at a distance of 8.2 light minutes so if you increased that to 4.3 light years the Suns apparent size would decrease accordingly so it became effectively a point source which is what we see in Alpha Centuri.
We measure the distances of the nearest stars by parallax. The Suns nearest neighbour is Alpha Centuri but unfortunately I can never see that from where I am. I have the equipment to take hi resolution images of star positions so yes I could measure the parallax of some stars with my own equipment but it would take at least six months. I'm happy to pick a star and do that as a project but I'm afraid you will have to be patient.
It is not just about accepting 'what I am told' it is also about combining that with a bit of logical reasoning based on my own observations. If the two agree then there is no reason to doubt what I have been 'told' is there?
In the meantime, tell us about how you have have figured out how far away the stars actually are because I'm not doing any measurements unless you do as well. Otherwise we cannot compare results can we.
-
So
What
Is
The
Point?
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
By his diagram i assume he is in hopes that the ground angle is such that it dips at auch a hard angle the scope will block this by XX distance.
He even added an arbitrary 5ft to make sure his double tube has sufficient length to block the FIELD OF VIEW.
I assume this is his goal or point rhough he refuses to admit one.
That would mean though, if all lines extend straight, the viewer is on a fricking mountain that extends forever, not a ball earth.
I assume this to be his trick
Edit:
Ha i see jackB has beaten me to it
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Aaah we finally have an admission and restatmeent of the goal!!!
Only took a week.
Here it is sceppy.
Answer to your stupid tu-tube-vertical plumb test 9pg ago.
The earth is not curving away from you in a manner that the curve is beyond the field of view of a toilet tube.
And as youve self admitted and in reality, the higher elevation you go, the further to the horizon you can see - which matches the geometry of a ball.
This is pure geometry and has nothing to do with dupes or cgi or indoctrination.
Its fking circles and triangles.
Your 1inch was disproven long time ago so you pivot to this needless plumb level (horz AND vert for added difficulty) requirement.
Hopefully we can all deny you your 100pg unless you have some more thoughts and insight you feel kike adding.
Because last 15pg have been completr dodges on your part.
-
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
Making ridiculous comments like that don't do anything to help your case. It just shows how completely ignorant and dismissive you are towards anything other than what you believe. I think the way your mind works is that if you can think it or imagine it then in your opinion it must be true. That's why you say everything in your model is just hypothetical and theoretical. That's why you don't bother to physically do any experiments. Because what you believe is evidence enough for you. You skip the actual testing bit and just jump from theory to conclusion.
Have you heard of the inverse square law for light intensity? In other words if you double your distance from a given light source the amount of energy from light radiation per unit area drops of by a factor of 4. 3 times by a factor of 9 etc.
Have you also noticed how the further away from an object you are the smaller it appears to be.
Now we are 'told' that the Sun is much nearer to us than any other star. Now consider how that fits in with the inverse square law. Light from the Sun is much brighter than any other star. We know that. If the other stars are much further away (as we are 'told') then according to the inverse square law they should also be much, much fainter. The Suns apparent magnitude is -26. The apparent brightness of Sirius, the next brightest star is -1.42. Thats a difference of 24.58 magnitudes. The stellar magnitude scale is logarithmic and so the difference in brightness between the Sun and Sirius is a very large number - 2.512^24.58. You could actually use that to work out how far away Sirius is.
Also think about this. If you live on the equator Orions belt passes overhead. If you live near the north pole then Orions belt skims the horizon. If you live in New Zealand you can also see Orions belt low in the north. In other words you can see Orions belt regardless of where you are on Earth so the light from the stars is 'engulfing' the whole of the Earth. However because the stars of Orions belt are a long, long way away the intensity of the light from those stars is very, very weak compared to that of the Sun. We don't see shadows cast by the stars of Orions belt but we can see them because our eyes are sensitive enough to detect the light.
Going on the size relationship, the Sun covers an angle on the sky of 1/2 degree or 30'. That's at a distance of 8.2 light minutes so if you increased that to 4.3 light years the Suns apparent size would decrease accordingly so it became effectively a point source which is what we see in Alpha Centuri.
We measure the distances of the nearest stars by parallax. The Suns nearest neighbour is Alpha Centuri but unfortunately I can never see that from where I am. I have the equipment to take hi resolution images of star positions so yes I could measure the parallax of some stars with my own equipment but it would take at least six months. I'm happy to pick a star and do that as a project but I'm afraid you will have to be patient.
In the meantime, tell us about how you have have figured out how far away the stars actually are because I'm not doing any measurements unless you do as well. Otherwise we cannot compare results can we.
I guess we re all the stupid ones arguing this wackamole.
Haha
He troll us again
-
You have a better explanation for all this then have you?
-
Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube? I need to know what material you are going to approve of.
You choose.
What would you use? This is important to me. I want this to be a "1st time go".... to pass the sceptimatic standard of excellence.
Sewing cotton.
Ok now hold on a second... How is one supposed to accurately line up crosshairs made of string, that are behind a pencil?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
A pencil is far thicker than a string. How am I supposed to get any accurate level alignment if the horizontal crosshairs are completely hidden by a much larger horizontal pencil?
-
Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense. I admire the patience of everyone who’s kept this up.
But why does it matter? I don’t walk around holding a toilet roll to my face, level or otherwise.
Scepti claims that on a globe earth, no horizon should ever be visible, but he’s incapable of explaining why he believes this (although I suspect he doesn’t really) without introducing a level tube.
The simplest case is if I stand in the open and look forward. What do i see without a piece of cardboard in my eye socket?
Get your nut around why I use the tube.
I'll restate it.
It's to take away any wide angled view.
Paying attention can actually help in these cases.
You use the argument because you can’t explain your claim that a horizon should never be visible on a globe earth. Not that it really helps, because looking through a tube only reduces the field of view, it doesn’t eliminate it, and it wouldn’t reduce the field of view anywhere near enough.
So the question is, if I stand on a globe earth and look forward, do I see a horizon (the line where the ground meets the sky)? If not, why not?
If you can’t explain this very simple case, you’ve got nothing.
-
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
There is no level tube.
You're flogging a dead horse with these shenanigans.
What part of the level tube in that picture confuses you? The level part? Or the tube part? ::)
Everyone is still waiting for you to post all the photos of your own experiment. Go ahead, prove us all wrong.
Where are your pictures?
-
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
I have not read all 100 pages, but the discussion about the tube is fascinating. How can someone be so much in denial? Then comes the bolded part, and it kind of makes sense now. Sceptimatic is either defining "level" as "not being able to see down a slope through a toilet tube" or has his beliefs so deeply ingrained that he cannot accept the results of this experiment. Or, in other words, he has indoctrinated himself and no amount of evidence will sway him.
On the chance that we are talking about the first case, could you please define "level", Sceptimatic?
I've physically seen what looking through a level tube shows. It does not show downward gradients. It simply doesn't, so it really is as simple as that.
Any HONEST person can prove this.
Except you apparently.
Where are your pictures to prove this, since anyone can do it? Why not show us?
-
A scenario narrative to commemorate 100 pages of twists and turns, (mostly from my stomach) and Sceptimatic's meteoric rise to moderator. O0 (well, maybe not the latter just yet)
Ok, so a fence sitting flat earther on a budget comes to me and asks how they can once and for all prove with their own eyes whether the earth is flat or a globe. "How much money can you devote to finding out?", I ask. They say, "$50." I think, "Hmm, not enough to build a homemade rocket or launch a go-pro camera into orbit." But, a light bulb goes off. I remember what the sage, Sceptimatic, has taught me. I say, "Perfect. Hold on to your $50, you will need it soon enough."
"Ok", I say, "Now if earth is indeed flat, tell me where the flattest place on earth will be? Here's a hint: What always finds it's level?" Without a split second delay, they announce, "I know this one! Water of course". I say, "Yes. So the flattest place on earth if earth is flat, has to be.....?" They say, "The sea?" I say, "Yes. The sea. Any sea of the world. An uninterrupted view of the sea all the way to the horizon."
I say, "So let's start there. Let's find a view of the sea with an uninterrupted view all the way to the horizon from the beach. Then we will look for a view of the sea with an uninterrupted view all the way to the horizon, from the highest mountain we can find."
To be continued............ ;D
-
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
There is no level tube.
You're flogging a dead horse with these shenanigans.
What part of the level tube in that picture confuses you?
The part that shows he is wrong.
-
Congratulations?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e6/100_Club_London_logo.jpg/220px-100_Club_London_logo.jpg)
-
Stop lying.
I'm not lying.
-
Yes, downward slopes are invisible.
Yes they are from someone looking through a level tube.
At least you're grasping it.
-
And also explain why we are not engulfed with the light from them if we see the light as it was millions of years ago.
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
Sorry to break it to you - youre the stupid one.
Try and grasp this before coming back with some sort of ill conceived retort
A ball of light floating in nothing ness.
The light extends outwards in all directions.
The light has a finite power output.
The power received is divided by the area the size of sphere it projects (outwardly) - radius - meaning how far away it is.
So.
In comparable sizes your feeble mind can comprehend -
Take a small led light.
Put it right up against your eyeball.
It will seem quite bright.
Then, in a pitch black gymnasium
Put that same light at the far corner and you opppsite.
You rhink youll be able to see it just as "brightly" when it was up against your eyeball?
Now let's talk about your space vacuum and it's ability to not interfere with anything within it, instead of using led lights stuck to your eye balls.
-
Yes, downward slopes are invisible.
Yes they are from someone looking through a level tube.
At least you're grasping it.
Yes, I understand that in your opinion, empty kitchen roll tubes act as MagicLaserVision Enhancers and prevent you from seeing outside a parallel field of view corresponding to the diameter of the chosen tube.
It's a silly opinion, childlike in its naive simplicity - but yes, I grasp it. You are of course welcome to it and whatever other opinions you choose to have, and I hope they serve you well in whatever you are trying to accomplish here. (which seems to be having hilarious, ridiculous arguments about nonsense, so well done!)
-
Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.
Making ridiculous comments like that don't do anything to help your case. It just shows how completely ignorant and dismissive you are towards anything other than what you believe. I think the way your mind works is that if you can think it or imagine it then in your opinion it must be true. That's why you say everything in your model is just hypothetical and theoretical. That's why you don't bother to physically do any experiments. Because what you believe is evidence enough for you. You skip the actual testing bit and just jump from theory to conclusion.
Have you heard of the inverse square law for light intensity? In other words if you double your distance from a given light source the amount of energy from light radiation per unit area drops of by a factor of 4. 3 times by a factor of 9 etc.
Have you also noticed how the further away from an object you are the smaller it appears to be.
Yep, hence the reason why I mentioned the compression from your distant view, as opposed to close.
I put this down to atmospheric density/mass atmospheric accumulation, closing down light back to the eye over distance.
Now we are 'told' that the Sun is much nearer to us than any other star. Now consider how that fits in with the inverse square law. Light from the Sun is much brighter than any other star. We know that. If the other stars are much further away (as we are 'told') then according to the inverse square law they should also be much, much fainter.
In atmosphere from thin to thick, from top to bottom you'd expect the magnified telescope look, In your supposed space vacuum, there no atmosphere (apparently) to do anything with light.
If light can travel from the past into the future like we're told, then we should be enveloped by it from the diameter of the so called star and every other so called star we see.
We should never be under darkness.
It's fine making out the lights are points of light through inverse square law but you know that's utter clap trap...or you should do.
Something else is at play and it is not lights from the past, as points.
The Suns apparent magnitude is -26. The apparent brightness of Sirius, the next brightest star is -1.42. Thats a difference of 24.58 magnitudes. The stellar magnitude scale is logarithmic and so the difference in brightness between the Sun and Sirius is a very large number - 2.512^24.58. You could actually use that to work out how far away Sirius is.
No you can't.
You're simply going on, apparent.
Also think about this. If you live on the equator Orions belt passes overhead. If you live near the north pole then Orions belt skims the horizon. If you live in New Zealand you can also see Orions belt low in the north. In other words you can see Orions belt regardless of where you are on Earth so the light from the stars is 'engulfing' the whole of the Earth. However because the stars of Orions belt are a long, long way away the intensity of the light from those stars is very, very weak compared to that of the Sun. We don't see shadows cast by the stars of Orions belt but we can see them because our eyes are sensitive enough to detect the light. You will also note that no matter where in the world you observe the stars in Orions belt they always appear the same brightness. So that must mean we are always observing the stars from the same distance. If the stars were very near then their brightness would vary accordingly.
Atmospheric density/mass over distance will certainly compress images due to light being diminished back to the eye by reflection.
If the sun supposedly engulfs half the Earth then it would engulf half the Earth, not be spots of light at certain areas on that engulfment.
Going on the size relationship, the Sun covers an angle on the sky of 1/2 degree or 30'. That's at a distance of 8.2 light minutes so if you increased that to 4.3 light years the Suns apparent size would decrease accordingly so it became effectively a point source which is what we see in Alpha Centuri.
We measure the distances of the nearest stars by parallax. The Suns nearest neighbour is Alpha Centuri but unfortunately I can never see that from where I am. I have the equipment to take hi resolution images of star positions so yes I could measure the parallax of some stars with my own equipment but it would take at least six months. I'm happy to pick a star and do that as a project but I'm afraid you will have to be patient.
It is not just about accepting 'what I am told' it is also about combining that with a bit of logical reasoning based on my own observations. If the two agree then there is no reason to doubt what I have been 'told' is there?
It is really just accepting what you're told. You're handed a starting point to calculate from. A starting point that you have no real clue of as any fact...and you know this, if you're honest with yourself.
In the meantime, tell us about how you have have figured out how far away the stars actually are because I'm not doing any measurements unless you do as well. Otherwise we cannot compare results can we.
I haven't figured out how far away stars are. I don't believe in stars.
How far away are the reflected points of light? I have no clue in all honestly and I'm not sure how I could, given what I believe Earth may be and in the way it throws that light back to us, as is well documented.
-
Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube? I need to know what material you are going to approve of.
You choose.
What would you use? This is important to me. I want this to be a "1st time go".... to pass the sceptimatic standard of excellence.
Sewing cotton.
Ok now hold on a second... How is one supposed to accurately line up crosshairs made of string, that are behind a pencil?
A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.
A pencil is far thicker than a string. How am I supposed to get any accurate level alignment if the horizontal crosshairs are completely hidden by a much larger horizontal pencil?
I'm sure you'll figure it all out if you decide to take notice at some point.
-
Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense. I admire the patience of everyone who’s kept this up.
But why does it matter? I don’t walk around holding a toilet roll to my face, level or otherwise.
Scepti claims that on a globe earth, no horizon should ever be visible, but he’s incapable of explaining why he believes this (although I suspect he doesn’t really) without introducing a level tube.
The simplest case is if I stand in the open and look forward. What do i see without a piece of cardboard in my eye socket?
Get your nut around why I use the tube.
I'll restate it.
It's to take away any wide angled view.
Paying attention can actually help in these cases.
You use the argument because you can’t explain your claim that a horizon should never be visible on a globe earth. Not that it really helps, because looking through a tube only reduces the field of view, it doesn’t eliminate it, and it wouldn’t reduce the field of view anywhere near enough.
So the question is, if I stand on a globe earth and look forward, do I see a horizon (the line where the ground meets the sky)? If not, why not?
If you can’t explain this very simple case, you’ve got nothing.
Ok, at least you understand the field of view is reduced.
Now you can get onto why a level tube would not see down a gradient unless you angled it to do so.
Then once you understand this, you'll then understand that your globe cannot offer you a level sight horizon convergence due to your globe curving away and downwards.
This means that what we are looking at through a tube and seeing this convergence...cannot, at the very least be a globe we supposedly walk upon.
At the very least we know this.
-
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
There is no level tube.
You're flogging a dead horse with these shenanigans.
What part of the level tube in that picture confuses you? The level part? Or the tube part? ::)
None of it confuses me. It's pretty blatant to see what's gone on.
-
A scenario narrative to commemorate 100 pages of twists and turns, (mostly from my stomach) and Sceptimatic's meteoric rise to moderator. O0 (well, maybe not the latter just yet)
Ok, so a fence sitting flat earther on a budget comes to me and asks how they can once and for all prove with their own eyes whether the earth is flat or a globe. "How much money can you devote to finding out?", I ask. They say, "$50." I think, "Hmm, not enough to build a homemade rocket or launch a go camera into orbit." But, a light bulb goes off. I remember what the sage, Sceptimatic, has taught me. I say, "Perfect. Hold on to your $50, you will need it soon enough."
"Ok", I say, "Now if earth is indeed flat, tell me where the flattest place on earth will be? Here's a hint: What always finds it's level?" Without a split second delay, they announce, "I know this one! Water of course". I say, "Yes. So the flattest place on earth if earth is flat, has to be.....?" They say, "The sea?" I say, "Yes. The sea. Any sea of the world. An uninterrupted view of the sea all the way to the horizon."
I say, "So let's start there. Let's find a view of the sea with an uninterrupted view all the way to the horizon from the beach. Then we will look for a view of the sea with an uninterrupted view all the way to the horizon, from the highest mountain we can find."
To be continued............ ;D
Make sure you nail this or it's a lot of wasted time, for you.
-
Congratulations?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e6/100_Club_London_logo.jpg/220px-100_Club_London_logo.jpg)
Well done, Jimmy.
-
Stop lying.
I'm not lying.
THEN WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS?
If you aren't lying you would be able to provide them, even if it is just linking back to the posts in which you made them.
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
What magic stops the blue line:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?
Yes, downward slopes are invisible.
Yes they are from someone looking through a level tube.
Simple logic and actual evidence shows that is pure BS.
The ability to see a downwards slope from a level tube depends upon your FOV. If half your FOV is greater than the gradient of the slope, you can see it. Otherwise, you can't.
Again, all clearly shown by this simple image:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Now let's talk about your space vacuum and it's ability to not interfere with anything within it, instead of using led lights stuck to your eye balls.
Or, why don't you tell us just how it should be interfering.
Yep, hence the reason why I mentioned the compression from your distant view, as opposed to close.
You also admitted that this compression is non-physical, meaning it would be simply seeing up and down.
I put this down to atmospheric density/mass atmospheric accumulation, closing down light back to the eye over distance.
Then you have no idea what you are talking about, and have no understanding of light propagation or vision works at all.
In order for the atmosphere to be compressing it, you would need a density gradient, not simply density. Again, this comes down to the lack of any justification for directionality common to your nonsense. Without a gradient, there is no justification for light to bend in any particular direction. But such a gradient doesn't exist sideways, so if that was the case, things would only be compressed vertically.
But regardless of if you want to accept it is merely perspective making things appear smaller, or the air magically doing it, you still have a hypothetical distant object touching the ground appear small enough to fit entirely inside the "tunnel vision" from the level tube, and thus you can see the ground as you can see the bottom of that object which is on the ground.
So either way, your claim is pure BS.
In atmosphere
Both the light from the sun and the light from the much more distant star need to pass through the atmosphere.
So that will not magically make the distant star brighter even though it is far more distant than the sun.
If light can travel from the past into the future
You mean like everythign which exists, which merely by existing for a period of time will travel from the past to the future?
Just like you. You were here yesterday, but have now travelled to the present, and you will travel to the future for tomorrow.
then we should be enveloped by it from the diameter of the so called star and every other so called star we see.
Why?
You are just baselessly asserting pure garbage.
The ability for light to travel doesn't magically mean it should envelop us.
Over the vast distance the light has spread out so much that it is insignificant.
As such, while it can be seen from ~ half of Earth, it is not bright enough to illuminate it.
It's fine making out the lights are points of light through inverse square law but you know that's utter clap trap...or you should do.
Why should we?
The inverse square is fairly basic. Even a complete imbecile should be able to understand it so why do you struggle so much?
The light from the source needs to cover an ever increasing area as it gets further away from it.
If you have a 1000 W light globe illuminating a 1 m^2 area, it is 1000 W per m^2. But if instead it illuminates an area of 1000 m^2, then it is 1 W per m^2. Much lower, and thus no where near as bright.
This can easily be seen with a light of your own.
And as for why it is an inverse square, consider a point light source. 1 m away from it, it illuminates a sphere of radius 1 m, with an area of 4*pi*1^2 m^2
At 100 m it illuminates a sphere of radius 100 m, with an area of 4*pi*100^2 m^2.
Notice how it follows the square of the radius.
That means the energy is spread out over an area proportional to the square of the radius, and thus the flux (the energy per unit area) is proportional to the inverse of the square.
Pretty simple.
Yet again, you are just rejecting reality with no justification.
I'm sure you'll figure it all out if you decide to take notice at some point.
You mean figure out that you are just trying to make the entire setup impossible, or trying to make it so you will have some pathetic excuse to dismiss the results when they show you are wrong?
If so, that has already been figured out, by pretty much everyone.
Ok, at least you understand the field of view is reduced.
Now you can get onto why a level tube would not see down a gradient unless you angled it to do so.
Then once you understand this
Again, you mean once we completely reject reality.
That is simply an outright lie.
That is why no one is "understanding" it.
The reality is that we do understand your claim and understand that it is pure BS.
Even with a level tube, you still have a FOV, which can still allow you to see a downwards gradient.
But remember, you claimed with a level tube you can't see the ground at all, even on a level surface, because the ground remains below the level of the tube.
This means that what we are looking at through a tube and seeing this convergence
That you are clearly wrong, and directly contradicting yourself.
At the very least we know this.
No, at the very least we know your claims are pure BS, as repeatedly demonstrated.
None of it confuses me. It's pretty blatant to see what's gone on.
Yes, you have been presented with evidence which clearly shows you are wrong, so you dismiss it as fake because you have no intention of admitting you are wrong.
As you can't simply dismiss the logical arguments as fake, you just ignore them, or look for some pathetic excuse to pretend they don't apply.
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
-
I'm sure you'll figure it all out if you decide to take notice at some point.
I figured it out some time ago. Your method for leveling the line of sight and tubes is complete rubbish and the exact type of thing an idiot flerfer would come up with. Give me a method that works.
Then once you understand this, you'll then understand that your globe cannot offer you a level sight horizon convergence due to your globe curving away and downwards.
And since it has been shown that the horizon is below eye level, Earth's a globe. Thanks for agreeing Scepticmatic.
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
Right in one.
They claim to know the truth that has evaded everyone else.
They claim to have a superior understanding of all things.
They claim to have come to the truth through research, but never divulge its exact nature or any other details.
Regardless......
But the ultimate truth is whatever position they care to adopt, all what they believe is ultimately reliant on a web of complex global conspiracies.
-
THEN WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS?
All been given.
If you want to start again and deal with one specific thing at a time instead of copy and pasting then I'll happily go over it.
Just make sure you actually type the stuff you want to know, instead of copy and paste all the time.
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
Here's your trouble. You want it all your own way. You think the books you follow are your back up books for your own words when it's the books alone that you copy from.
You think mass opinion wins the argument but it only does that if the opinion is backed by truth. You have none of that, other than speculation.
When you take the time to be honest with yourself you might have the chance to think more clearly on why your arguments get questioned and not accepted as truth.
-
I'm sure you'll figure it all out if you decide to take notice at some point.
I figured it out some time ago. Your method for leveling the line of sight and tubes is complete rubbish and the exact type of thing an idiot flerfer would come up with. Give me a method that works.
Try it and be honest with yourself. Jumping on here to big yourself up looking for the usual back patting, does not work. Learn from it and have a word with yourself about what is real and what is not...not just because the books tell you.
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
Right in one.
They claim to know the truth that has evaded everyone else.
They claim to have a superior understanding of all things.
They claim to have come to the truth through research, but never divulge its exact nature or any other details.
Regardless......
But the ultimate truth is whatever position they care to adopt, all what they believe is ultimately reliant on a web of complex global conspiracies.
The whole point of arguing is to argue against the indoctrinated global model, so............
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
Right in one.
They claim to know the truth that has evaded everyone else.
They claim to have a superior understanding of all things.
They claim to have come to the truth through research, but never divulge its exact nature or any other details.
Regardless......
But the ultimate truth is whatever position they care to adopt, all what they believe is ultimately reliant on a web of complex global conspiracies.
The whole point of arguing is to argue against the indoctrinated global model, so............
You say those who believe in mainstream science have been indoctrinated, I would say educated. How did you arrive at your conclusion of mass global indoctrination? How did you escape being 'indoctrinated' or educated?.
-
You think mass opinion wins the argument but it only does that if the opinion is backed by truth. You have none of that, other than speculation.
You think that 10000 of people independently verifying an observation means theyre indoctrinated?
Meanwhile we have here a single person with no photos or diagrams or ability to conceptualize the simple most basic circles and triangle, and has self admitted his thoughts are all just that - we should believe that person?
-
Again? Sure. See the downward sloping ground through the level tube?
The thing you claim is impossible? It's right there.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
There is no level tube.
You're flogging a dead horse with these shenanigans.
What part of the level tube in that picture confuses you? The level part? Or the tube part? ::)
None of it confuses me. It's pretty blatant to see what's gone on.
LOL.
It's so blatant and so obvious that you can't actually explain it.
Repeatedly calling me a dishonest liar doesn't make your case, especially when you continue to refuse to explain WHY and only post low content accusations.
I'm trying to help here, what part of the pictures shows that they are fake to you? Do you think the tube is magically bendy? Do you not understand how rubber bands and tape work? Are you confused about which way is up? It's where the sky is, if you need a hint.
Now give us at least a little hint as to what you can't understand about looking through a level tube. I'm at a loss as to how you could mess up looking through a tube so badly that you see an obviously level tube and start accusing people of trickery.
Now, where are your own experimental pictures to refute mine? Still afraid to post your own high quality experiment or is it too confusing? Make ask an adult for help if you can't figure it out.
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
Right in one.
They claim to know the truth that has evaded everyone else.
They claim to have a superior understanding of all things.
They claim to have come to the truth through research, but never divulge its exact nature or any other details.
Regardless......
But the ultimate truth is whatever position they care to adopt, all what they believe is ultimately reliant on a web of complex global conspiracies.
The whole point of arguing is to argue against the indoctrinated global model, so............
You say those who believe in mainstream science have been indoctrinated, I would say educated. How did you arrive at your conclusion of mass global indoctrination? How did you escape being 'indoctrinated' or educated?.
I didn't escape being indoctrinated, passed off as education.
I was steeped in it just like most.
I still haven't escaped it all because it's hard to decipher what the reality is in a lot of what we're told.
I'd say I have a foot firmly outside of the box.
Tell me something:
Do you believe everything you've been told by authority/official lines?
-
You think mass opinion wins the argument but it only does that if the opinion is backed by truth. You have none of that, other than speculation.
You think that 10000 of people independently verifying an observation means theyre indoctrinated?
Independently verifying, what, exactly?
Meanwhile we have here a single person with no photos or diagrams or ability to conceptualize the simple most basic circles and triangle, and has self admitted his thoughts are all just that - we should believe that person?
Tell me about this basic circle that we're supposedly arguing?
And the triangle.
By all means make stuff up but it still leaves you lagging.
-
I'm trying to help here
Then do so by finishing off the experiment that you started with gusto and felt all smug about.
I'm sure you'd do it if you could figure a way out of the knotted tangle, I placed you in.
-
You think mass opinion wins the argument but it only does that if the opinion is backed by truth. You have none of that, other than speculation.
You think that 10000 of people independently verifying an observation means theyre indoctrinated?
Independently verifying, what, exactly?
Meanwhile we have here a single person with no photos or diagrams or ability to conceptualize the simple most basic circles and triangle, and has self admitted his thoughts are all just that - we should believe that person?
Tell me about this basic circle that we're supposedly arguing?
And the triangle.
By all means make stuff up but it still leaves you lagging.
For the past 51pg now we ve been trying to get you to wrap your head around the horizon, ships disappearing bottom-up, and how looking through a toilet tube works.
So yes 100000 of people can independently verify how the horizon works and how a circle and a triangle work.
Youve still not address the points made and specifically to mine and jackB very similar point that your point is a non relevant point.
Moew doddging and deflection only continues to show you lack of anything.
-
I'm trying to help here
Then do so by finishing off the experiment that you started with gusto and felt all smug about.
I'm sure you'd do it if you could figure a way out of the knotted tangle, I placed you in.
LOL. I'm still smug about it, you haven't been able to do anything but call me a liar over it which is a pathetic attempt at a retort.
So when are you going to post all the photos and documentation of when you ran your own experiment?
You have to show us how to do it right, since all you can do is complain about our setups being wrong.
I did the experiment several times. You have yet to point out ANY problems with it, other than demanding more crosshairs, tubes, plumb-bobs and pencils get added for no reason. And calling me a liar constantly.
So where is your experiment, sceptimatic?
-
THEN WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS?
All been given.
Like I have said countless times, if they had actually been given, you would be able to provide them again or provide a link to them.
Instead all you can do is claim they have been given. This shows that you have no answers.
If you want to start again and deal with one specific thing at a time instead of copy and pasting then I'll happily go over it.
We have tried that plenty of times before, and you still ignore it.
But fine, lets try again, as long as you don't run off onto another topic, and as long as you actually address it.
If you don't, I'll just go back to keep posting the same question you continually run away from.
Lets start with the fact that the RE does have a horizon. A fact you reject. A fact supported by logic and diagrams and simple questions, which you have been completely unable to refute.
I provided a logical argument that you could not point out any issue with, and which I supported with a line of questions that you stopped answering.
You started with the claim that for a round Earth looking out level or up you would only see sky.
You even acted like you would only ever be able to see sky and never see Earth.
But eventually I got you to admit that if you look straight down, you do see Earth.
For simplicity, I will just say ground, but it means ground/sea, i.e. all of Earth except the sky.
Now then, because you see Earth when you look down, and see sky when you look up, there needs to be some kind of transition.
Without a transition you would either only see ground, with no transition to sky, or only see sky with no transition to ground.
This means you need some kind of visual transition to go from ground to sky.
So if you start looking down so you only see the ground, and then slowly raise your head up, at some point you need to stop seeing ground, and at some point (which may be before, during or after stop seeing ground) you need to start seeing sky.
So visually how do you stop seeing the ground, and why do you think this?
For example, is it a case of you are seeing ground, then all of a sudden the ground just entirely vanishing from your vision?
Or, do you have ground fill your vision, then as you bring your head up, the top part is no longer ground, and as you continue to raise your head the portion at the top that isn't ground grows, while the portion that is ground shrinks, until eventually it becomes a sliver at the bottom of your vision and then vanishes?
And regardless of how it leaves your vision, what replaces it, and again why do you think this?
And remember, this is just to establish if the RE does have a horizon. It is not yet at the point of if you can see it if you look out level (regardless of what you are using to look out level, e.g. just your eyes, a level tube or a level scope), or if it appears at roughly eye level. It is solely for if the RE does have a horizon or not.
, i.e. is there a line which travels across your vision, such that you start off with your entire vision filled with ground
-
I'm sure you'll figure it all out if you decide to take notice at some point.
I figured it out some time ago. Your method for leveling the line of sight and tubes is complete rubbish and the exact type of thing an idiot flerfer would come up with. Give me a method that works.
Try it and be honest with yourself. Jumping on here to big yourself up looking for the usual back patting, does not work. Learn from it and have a word with yourself about what is real and what is not...not just because the books tell you.
How about you try being honest. Your idea of making sure the tubes are level is rubbish, so what other method do you approve of?
-
Lets start with the fact that the RE does have a horizon.
You started with the claim that for a round Earth looking out level or up you would only see sky.
You even acted like you would only ever be able to see sky and never see Earth.
But eventually I got you to admit that if you look straight down, you do see Earth.
For simplicity, I will just say ground, but it means ground/sea, i.e. all of Earth except the sky.
Now then, because you see Earth when you look down, and see sky when you look up, there needs to be some kind of transition.
Without a transition you would either only see ground, with no transition to sky, or only see sky with no transition to ground.
This means you need some kind of visual transition to go from ground to sky.
So if you start looking down so you only see the ground, and then slowly raise your head up, at some point you need to stop seeing ground, and at some point (which may be before, during or after stop seeing ground) you need to start seeing sky.
So visually how do you stop seeing the ground, and why do you think this?
For example, is it a case of you are seeing ground, then all of a sudden the ground just entirely vanishing from your vision?
Or, do you have ground fill your vision, then as you bring your head up, the top part is no longer ground, and as you continue to raise your head the portion at the top that isn't ground grows, while the portion that is ground shrinks, until eventually it becomes a sliver at the bottom of your vision and then vanishes?
Like I told you before. You lift your head up on your supposed globe and you have a light to dark blend. You would not have an edge.
However, if you ended up looking level, which is what is being discussed and then twisted, as in this supposed scenario, you would have zero horizon (theoretical) line.
-
How about you try being honest. Your idea of making sure the tubes are level is rubbish, so what other method do you approve of?
If you can't follow it then just sit back and decide what you feel is better for you, on your own.
-
Lets start with the fact that the RE does have a horizon.
You started with the claim that for a round Earth looking out level or up you would only see sky.
You even acted like you would only ever be able to see sky and never see Earth.
But eventually I got you to admit that if you look straight down, you do see Earth.
For simplicity, I will just say ground, but it means ground/sea, i.e. all of Earth except the sky.
Now then, because you see Earth when you look down, and see sky when you look up, there needs to be some kind of transition.
Without a transition you would either only see ground, with no transition to sky, or only see sky with no transition to ground.
This means you need some kind of visual transition to go from ground to sky.
So if you start looking down so you only see the ground, and then slowly raise your head up, at some point you need to stop seeing ground, and at some point (which may be before, during or after stop seeing ground) you need to start seeing sky.
So visually how do you stop seeing the ground, and why do you think this?
For example, is it a case of you are seeing ground, then all of a sudden the ground just entirely vanishing from your vision?
Or, do you have ground fill your vision, then as you bring your head up, the top part is no longer ground, and as you continue to raise your head the portion at the top that isn't ground grows, while the portion that is ground shrinks, until eventually it becomes a sliver at the bottom of your vision and then vanishes?
Like I told you before. You lift your head up on your supposed globe and you have a light to dark blend. You would not have an edge.
However, if you ended up looking level, which is what is being discussed and then twisted, as in this supposed scenario, you would have zero horizon (theoretical) line.
And as mentioned
Looking at a basket ball, slowly rise yoyr view-level it off-then keep going.
You see the edge of the ball?
Thats the horizon.
Yhe theoretical line of the ball.
You know what a ball is?
Is like a circle.
But... all around.
Still nothing new said
Still no actual answer that magically debunks edges, circles, and triangles.
-
You lift your head up on your supposed globe and you have a light to dark blend. You would not have an edge.
What causes this blend?
Especially when every other ball we look at has a clear edge?
However, if you ended up looking level
Like I said, level comes later.
-
Lets start with the fact that the RE does have a horizon.
You started with the claim that for a round Earth looking out level or up you would only see sky.
You even acted like you would only ever be able to see sky and never see Earth.
But eventually I got you to admit that if you look straight down, you do see Earth.
For simplicity, I will just say ground, but it means ground/sea, i.e. all of Earth except the sky.
Now then, because you see Earth when you look down, and see sky when you look up, there needs to be some kind of transition.
Without a transition you would either only see ground, with no transition to sky, or only see sky with no transition to ground.
This means you need some kind of visual transition to go from ground to sky.
So if you start looking down so you only see the ground, and then slowly raise your head up, at some point you need to stop seeing ground, and at some point (which may be before, during or after stop seeing ground) you need to start seeing sky.
So visually how do you stop seeing the ground, and why do you think this?
For example, is it a case of you are seeing ground, then all of a sudden the ground just entirely vanishing from your vision?
Or, do you have ground fill your vision, then as you bring your head up, the top part is no longer ground, and as you continue to raise your head the portion at the top that isn't ground grows, while the portion that is ground shrinks, until eventually it becomes a sliver at the bottom of your vision and then vanishes?
Like I told you before. You lift your head up on your supposed globe and you have a light to dark blend. You would not have an edge.
However, if you ended up looking level, which is what is being discussed and then twisted, as in this supposed scenario, you would have zero horizon (theoretical) line.
And as mentioned
Looking at a basket ball, slowly rise yoyr view-level it off-then keep going.
You see the edge of the ball?
Thats the horizon.
Yhe theoretical line of the ball.
You know what a ball is?
Is like a circle.
But... all around.
Still nothing new said
Still no actual answer that magically debunks edges, circles, and triangles.
You don't live on a basketball, so how can you see any edge of it?.
-
You lift your head up on your supposed globe and you have a light to dark blend. You would not have an edge.
What causes this blend?
Especially when every other ball we look at has a clear edge?
Where are you looking at this ball from?
-
Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now. You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers. They believe what they believe and that is all.
I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it. I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.
Right in one.
They claim to know the truth that has evaded everyone else.
They claim to have a superior understanding of all things.
They claim to have come to the truth through research, but never divulge its exact nature or any other details.
Regardless......
But the ultimate truth is whatever position they care to adopt, all what they believe is ultimately reliant on a web of complex global conspiracies.
The whole point of arguing is to argue against the indoctrinated global model, so............
You say those who believe in mainstream science have been indoctrinated, I would say educated. How did you arrive at your conclusion of mass global indoctrination? How did you escape being 'indoctrinated' or educated?.
I didn't escape being indoctrinated, passed off as education.
I was steeped in it just like most.
I still haven't escaped it all because it's hard to decipher what the reality is in a lot of what we're told.
I'd say I have a foot firmly outside of the box.
Tell me something:
Do you believe everything you've been told by authority/official lines?
Thats a good question, what does one believe.
I suppose it all comes down to evidence and trust. like many people I went through a pretty good school and university system being taught by some fine teachers. In later life I worked with some eminent scientists. I hasten to add Im not one, eminent scientist that is. I was able to see first hand how the scientific world opperates. To imagine that all the worlds scientists are somehow involved in a major conspiracy to hide the true nature of the earth is rather unbelievable when all the evidence points to the world being a globe, after all all the other planets are....so why should we be different?
You talk of belief. Belief comes through evidence and the source from which the evidence comes is pretty relevant. Do you not think its a bit strange that every professional scientist whose specialism overlaps with the nature of our planet would all agree bar none that the earth is s globe! I can look up and see satellites, you if you have a mind can do the same. You can look at the moon in the northern hemisphere then take a plane ride to the southern hemisphere and have another look. Why do you think the moon is upside down when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere? Do you imagine its a conspiracy or would you believe your own eye sight? I think its what you would expect to see if we are living on a globe? Whats not to believe?
You on the other hand go and make up an outlandish bunch of ideas that don't fit with reality, air molecules going in and out of solid material an impossibility, and you choose to believe that! It makes no sense, you choose to believe in the the unbelievable, ignore the clear evidence all because you don't want to accept the truth. You also have to invent some World Wide Web of conspiracies to validate your belief, conspiracies for which you have zero evidence as none exists.
Flat farther like yourself have to make up a slew of stories to connivence and justify what you believe. Sat Nav, a common every day technology that almost every person on the planet has at their fingertips through their mobiles, watch or car based device. Everyone knows its based on a set of satellites of which there are several sets operated by different countries/power blocks. You by virtue of your belief have to convince yourself that all this is fake, despite all the devices connected working as promised. You then have to make up a number of stories to convince yourself. Stories that have no evidence.......and you talk about believing. It strikes me you believe in what you feel you ought to believe in, not through any inherent truth but through necessity. The only one around here who is indoctrinated is your good self.
Why is the moon in the Southern Hemisphere upside down? think about it but don't let your indoctrination sway you.
-
Why is the moon in the Southern Hemisphere upside down? think about it but don't let your indoctrination sway you.
The moon is not upside down. There is no up or down or right way up. What even is down?
-
This thread is a prime example of how deep a hole FE has dug themselves. The toilet paper roll experiment, and travel of light, only prove one thing.
I, for one, am only happy sceptimatic continues. He is doing God's work, so to speak.
NEVER GIVE UP! KEEP AT IT!
-
Up has the north pole and europeans like to be on top.
-
Up has the north pole and europeans like to be on top.
'Up' from where though? From my perspective if the Earth is a globe, either pole is in a straight line from me
-
Up has the north pole and europeans like to be on top.
'Up' from where though? From my perspective if the Earth is a globe, either pole is in a straight line from me
This is always where any argument supporting Flat Earth ends up. Pretending you don't know what 'up' means. Feigning ignorance and confusion and derailing a simple concept into an endless back and forth over 'what does bigger even mean?' and other absurdities.
Not that this discussion wasn't derailed by the first page anyway, I don't think we're even on the same planet anymore as the discussion topic.
-
Up has the north pole and europeans like to be on top.
'Up' from where though? From my perspective if the Earth is a globe, either pole is in a straight line from me
This is always where any argument supporting Flat Earth ends up. Pretending you don't know what 'up' means. Feigning ignorance and confusion and derailing a simple concept into an endless back and forth over 'what does bigger even mean?' and other absurdities.
Not that this discussion wasn't derailed by the first page anyway, I don't think we're even on the same planet anymore as the discussion topic.
If I point up the direction goes to space. However someone on the other side of the planet, to point to my direction, they'd have to point down to the ground. There is no direction of up to go to the North Pole. There is the direction of North. North is not up and South is not down. They are just directions.
if you were plonked into the centre of the Earth and told to go 'up' to the North pole it still doesn't work. Every direction becomes 'up'
(https://www.thetrumpet.com/files/W1siZiIsIjIwMTcvMDMvMDcvOTRkd3plcWY2ZF9maWxlIl0sWyJwIiwidGh1bWIiLCIyMDQ4eDIwNDg%2BIl0sWyJwIiwiZW5jb2RlIiwianBnIiwiLXF1YWxpdHkgODAiXV0/0f404cc3663ef021/locus_5437.jpg.jpg)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different
Imagine looking at the Earth from space. What is at the top of the planet? If you said the North Pole, you probably wouldn’t be alone. Strictly speaking, you wouldn’t be right either.
The uncomfortable truth is that despite almost everybody imagining that the world is this way up, there is no good, scientific reason to think of north as being the roof of the world.
-
Up has the north pole and europeans like to be on top.
'Up' from where though? From my perspective if the Earth is a globe, either pole is in a straight line from me
This is always where any argument supporting Flat Earth ends up. Pretending you don't know what 'up' means. Feigning ignorance and confusion and derailing a simple concept into an endless back and forth over 'what does bigger even mean?' and other absurdities.
Not that this discussion wasn't derailed by the first page anyway, I don't think we're even on the same planet anymore as the discussion topic.
If I point up the direction goes to space. However someone on the other side of the planet, to point to my direction, they'd have to point down to the ground. There is no direction of up to go to the North Pole. There is the direction of North. North is not up and South is not down. They are just directions.
if you were plonked into the centre of the Earth and told to go 'up' to the North pole it still doesn't work. Every direction becomes 'up'
(https://www.thetrumpet.com/files/W1siZiIsIjIwMTcvMDMvMDcvOTRkd3plcWY2ZF9maWxlIl0sWyJwIiwidGh1bWIiLCIyMDQ4eDIwNDg%2BIl0sWyJwIiwiZW5jb2RlIiwianBnIiwiLXF1YWxpdHkgODAiXV0/0f404cc3663ef021/locus_5437.jpg.jpg)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different
Imagine looking at the Earth from space. What is at the top of the planet? If you said the North Pole, you probably wouldn’t be alone. Strictly speaking, you wouldn’t be right either.
The uncomfortable truth is that despite almost everybody imagining that the world is this way up, there is no good, scientific reason to think of north as being the roof of the world.
Again, that's arguing philosophy about what does 'up' and 'down' mean and has nothing at all to do with the point being made. Just distractions and diversions.
And you bloody well know this. :P
Here's a picture to clear it up anyway. The moon looks different depending on where you are on the planet. Why? A round Earth explains it, a Flat Earth does not.
(https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2018-11/TheMoonsOrientation.jpg)
Yes, I know I'm being trolled. I'm bored. But... what is bored? Is it a state of mind, or a mental state? Nobody knows! :)
-
I wasn't arguing for a flat earth here. Your picture only serves the point I was making that there is no definitive top or bottom. My up is not your up, or top, or down or bottom. Our perspectives are different and the interaction with our universe is 3D
Also I wasn't so much trolling as simply replying to the thread above me. I have not bothered reading this thread for the last few thousand posts lol
-
I wasn't arguing for a flat earth here. Your picture only serves the point I was making that there is no definitive top or bottom. My up is not your up, or top, or down or bottom. Our perspectives are different and the interaction with our universe is 3D
Also I wasn't so much trolling as simply replying to the thread above me. I have not bothered reading this thread for the last few thousand posts lol
Nobody was saying there was an absolute top or bottom.
What was being said, is the Moon 's orientation is DIFFERENT for people on opposite sides of the world. Nobody cares which way is the 'real up' and nobody was asking that. The point was that it does not look the same if you travel over the equator.
We live in a 3D universe, and so your and my perspectives of the moon will be different. Because we are on a sphere.
You KNOW this. :P
Classic deflection. But now we must all wonder, is the thread being deflected or the people reading it? We shall never know.
-
Where are you looking at this ball from?
From anywhere, including standing on top of it.
Regardless of where I look at balls from, as long as nothing else gets in the way, I clearly see the edge.
So again, why should a round Earth be different?
What causes the edge to become blurry or to blend?
The other point is are you saying it goes from light being Earth to dark being nothing? Or is dark meant to be the sky?
-
Why is the moon in the Southern Hemisphere upside down? think about it but don't let your indoctrination sway you.
Go get a picture of the moon, print it out and stick it on your roof.
Now go look at it from different vantage points.
Notice how it changes?
It being upside down in the southern hemisphere is trivial to explain, even for a FE.
It you don't want to stick it on your roof, just lay it on the floor.
What the FE can't explain in regards to the moon, ignoring the phase, which changes over the month, we always see roughly the same face of the moon, regardless of where on Earth we are, and it always appears roughly the same size, and as roughly a circle (noting that we are including the dark part); even though it appears in apparently completely different locations.
e.g. someone can see it on the eastern horizon, while someone else sees it directly above, and someone else sees it on the western horizon.
There are only so many options that could be. And they can be broken into groups/sets:
The moon could be close, or far away.
It could be flat or round.
Earth could be flat or round.
This gives us 8 options overall to look at.
The simplest thing to consider is what explains its apparent change in position while keeping its face basically the same (ignoring orientation).
A flat Earth with a far away moon simply wouldn't work at all, as everyone would see it in the same location, regardless of if the moon is flat or round.
But a round Earth with a far away moon does. The apparent change in position is the result of a change of reference. The ground is at a different angle for each person and thus the angle between the ground and moon changes. Note that this works regardless of if the moon is flat or round.
But if the moon is close, then as it moves around, not only would its apparent size change, but what it looks like would as well.
If it was flat, it would distort into an ellipse, only appearing as a circle for those in a single direction.
If it was round, then people from different angles would still see a circle, but it would look different.
And note that this applies regardless of if Earth is flat or round.
So the only options which actually work to explain the moon is a round Earth with a far away moon. And that moon could be flat or round.
The fact that we see slightly more than half as it wobbles around, and the fact people do see slightly different parts shows it is round. The shadows on the surface and how they change over the surface also support that.
-
Why is the moon in the Southern Hemisphere upside down? think about it but don't let your indoctrination sway you.
The moon is not upside down. There is no up or down or right way up. What even is down?
If you were to take images of the moon from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and compare them they would look very different. One would look ‘upside down’ with respect to the other. Just what would be expected with the earth being a globe.
What was the point you were trying to make?
-
If you were to take images of the moon from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and compare them they would look very different. One would look ‘upside down’ with respect to the other. Just what would be expected with the earth being a globe.
And just what would be expected if Earth was flat.
What was the point you were trying to make?
-
Where are you looking at this ball from?
From anywhere, including standing on top of it.
Well, let's deal with standing on this ball because that's what you believe your Earth is.
This is what I'm arguing.
You understand this is what I'm arguing, so let's argue that from this point and not from a twisting point of a basketball on a table being looked at by someone sitting at the table, because in that scenario you're pushing for a vantage point from so called space, looking back at a ball Earth.
Ok, so let's get back to the simplistic.
A level tube at your eye as you stand upright on a downward gradient, would not allow you to see that gradient as JJA pretends it to be.
The very same reason you would not see any horizon on a globe Earth if you were placed upon something like that.....because the curve is away and downward from your level sight, leaving no ball to be seen.
-
Where are you looking at this ball from?
From anywhere, including standing on top of it.
Well, let's deal with standing on this ball because that's what you believe your Earth is.
Or, unless you can explain why standing on it should magically change it, lets just deal with balls in general.
After all, when I stand on a basketball or the like, the edge doesn't suddenly become blurry nor become a blend.
At most the ball just distorts a bit from so much weight on it.
Ok, so let's get back to the simplistic.
A level tube
No! We are not dealing with a level tube, and you said to stick to 1 specific thing. So we will stick to that 1 specific thing. This thing, which we have already started discussing, is the visual transition as you lift your head. It has nothing at all to do with a level tube.
Only once we finish with this discussion on the edge/visual transition can we start discussing what is seen through a level tube.
So in order to move on to a level tube, you need to justify your claim of a blend, or accept that the RE would have a clear edge.
Again, regardless of how we view plenty of different balls, we can easily observe an edge. This includes when it sits on a table, and we look at it from afar, if it is held in front of us (assuming it isn't so close our eyes can't focus on it), or if it is on a field some distance and even if we are standing on it.
In all cases, we can clearly see an edge.
It is not a blur, nor is it a blend from light to dark.
So why should a round Earth produce a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge?
And again, is this dark meant to be the sky or is it merely nothing where we just don't see anything at all?
Or do I have it the wrong way around and the light is the sky with the dark being Earth?
-
A level tube at your eye as you stand upright on a downward gradient, would not allow you to see that gradient as JJA pretends it to be.
Do you yet have any reasons for constantly calling me a liar, or just insisting I am because you don't understand how tubes work? ::)
What's wrong with this picture, other than it directly contradicts your claims?
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
Have you posted your experiment yet? Where is your perfect experiment you have claimed you have performed?
Why are you afraid to show us? Why can't you post pictures of your own well documented experiment?
-
No! We are not dealing with a level tube, and you said to stick to 1 specific thing.
Then sit back and chat to someone else and leave it.
-
Do you yet have any reasons for constantly calling me a liar
Yep. Already given. Take notice.
-
Do you yet have any reasons for constantly calling me a liar
Yep. Already given. Take notice.
This seems to be a very common tactic with Flat Earthers. When you can't answer a question, claim you did but never point out where. Always some excuse as to why you are unable to do so.
Where exactly did you show that my pictures are falsified? All you have done is claim they can't possibly be true because you say so. ::)
And where are your experimental pictures? Why can't you post them? Do you not know how? Is it too hard? You seem very desperate to ignore this question.
-
]
This seems to be a very common tactic with Flat Earthers.
The common tactic with people like you is to do a pretence of an experiment and pass it off as reality, then wait for the "bravo bravo" from your like-minded internet buddies and then go into raptures when you're called out on it.
A smug start and now you're down to this.
Try and work from your own set up and stop relying on getting your back rubbed.
-
]
This seems to be a very common tactic with Flat Earthers.
The common tactic with people like you is to do a pretence of an experiment and pass it off as reality, then wait for the "bravo bravo" from your like-minded internet buddies and then go into raptures when you're called out on it.
A smug start and now you're down to this.
Try and work from your own set up and stop relying on getting your back rubbed.
So, you don't have any excuse for not showing your own well designed and carefully carried out experimental pictures?
Not even going to try, just going to keep ignoring it. That's a pretty deep hole you dug yourself, but it's a nice place to hide down there isn't it?
So you call me a liar again, and once more fail to back it up with anything.
If you need help setting up your experiment, try asking an adult for help. I'm sure you can find someone to explain how to look through a tube and take pictures of it.
If you're confused, an experiment looking through a tube looks like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
-
That's a pretty deep hole you dug yourself, but it's a nice place to hide down there isn't it?
I'm on solid ground and in full view. I have no need to hide...unlike your attempts to swerve.
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
-
So
What
Is
The
Point?
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
By his diagram i assume he is in hopes that the ground angle is such that it dips at auch a hard angle the scope will block this by XX distance.
He even added an arbitrary 5ft to make sure his double tube has sufficient length to block the FIELD OF VIEW.
I assume this is his goal or point rhough he refuses to admit one.
That would mean though, if all lines extend straight, the viewer is on a fricking mountain that extends forever, not a ball earth.
I assume this to be his trick
Edit:
Ha i see jackB has beaten me to it
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Aaah we finally have an admission and restatmeent of the goal!!!
Only took a week.
Here it is sceppy.
Answer to your stupid tu-tube-vertical plumb test 9pg ago.
The earth is not curving away from you in a manner that the curve is beyond the field of view of a toilet tube.
And as youve self admitted and in reality, the higher elevation you go, the further to the horizon you can see - which matches the geometry of a ball.
This is pure geometry and has nothing to do with dupes or cgi or indoctrination.
Its fking circles and triangles.
Your 1inch was disproven long time ago so you pivot to this needless plumb level (horz AND vert for added difficulty) requirement.
Hopefully we can all deny you your 100pg unless you have some more thoughts and insight you feel kike adding.
Because last 15pg have been completr dodges on your part.
Here it is again.
JackBs diagram.
We re not standing on a mountain.
Its a giant ball.
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
-
So
What
Is
The
Point?
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
By his diagram i assume he is in hopes that the ground angle is such that it dips at auch a hard angle the scope will block this by XX distance.
He even added an arbitrary 5ft to make sure his double tube has sufficient length to block the FIELD OF VIEW.
I assume this is his goal or point rhough he refuses to admit one.
That would mean though, if all lines extend straight, the viewer is on a fricking mountain that extends forever, not a ball earth.
I assume this to be his trick
Edit:
Ha i see jackB has beaten me to it
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Aaah we finally have an admission and restatmeent of the goal!!!
Only took a week.
Here it is sceppy.
Answer to your stupid tu-tube-vertical plumb test 9pg ago.
The earth is not curving away from you in a manner that the curve is beyond the field of view of a toilet tube.
And as youve self admitted and in reality, the higher elevation you go, the further to the horizon you can see - which matches the geometry of a ball.
This is pure geometry and has nothing to do with dupes or cgi or indoctrination.
Its fking circles and triangles.
Your 1inch was disproven long time ago so you pivot to this needless plumb level (horz AND vert for added difficulty) requirement.
Hopefully we can all deny you your 100pg unless you have some more thoughts and insight you feel kike adding.
Because last 15pg have been completr dodges on your part.
Here it is again.
JackBs diagram.
We re not standing on a mountain.
Its a giant ball.
Like this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
-
That's a pretty deep hole you dug yourself, but it's a nice place to hide down there isn't it?
I'm on solid ground and in full view. I have no need to hide...unlike your attempts to swerve.
I'm the one posting actual pictures of actual experiments.
You're the one too afraid to even explain why you won't post any of yours.
You have a SERIOUS case of projection going on here.
So... will you put pictures of your experiment on full view? I'm going to guess... no. The reason? Take a guess.
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
-
Like this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Once again you seem to think we see in one dimension.
That's not how eyes work. It's not how any of this works.
We see more than a dot, or a line. We have an entire field of view. Look it up.
-
I'm the one posting actual (doctored) pictures of actual experiments.
Before you carry on you need to do two things.
1. Stop acting like someone that requires back rubbing from globalists.
2. Start being honest with yourself and the people you are doing your experiments for.
Simple enough.
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
The 2d drawing covers any set up on a ball, so what's your point?
-
Like this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Once again you seem to think we see in one dimension.
That's not how eyes work. It's not how any of this works.
We see more than a dot, or a line. We have an entire field of view. Look it up.
Not inside a small tube you don't.
-
I'm the one posting actual (doctored) pictures of actual experiments.
Before you carry on you need to do two things.
1. Stop acting like someone that requires back rubbing from globalists.
2. Start being honest with yourself and the people you are doing your experiments for.
Simple enough.
So do you have anything to add to your low-content posts other than just constantly calling me a liar?
You still haven't given ANY reasons. The closest is you claiming you did, but you didn't.
Where are your pictures of your perfectly performed experiment? Did the dog eat your homework?
-
Like this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Once again you seem to think we see in one dimension.
That's not how eyes work. It's not how any of this works.
We see more than a dot, or a line. We have an entire field of view. Look it up.
Not inside a small tube you don't.
Do you even comprehend the words you read and type?
Yes, you still have a field of view inside a tube. It's not a one dimensional view. Have you EVER actually looked through a tube? What is it you imagine you see, a dot? ::)
-
Theres nothing wrong with a 2d representation.
Hwoever.
If you note sceppys astrix says "not to scale".
If he did it to scale, or found one of the manymany 3d sims and 2d drawing he would then have to admit the field of view.
So.
Still failure to acknowledge the actual model and push a false argument
-
We see more than a dot, or a line. We have an entire field of view. Look it up.
Do you even comprehend the words you read and type?
Yes, you still have a field of view inside a tube. It's not a one dimensional view. Have you EVER actually looked through a tube? What is it you imagine you see, a dot? ::)
I see a very small field of view.
Not the entire field of view you make out.
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
The 2d drawing covers any set up on a ball, so what's your point?
It only covers people on one longitude at roughly 12am.
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
The 2d drawing covers any set up on a ball, so what's your point?
It only covers people on one longitude at roughly 12am.
12am?
-
So according to scepppy people only see in 1dim and cant look down.
52pg ago this was addressed.
People actaully have a field of view, looking through a tube doesnt refute this and his diagram doesnt cause any disruption to the ball earth model.
So
Still nothing new.
If you have confusion lets have it.
But you javent brought up any new points except the originally refuted one.
-
We see more than a dot, or a line. We have an entire field of view. Look it up.
Do you even comprehend the words you read and type?
Yes, you still have a field of view inside a tube. It's not a one dimensional view. Have you EVER actually looked through a tube? What is it you imagine you see, a dot? ::)
I see a very small field of view.
Not the entire field of view you make out.
Oh, so you admit there is a field of view. Not sure what you mean by "entire field of view" though.
But if there is a field of view, it will show things above, below and to the sides of the tube.
The ground is below the tube, if you recall. Like the ground shown in my picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
Speaking of pictures... where are your experiment pictures?
-
So according to scepppy people only see in 1dim and cant look down.
52pg ago this was addressed.
People actaully have a field of view, looking through a tube doesnt refute this and his diagram doesnt cause any disruption to the ball earth model.
So
Still nothing new.
If you have confusion lets have it.
But you javent brought up any new points except the originally refuted one.
I see you've went right back to the start.
groundhogkabool.
-
Oh, so you admit there is a field of view. Not sure what you mean by "entire field of view" though.
I always said there was a field of view but I said it was restricted depending on what you were looking through without wide angled lenses.
Maybe you forgot all of that and took a leaf out of groundhogkabool's book.
You're not sure what I mean with entire field of view? You were the one that said it.
But if there is a field of view, it will show things above, below and to the sides of the tube.
If there's reflected light hitting it, yes.
In terms of a thin tube you will not see any ground on a downward gradient if that tube is set level.
-
So according to scepppy people only see in 1dim and cant look down.
52pg ago this was addressed.
People actaully have a field of view, looking through a tube doesnt refute this and his diagram doesnt cause any disruption to the ball earth model.
So
Still nothing new.
If you have confusion lets have it.
But you javent brought up any new points except the originally refuted one.
I see you've went right back to the start.
groundhogkabool.
We can never away from the start unless you bring up something new.
You only can insist on the original premise - which as described, again, is flawed and incorrect.
Your drawing poses no issue to round earth model and in fact proves it more so.
In your ddawing
1.
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
2.
Your diagram is self admited to not be to scale.
So go ahead and draw it to scale and post it.
Do it.
I dare you.
-
Oh, so you admit there is a field of view. Not sure what you mean by "entire field of view" though.
I always said there was a field of view but I said it was restricted depending on what you were looking through without wide angled lenses.
Maybe you forgot all of that and took a leaf out of groundhogkabool's book.
The size and shape of the tube determines the field of view, not a lens. You need me to take a picture through a tube without using a lens to prove it? No lens required.
Of course if I do, you will just call me a liar and say it's faked somehow. Whatever.
But if there is a field of view, it will show things above, below and to the sides of the tube.
If there's reflected light hitting it, yes.
Reflecting off what? Nothing you see through a tube reflects off of anything. Care to explain what part of a tube is reflective? ::)
In terms of a thin tube you will not see any ground on a downward gradient if that tube is set level.
Nope, I showed you the ground through a tube. Anyone can do the same, it doesn't matter. You can even see the ground through a straw, you just see less of it.
So.... where are your experimental photos? Why won't you share them? Why are you so scared to show your work?
Probably because it's all wrong and doesn't actually show what you claim. Fail.
(https://schoolfallacy.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/1/8/42186721/748644505.jpg?384)
-
Scepoy
Youce already been told what the curvature is and the gradient is not NOT such the angle is greater than the field of view.
Keep saying the initilaly flawed premise over and over.
Doesnt change this.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
The 2d drawing covers any set up on a ball, so what's your point?
It only covers people on one longitude at roughly 12am.
12am?
Yes. Specially the time opposite solar moon.
-
No! We are not dealing with a level tube, and you said to stick to 1 specific thing.
Then sit back and chat to someone else and leave it.
And yet again you have proven that you have no interest at all in any form of a rational discussion and just want to continually spout whatever BS you can.
Because you can't defend your claim, you want to run from it.
You also show that your previous claim was yet another blatant lie.
Remember this lie of yours:
If you want to start again and deal with one specific thing at a time instead of copy and pasting then I'll happily go over it.
You sure don't seem to want to happily go over it. You don't want to go over it at all.
So thanks for yet again showing you are the problem. You don't want to just stick to a specific thing. Instead you just want to discuss no more than 1 thing at a time, so you can continually jump between them to pretend you haven't been repeatedly refuted.
If you whish to try again, you get to start. So if you want to just focus on a specific issue, deal with the visual transition from the ground to the sky. But don't expect me to. You had your chance.
So no more just sticking to one point.
First, the horizon, there is no reason at all to produce a blur or a blend.
The RE, just like all other round objects, should produce a clear edge.
The only way for it to have a blend or the like is if the atmosphere stopped the light, or something got in the way. But that works for both a RE and a FE.
This means the RE does have a horizon.
And when you bother doing the math, it is at roughly 2.7 arc minutes below level if your eyes are 2 m above the level surface, easily visible through a level tube.
And while I am at it, no you hadn't told us that before. Instead it was pointed out that that is one possibility for a FE, where the atmosphere stops the light and you have a region of darkness. This was the first time you told us the RE should magically have this.
Now back to the tube that you wanted to change the topic to:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
We know it can easily reach your eye without the tube.
We know the tube doesn't present any obstruction to the blue line.
So without anything to stop it, it should reach the eye. So again, what magic stops it?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
And as there is nothing to stop it, that means you can see light coming in from below the tube. You have an angular FOV just like always.
And with this angular FOV, you can typically easily see the ground. But like as shown repeatedly, for a flat surface, that will depend on the gradient and the FOV; and for a round surface, that will depend on the FOV your height and the radius of the curve.
And the fact that you can see below the tube can also be easily established by simply looking at a distant object through the tube.
You can see things much larger than the tube, and thus you must be able to see above and below the tube.
Do you yet have any reasons for constantly calling me a liar
Yep. Already given. Take notice.
Your sole "reason" is that he proved you wrong.
But that just shows that you are wrong, not that he is a liar.
The common tactic with people like you
You mean a common tactic with people like you is to demand an experiment, only to dismiss it when it shows you are wrong and throw in more ridiculous demands, all while being completely incapable of doing the experiment yourself and providing the results.
But remember, we don't need your experiment. Simple logic shows you are wrong.
unlike your attempts to swerve.
You are the one trying to swerve.
We were meant to be discussing the edge of the RE and how it visually transitions, and you ran right away to a level tube.
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
And you have been told that we don't see in 1D. So no, that is not what anyone other than you says.
Like I told you before, redraw your diagram, but this time with actual FOVs drawn in.
Not inside a small tube you don't.
Yes inside a level tube.
As repeatedly shown. Unless you can explain what magic stops the blue line.
Sure, it is a smaller angle than without the tube, but it is still an entire angular FOV, not 0, not a line.
I see you've went right back to the start.
No, you just haven't left the start.
You continue to make bold, insane assertions with literally nothing to back them up, and simple logic and diagrams showing you are wrong.
I always said there was a field of view
No, you repeatedly rejected it. FOV is based upon angles. You said you magically don't see in angle and instead magically see a line, as 1 inch of any object.
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
If he is just trying to show a side view, that isn't a problem.
-
If you were to take images of the moon from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and compare them they would look very different. One would look ‘upside down’ with respect to the other. Just what would be expected with the earth being a globe.
And just what would be expected if Earth was flat.
What was the point you were trying to make?
Can you explain, as this could be viewed as a fairly important point.
What we see from both hemispheres of our planet is pretty consistent with it being a sphere, how is it you can twist this to say it’s consistent with it being flat?
Sounds a bit fishy to me...
-
If you were to take images of the moon from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and compare them they would look very different. One would look ‘upside down’ with respect to the other. Just what would be expected with the earth being a globe.
And just what would be expected if Earth was flat.
What was the point you were trying to make?
Can you explain, as this could be viewed as a fairly important point.
What we see from both hemispheres of our planet is pretty consistent with it being a sphere, how is it you can twist this to say it’s consistent with it being flat?
Sounds a bit fishy to me...
I already did and you just ignored it.
Like I said, go get a picture of the moon, put it on the roof (or floor), and look at it from one side, then move to the other side and look at it.
Does it look upside down?
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
-
I always said there was a field of view
No, you repeatedly rejected it. FOV is based upon angles. You said you magically don't see in angle and instead magically see a line, as 1 inch of any object.
No, I did not.
I always said there was a FOV.
You decided that I didn't, which is dishonesty.
Go and look back and find where I said it. Don't make excuses that you can't.
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
Make your drawing to scale then and then re-present your argument.
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
Make your drawing to scale then and then re-present your argument.
You know fine well I can't make the drawing to scale and give a visual representation of it.
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
Make your drawing to scale then and then re-present your argument.
You know fine well I can't make the drawing to scale and give a visual representation of it.
Ask someone for help or learn to do it yourself if you can't make a drawing to scale. I've created and shown illustrations of the Earths curvature and structures and sightlines to scale. Don't give up!
Not knowing how to do something isn't an excuse, no mater how well we know you can't, as you stated.
-
Don't give up!
I have no intention of giving up.
-
Don't give up!
I have no intention of giving up.
Then where are your to scale drawings and all the pictures of your advanced, well planned and detailed experiment?
-
Don't give up!
I have no intention of giving up.
Then where are your to scale drawings and all the pictures of your advanced, well planned and detailed experiment?
About what?
-
Don't give up!
I have no intention of giving up.
Then where are your to scale drawings and all the pictures of your advanced, well planned and detailed experiment?
About what?
The photos of your tube experiment that you said you carried out. Lets see your results, since you claim mine are all faked. Show us the real thing.
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
Make your drawing to scale then and then re-present your argument.
You know fine well I can't make the drawing to scale and give a visual representation of it.
Why not?
Here's a scale diagram that may help you understand something that you obviously do not understand. The reason why on Globe Earth one can see the horizon and the ground/sea through a level tube or just with your eyes is because Earth is huge, massive, in fact. I don't think you understand this concept.
(https://i.imgur.com/f3zztu5.jpg)
Globe Earth is really, really big, especially in comparison to us humans. You need to wrap your head around this core concept.
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
Make your drawing to scale then and then re-present your argument.
You know fine well I can't make the drawing to scale and give a visual representation of it.
Why not?
Here's a scale diagram that may help you understand something that you obviously do not understand. The reason why on Globe Earth one can see the horizon and the ground/sea through a level tube or just with your eyes is because Earth is huge, massive, in fact. I don't think you understand this concept.
(https://i.imgur.com/f3zztu5.jpg)
Globe Earth is really, really big, especially in comparison to us humans. You need to wrap your head around this core concept.
Accept there is an arc no matter what degree.
You cannot put a level tube on the arc and expect to see the ground.
JJA tried to pretend that you could on his stupendously steep downward gradient.
What an absolute joke.
-
In your ddawing
As the earth rotates, the sun will disappear from.view (if the person actually was looking at it and not just in 1dim level) bottom-up, which matches how ships and mountains and sun also disappear on the water horizon.
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense because it does not change the scope level, unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
The mere fact that you people use the argument with a to scale argument, kills your argument stone dead but the indoctrination is so severe as to be denied...and I can see the fear of denial being a massive issue to you people.
Make your drawing to scale then and then re-present your argument.
You know fine well I can't make the drawing to scale and give a visual representation of it.
Why not?
Here's a scale diagram that may help you understand something that you obviously do not understand. The reason why on Globe Earth one can see the horizon and the ground/sea through a level tube or just with your eyes is because Earth is huge, massive, in fact. I don't think you understand this concept.
(https://i.imgur.com/f3zztu5.jpg)
Globe Earth is really, really big, especially in comparison to us humans. You need to wrap your head around this core concept.
Accept there is an arc no matter what degree.
You cannot put a level tube on the arc and expect to see the ground.
JJA tried to pretend that you could on his stupendously steep downward gradient.
What an absolute joke.
Again, you're not wrapping your head around the size of a Globe Earth. This is the distance to the horizon, in miles = That's about 3 miles for a person of average height standing at sea level and looking out to sea. How much of an arc (dip) do you think there is in 3 miles on a 25k mile circumference Globe Earth?
-
Accept there is an arc no matter what degree.
You cannot put a level tube on the arc and expect to see the ground.
JJA tried to pretend that you could on his stupendously steep downward gradient.
What an absolute joke.
Calling me a liar is easier than doing the work yourself and posting your results.
Not as easy as ignoring the fact that you can't provide even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your claims.
I'm sure one day you will figure out how to operate a camera. Maybe. ::)
I see you switched from pretending you didn't know what experiment I was asking about, to just ignoring the fact that you said you performed it. I bet you always got picked first for dodgeball.
-
I think we should be focusing on why is it impossible to draw a circle with a little '7' on it to scale?
What about technology prevents you or anyone from doing so?
You, sceppy, dont have to do it.
Just list the reason why it cant be done.
-
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
That would mean accepting that the blue line in the image can reach your eye and thus you can see below the level of the tube.
It would mean drawing in an actual FOV (WITH ANGLES) in your diagrams to try to refute the RE. You know having something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/DPQvJ0R.png)
But of course, you would never want to do that, as it shows you CAN see the RE.
Instead you need to pretend there is no FOV and that instead you magically just see a line.
But instead of that, you continually reject it.
You even demonstrate that with your extremely dishonest diagrams which in no way represent what one can expect to see on a RE, for the simple fact YOU CONTINUALLY LEAVE OUT THE FOV!
So no, I didn't decide that you didn't, YOU DID!
Both by your claims and by your actions.
So that is your own dishonesty, not mine.
Now answer the questions you continually avoid:
What magic causes the round Earth to have a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge like basically every other round object we look at?
What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye when there is no obstruction at all and it reaches the eye just fine without the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
And do you accept that you can see an entire house through a level tube if it is far enough away?
And if the person looking at it as they rotated away from it, whilst looking through a level scope, that level scope would clearly see the sky as that movement (diagram) happened.
No, they would see the sun appear to move down, and leave the FOV, likely getting blocked by the ground they could also likely see through the level scope.
Basing it on that and the argument of climbing to a higher elevation and looking level to supposedly bring that sun back....is absolute utter nonsense
Because no one said to continually look level.
That is just your pathetic strawman.
But again, unless your scope is tiny, it will still be fine.
That is because with a decent FOV, the sun doesn't actually leave it when it "sets". Instead, Earth gets in the way.
Moving up to a higher altitude makes the horizon appear at a lower angle, allowing you to see futher.
unless you angle that scope downwards, which defeats the object you people are trying to push.
No, just the strawman you prop up to knock down.
Back in reality, we accept that the horizon is below eye level, as shown by plenty of evidence.
And that dip depends on altitude.
That means as you get up higher, you can see things further down, like the sun after it has appeared to set at a low altitude.
There is no globe we supposedly walk upon and this diagram shows that, whether it's to scale or not.
No, that diagram just shows how dishonest you are.
Again, draw in the FOV.
The reason the scale is important is because the angle to the horizon depends upon your height above it.
You can't show the horizon or a tall building shouldn't be seen through a scope by pretending we are thousands of km above Earth.
Likewise, you can't show that the horizon should be no where near level by pretending we are thousands of km above Earth.
All that would serve to show is that Earth isn't a tiny ball. But no one is claiming it is a tiny ball.
If you want to use a not-to-scale diagram, then you need to make other allowances, such as allowing the FOV to be much larger.
You know fine well I can't make the drawing to scale and give a visual representation of it.
You mean we know that if you make the drawing to scale it will show you are completely wrong, so you refuse.
For example, one key part is that a too scale diagram will show how over a small area, Earth looks pretty darn flat.
For example, this scale diagram of a FOV through a level tube with a FOV of 10 degrees:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Now, you might ask "where is the curve", but that is the point. At this scale, the curve is less than 1 pixel (much less).
And this also shows why so many of your arguments are pure nonsense.
The curvature is so insignificant when you are close to sea level that you can easily see the ground through a level scope. If your arguments actually worked and demonstrated that you couldn't, then you shouldn't be able to see it on a FE either.
Accept there is an arc no matter what degree.
No. Your inability to measure an arc in a bathtub doesn't magically mean there is no arc.
You cannot put a level tube on the arc and expect to see the ground.
Why not?
You are yet to show a single fault with the experimental evidence that shows you are wrong, and the logical arguments that prove you are wrong.
If you wish to claim such pure garbage you need to tell us what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye.
Because unless such magic exists, it is trivial to see the ground through a level tube.
JJA tried to pretend that you could
You mean he clearly demonstrated you could with evidence you couldn't refute, and instead of trying to do so, you just came up with more convoluted BS, which in no way helps to ensure the tube is level, but does severely limit the FOV as you change the ~2 foot length of the tube to ~11 feet between the crosshair and the tube.
What an absolute joke.
Wrong again, in order for you to be an absolute joke you would need to be funny. But what you are doing isn't funny, it's pathetic.
-
Never in the history of mankind, has a toilet roll tube garnered so much attention!
JJA, you know what Sceptimatic's experiment is meant to prove, so adjust the damn experiment! Move your pupil down to the edge of the bottom of the tube. Is it that difficult???????????????????
The only thing I see proven with this trick, is a flat earther has made globe earthers look like imbeciles, and perhaps he has never actually even performed it himself. If he had, and was on the level, he would concur you can see the ground, looking through a level toilet roll through one end with your pupil centralized.
How's your bidet, Sceptimatic?
Ok, with the adjustment, you can only see sky through the tube, no ground, as predicted for a globe earth. Perfect. Move on.
-
Again, you're not wrapping your head around the size of a Globe Earth. This is the distance to the horizon, in miles = That's about 3 miles for a person of average height standing at sea level and looking out to sea. How much of an arc (dip) do you think there is in 3 miles on a 25k mile circumference Globe Earth?
I am wrapping my head around it and I'm telling you that, if your Earth is the sphere you think it is then it has to curve away and down from you, no matter how little you say it is.
Now then, curving down and away from you and using a level tube at eye height on that downward gradient/curve, will render your sight as being sky, only.
You would not see the ground.
Arguing this by showing the ground on Earth, is not arguing it in any legitimate manner because you're using Earth as your globe that you believe you walk upon and it is not a globe.
-
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
Your field of vision is compressed into the diameter of the tube.
This is all I've been saying.
-
Again, you're not wrapping your head around the size of a Globe Earth. This is the distance to the horizon, in miles = That's about 3 miles for a person of average height standing at sea level and looking out to sea. How much of an arc (dip) do you think there is in 3 miles on a 25k mile circumference Globe Earth?
I am wrapping my head around it and I'm telling you that, if your Earth is the sphere you think it is then it has to curve away and down from you, no matter how little you say it is.
Now then, curving down and away from you and using a level tube at eye height on that downward gradient/curve, will render your sight as being sky, only.
You would not see the ground.
Arguing this by showing the ground on Earth, is not arguing it in any legitimate manner because you're using Earth as your globe that you believe you walk upon and it is not a globe.
You're obviously not wrapping your head around it because the magnitude of dip and circumference of a Globe Earth certainly makes a difference. Regardless of whether you disagree with a Globe Earth or not. That's not the point and not an argument. That's literally just saying, "No, because it's not what you say it is." You have to do way better than that.
How could you say it doesn't matter? That's just lunacy. That's like saying no matter how far away something is I can always see it - It doesn't matter the distance. There are boundaries, limitations. You're saying that the size of the Earth has no bearing on what you can see or can't see at a distance? Flat or spherical you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and are just making it up as you go along.
In any case, you lost the debate as to whether the horizon always raises to eye-level and you can't see the ground through a level tube dozens of page ago. Evidence has been presented countless times negating your assertions and you have provided zero to the contrary. So it's clear to everyone that you're just saying stuff with no evidence.
We understand that all of your assertions are just your musings, as you have described them as such yourself before. And of course, that's fine. But maybe back up one of you claims/musings every now and again and folks may take you seriously. Otherwise, it's all just you talking smack about things you obviously don't know much about.
-
You're obviously not wrapping your head around it because the magnitude of dip and circumference of a Globe Earth certainly makes a difference. Regardless of whether you disagree with a Globe Earth or not. That's not the point and not an argument. That's literally just saying, "No, because it's not what you say it is." You have to do way better than that.
I'm doing fine. I'm showing clear logic against illogical but mass adherence by you and your like-minded peers.
You are arguing on the basis of your Earth being what you're told, so your view and perception in real time is based entirely on that.
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision, which is exactly what I'm arguing.
Your mindset is on wide angled vision, whether it is naked eye or by curved lens.
How could you say it doesn't matter? That's just lunacy. That's like saying no matter how far away something is I can always see it - It doesn't matter the distance.
There are boundaries, limitations. You're saying that the size of the Earth has no bearing on what you can see or can't see at a distance? Flat or spherical you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and are just making it up as you go along.
Compression of sight by distance of light.
In any case, you lost the debate as to whether the horizon always raises to eye-level and you can't see the ground through a level tube dozens of page ago. Evidence has been presented countless times negating your assertions and you have provided zero to the contrary. So it's clear to everyone that you're just saying stuff with no evidence.
The debate is strong with me. There is no rising to eye level. That's something you people keep saying.
Eye level is eye level at any height. There's no rising.
We understand that all of your assertions are just your musings, as you have described them as such yourself before. And of course, that's fine. But maybe back up one of you claims/musings every now and again and folks may take you seriously. Otherwise, it's all just you talking smack about things you obviously don't know much about.
You can pretend to understand whatever you wish but you're only stroking your own ego and pacifying your own mindset with a further thought process of the safety you believe you have in your peers following the very same indoctrinated mindset of that.
My mindset is to add up what I see to be most logical, not what is the flavour of the day in made up so called science.
1 plus 1 can be argued to be anything if enough complications are added to make it different from a simple, 2.
If enough people follow those complications but do it because it's a norm....a curriculum....told by a renowned professor....etc...even if they do not understand the complicated and know the logic states, 2.....they will argue the complicated method that cannot be deciphered.
This is the nonsense that gets told and sold with stuff such as Earth, space, planets, stars, big bang, black holes and universes....etc.
People follow it because it's made complicated but told in such a way as to appear like it has reasoning and meaning and legitimacy.
It makes people feel superior in supposed knowledge. A feeling of, " well, we studied all this and we got a certificate for it which places us in the elite section of society." Kind of thing.
By all means argue it but you have no qualifications of reality to call yourself right and me wrong...but you certainly have the right to call me wrong just for the hell of it.
-
If you were to take images of the moon from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and compare them they would look very different. One would look ‘upside down’ with respect to the other. Just what would be expected with the earth being a globe.
And just what would be expected if Earth was flat.
What was the point you were trying to make?
Can you explain, as this could be viewed as a fairly important point.
What we see from both hemispheres of our planet is pretty consistent with it being a sphere, how is it you can twist this to say it’s consistent with it being flat?
Sounds a bit fishy to me...
I already did and you just ignored it.
Like I said, go get a picture of the moon, put it on the roof (or floor), and look at it from one side, then move to the other side and look at it.
Does it look upside down?
Call that an explanation! As can be seen from the video the moon in all its cycles is clearly different commensurate with the earth being a globe. It’s the only plausible explanation. Your pasting pictures is a pretty weak attempt even for you.
I’m reality there is no alternative explanation that passes muster.
No matter how you or they duck and weave the evidence of that video is pretty cast iron.
-
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
Your field of vision is compressed into the diameter of the tube.
Which would mean it would be the same angular size as the tube.
That is not what you have been saying. Instead you have been repeatedly lying by claiming the tube magically stops you seeing in angles and instead magically makes you see only alone 1 line, i.e. in 1D.
That if the tube is 1 inch, then you magically only see 1 inch.
So no, that is nothing like saying you do have a FOV.
Once more, saying you have a FOV means admitting that you see an angular range. This means you can see things below the tube, as long as they are within the angular range.
It means when you draw a diagram like those you did with your strawman, you draw 2 lines to indicate the FOV (as the region between the lines), not just a single line.
But you continually refuse to do this (or answer the simple questions) because you know that doing so will clearly show you are wrong.
Again, why does the RE, in contrast to so many other known round objects magically not have a clear edge and instead have a blend from light to dark?
What magic causes this?
And again, what magic stops the blue line?
Again, do you accept that if you are far enough away you will see the entire house?
I am wrapping my head around it and I'm telling you that, if your Earth is the sphere you think it is then it has to curve away and down from you, no matter how little you say it is.
You sure don't seem to be, because you keep repeating the same old refuted nonsense.
Again, if the curvature doesn't matter then everything you say applies to a FE as well.
That is because a hypothetical FE is a hypothetical RE as the radius tends to infinity or the curvature tends to 0.
So anything which is true for a RE (which isn't based upon a strict inequality) of any generic size, based upon curvature, will also be true for a FE.
Now then, curving down and away from you and using a level tube at eye height on that downward gradient/curve, will render your sight as being sky, only.
You would not see the ground.
As repeatedly shown, that is pure BS.
This has been shown with both experimental evidence, and logic which you are unable to show any fault with.
I'm doing fine. I'm showing clear logic against illogical
No you aren't. You are continually ignoring logic and just spouting the same pathetic, refuted assertions.
You are yet to present anything remotely resembling logic.
You are arguing on the basis of your Earth being what you're told
No, we argue based upon actual evidence that anyone can easily obtain, which has been provided here which you just dismiss (without offering anything to counter it) and simple logic you continually run away from.
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision, which is exactly what I'm arguing.
Again, PURE BS!
You don't need a tube which creates tunnel vision. You need a magical tube which limits you to only seeing in 1 dimension, with no FOV at all.
With any actual tube with an actual FOV, then your ability to see a downwards gradient depends upon the slope of the gradient and your FOV.
Again, this is clearly demonstrated in diagrams you are unable to provide a single fault with.
First the tube clearly showing you have an angular FOV:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
And then the logical consequence of that:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
This clearly shows that the ability to see a downwards gradient (assuming it is constant) depends on the FOV and the gradient.
If instead you want a curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
Then it is based upon the height above the curve, and the FOV, and the radius of the curve.
So no, simple logic shows your claims are pure BS!
That's why you continually repeat the same refuted BS rather than attempt to justify any of it, or attempt to refute the refutations of it, or even answer extremely simple questions.
You can pretend to understand whatever you wish but you're only stroking your own ego and pacifying your own mindset
Projecting again I see?
My mindset is to add up what I see to be most logical
And then think of whatever excuse or outright lie you can come up with to pretend that is pure BS?
Because you are repeatedly going against logic.
This is the nonsense that gets told and sold with stuff such as Earth, space, planets, stars, big bang, black holes and universes....etc.
By people like you, who either don't understand it, or who knowingly lie about it.
What you are arguing against is pretty simple and logical. And all you have to go against it is repeating the same pathetic lies and insulting those who stand up to your lies.
-
I already did and you just ignored it.
Like I said, go get a picture of the moon, put it on the roof (or floor), and look at it from one side, then move to the other side and look at it.
Does it look upside down?
Call that an explanation!
Yes, and a pretty simple one.
It explains why the moon appears to be upside down.
When you look at something from the other side, it appears upside down.
And that means the moon appearing upside down from the southern hemisphere is not an argument for a RE.
Your pasting pictures is a pretty weak attempt even for you.
It was just to keep it simple enough for you to understand.
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
-
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
Your field of vision is compressed into the diameter of the tube.
Which would mean it would be the same angular size as the tube.
That is not what you have been saying.
I think I explained my stance way back. You chose to ignore it and go on your own wild swings. That's entirely up to you but it changes nothing from my point.
-
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
Your field of vision is compressed into the diameter of the tube.
Which would mean it would be the same angular size as the tube.
That is not what you have been saying.
I think I explained my stance way back.
Yes, when you claimed that a tube magically makes you see a line, instead of an angular FOV, which you continually refuse to justify.
But even then, that has nothing at all to do with looking normally, like looking out to the sunset.
You continually invoke your magic tube to pretend only see in 1D so you can do whatever to avoid reality.
Again, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:
Why should the RE magically have a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge like every other ball?
What magic makes a tube magically make you see in parallel lines? And what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye?
Do you accept that looking through a level tube will allow you to see an entire house if you stand far enough away?
Can you answer either of those simple questions?
Or do you know you need to avoid them at all costs because they show you have been spouting nothing but pure BS?
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
-
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
Your field of vision is compressed into the diameter of the tube.
Which would mean it would be the same angular size as the tube.
That is not what you have been saying.
I think I explained my stance way back.
Yes, when you claimed that a tube magically makes you see a line, instead of an angular FOV, which you continually refuse to justify.
I never said anything of the sort.
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground.
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
If however, this is not the case, then it would not be true.
So demonstrate the MagicTunnel vision from your tube and complete the logical conclusion.
Or don't, and continue to just blather on like a crazy person. I'll be entertained either way. :)
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
That has already been explained.
YOU DON'T SEE IN 1D.
Instead you have an angular FOV.
There is a range of angles you can see.
Again, pretty simple, even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you pretend to have so much difficulty?
Again, this is easy to test for yourself, and has been shown to you.
The ruler does it the best, as it shows the further away something is, the more you see of it, and that you can see things above and below the tube.
I always said there was a FOV.
Again, that would be admitting that it is based upon angles.
Your field of vision is compressed into the diameter of the tube.
Which would mean it would be the same angular size as the tube.
That is not what you have been saying.
I think I explained my stance way back.
Yes, when you claimed that a tube magically makes you see a line, instead of an angular FOV, which you continually refuse to justify.
I never said anything of the sort.
Sure you did, just like you do every time you post or refer to your crappy pictures where you show the FOV as a line, rather than as a range.
Now again, care to answer the questions that show you are wrong:
Why should the RE magically have a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge like every other ball?
What magic makes a tube magically make you see in parallel lines? And what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye?
Do you accept that looking through a level tube will allow you to see an entire house if you stand far enough away?
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
That has already been explained.
YOU DON'T SEE IN 1D.
You do not see a downward gradient from a level tube on that gradient.
Nobody but you is mentioning 1D.
-
I already did and you just ignored it.
Like I said, go get a picture of the moon, put it on the roof (or floor), and look at it from one side, then move to the other side and look at it.
Does it look upside down?
Call that an explanation!
Yes, and a pretty simple one.
It explains why the moon appears to be upside down.
When you look at something from the other side, it appears upside down.
And that means the moon appearing upside down from the southern hemisphere is not an argument for a RE.
Your pasting pictures is a pretty weak attempt even for you.
It was just to keep it simple enough for you to understand.
If you think that explanation explains what is observed then more fool you. In reality it goes nowhere near explaining the facts of the matter.
If you actually believe in your explanation then again more fool you.
Possibly its best you stick to arguing about looking through tubes.
if you had the time or inclination, you could pick a line of longitude like the prime meridian, and take 3 images one from London, the other from Western African at the equator and the third from Antartica, assuming the guards let you in. You could then check how your limp theory would stand up. How could explain how the waxing moon forms a 'D' in the North, a cute smily 'U' shape on the equator, and a 'C' in the Southern regions. If you were to take hundreds of images every few miles along a line of longitude then the rotation of the images produced could only be explained by the observer moving along a line of longitude on a spherical body not by pasted pictures.
Just like Sceptimatic won't see reason, neither will you.
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
That has already been explained.
YOU DON'T SEE IN 1D.
You do not see a downward gradient from a level tube on that gradient.
Only if your tube gives you laser-like MagicTunnel Vision.
If instead, looking through a tube gives an angular field of view, then someone could certainly see a downward gradient from a leveled tube provided the slope is sufficiently long and angle of the slope is less than 1/2 of the total angular field of view.
Its okay if you do not understand this, but just know that the objection really has nothing to do with the shape of the earth and collective knowledge of it, but more about whether a kitchen roll tube acts as a MagicTunnel Vision device.
I think you know it doesn't, which is why you cant answer any of the questions about it, or demonstrate it any way.
But if you need it for your worldview for some reason (which is strange as it would actually logically preclude your imagined world), feel free to tell yourself over and over and over that this is the way it is. Maybe you will be able to convince yourself even if you can never get a single person to agree.
Good luck!
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Again, you can't seem to do anything but call me a liar and claim you can't see the ground through a level tube.
So you yet again insist you have performed this experiment. Where are your pictures? What's your setup look like? Why are you so afraid to show your evidence? What's wrong with it?
Your experiment must have been a massive failure if you're too scared to show us all the details and photos.
-
Never in the history of mankind, has a toilet roll tube garnered so much attention!
JJA, you know what Sceptimatic's experiment is meant to prove, so adjust the damn experiment! Move your pupil down to the edge of the bottom of the tube. Is it that difficult???????????????????
The only thing I see proven with this trick, is a flat earther has made globe earthers look like imbeciles, and perhaps he has never actually even performed it himself. If he had, and was on the level, he would concur you can see the ground, looking through a level toilet roll through one end with your pupil centralized.
How's your bidet, Sceptimatic?
Ok, with the adjustment, you can only see sky through the tube, no ground, as predicted for a globe earth. Perfect. Move on.
It's cold and unpleasant out today. Ask me tomorrow. :)
Maybe sceptimatic can do your modified version of his experiment since he seems incapable of doing his own.
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
-
Again, you can't seem to do anything but call me a liar and claim you can't see the ground through a level tube.
In the set up I gave out, you can't...but you play games. You're fooling yourself, not me.
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
-
Again, you can't seem to do anything but call me a liar and claim you can't see the ground through a level tube.
In the set up I gave out, you can't...but you play games. You're fooling yourself, not me.
I did exactly what you asked, you added more conditions after my pictures proved you wrong and I played along until you started getting absurd with all your plumb bobs and pencils and extra tubes. Where are your pictures of your own experiment? Why are you so afraid of posting them that you can't even talk about them? Everyone can clearly see what you are doing here, you are not fooling anyone but yourself. Maybe not even that... ::)
-
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
We can think that because everyone else can look through a tube and take pictures of our setup. Why can't you? What are you hiding? Where are the pictures of your own experiment? You are clearly very confused, why not look through a tube and show us?
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
it can, because i can draw triangles.
can you draw triangles?
try it.
-
Again, you can't seem to do anything but call me a liar and claim you can't see the ground through a level tube.
In the set up I gave out, you can't...but you play games. You're fooling yourself, not me.
I did exactly what you asked, you added more conditions after my pictures proved you wrong and I played along until you started getting absurd with all your plumb bobs and pencils and extra tubes. Where are your pictures of your own experiment? Why are you so afraid of posting them that you can't even talk about them? Everyone can clearly see what you are doing here, you are not fooling anyone but yourself. Maybe not even that... ::)
There's nothing absurd that I asked for. I agree I did add extras but I had every intention of doing so because I just new what would happen.
I also knew you'd back out when I put a more difficult to con instruction out.
You know what's so silly?
You thinking I'd accept the silliness of you showing a level in a picture and a then showing a scope as if that was levelled on a downward gradient...especially of the magnitude you took it from.
And you wonder why I call you out.
-
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
We can think that because everyone else can look through a tube and take pictures of our setup. Why can't you? What are you hiding? Where are the pictures of your own experiment? You are clearly very confused, why not look through a tube and show us?
Genuine people can follow my instructions and come to the same conclusion that I did.
Let me tell you this. You're smug and desperate to back me into a corner but you didn't expect to be backed into the corner yourself and this is why you bottled the experiment.
If you knew I was wrong, you'd take great delight in showing your internet mates, never mind doing it for my benefit, alone.
-
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
We can think that because everyone else can look through a tube and take pictures of our setup. Why can't you? What are you hiding? Where are the pictures of your own experiment? You are clearly very confused, why not look through a tube and show us?
Genuine people can follow my instructions and come to the same conclusion that I did.
Let me tell you this. You're smug and desperate to back me into a corner but you didn't expect to be backed into the corner yourself and this is why you bottled the experiment.
If you knew I was wrong, you'd take great delight in showing your internet mates, never mind doing it for my benefit, alone.
Where are the pictures of your own experiments? Why are you avoiding even talking about them? Aren't you proud of how impressive your setup is and all the wonderful pictures you took of it and through it? What possible reason would you have to not show us?
-
Again, you can't seem to do anything but call me a liar and claim you can't see the ground through a level tube.
In the set up I gave out, you can't...but you play games. You're fooling yourself, not me.
I did exactly what you asked, you added more conditions after my pictures proved you wrong and I played along until you started getting absurd with all your plumb bobs and pencils and extra tubes. Where are your pictures of your own experiment? Why are you so afraid of posting them that you can't even talk about them? Everyone can clearly see what you are doing here, you are not fooling anyone but yourself. Maybe not even that... ::)
There's nothing absurd that I asked for. I agree I did add extras but I had every intention of doing so because I just new what would happen.
I also knew you'd back out when I put a more difficult to con instruction out.
You know what's so silly?
You thinking I'd accept the silliness of you showing a level in a picture and a then showing a scope as if that was levelled on a downward gradient...especially of the magnitude you took it from.
And you wonder why I call you out.
Plumb bobs, multiple tubes, crosshairs, pencils... nothing at all absurd. ::)
Where are your pictures? Why won't you show us your setup? Yes, it's silly thinking you would accept a picture of reality. It's clear you don't actually KNOW what a view through a tube looks like, if you think every picture of one is faked, or bottled, or however you want to put it.
Calling me out would be posting pictures of your experimental setup, not cowering in fear of even discussing them. What you are doing, is simple denial with no evidence, effort or work on your end and just calling me a liar. Where is your experiment? I'm sure you have it all set to post, just can't find the time to press the button, is that it?
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
it can, because i can draw triangles.
can you draw triangles?
try it.
come on sceppy
can you draw triangles?
here
jackB has helped you out.
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
a brown field of view, of a purple downward gradient.
let me know what you're confused about and we can discuss.
if you continue to stone wall, well then it's obvious you're dodging.
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
why can't you draw it to scale?
is it possible for someone else to draw it to scale?
YOUR drawing, your self admitted not to scale drawing, the very same one you insist people won't see the ground because you are using this drawing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png)[/url]
by my estimated your tower is approx 2,500km above the earth.
that would be ~0:48 in the video.
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
That has already been explained.
YOU DON'T SEE IN 1D.
Instead you have an angular FOV.
There is a range of angles you can see.
Again, pretty simple, even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you pretend to have so much difficulty?
Again, this is easy to test for yourself, and has been shown to you.
The ruler does it the best, as it shows the further away something is, the more you see of it, and that you can see things above and below the tube.
You do not see a downward gradient from a level tube on that gradient.
Nobody but you is mentioning 1D.
Again, you are repeatedly showing 1D. It doesn't matter if you want to try to use a technicality to pretend you aren't saying it.
You are clearly showing a 1D view.
See this garbage of yours:
(https://i.imgur.com/CBArODE.png)
See how each view is just a single line?
That is you pretending people only see in a line.
If you truly accepted that we have a FOV, and wanted that to be a refutation of the RE, you would show an angular FOV, like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That is why your diagram is garbage. WE DO NOT SEE IN 1D.
We have a FOV. This FOV allows us to see the hill.
And you still avoid the simple questions that show you are spouting pure BS:
Why should the RE magically have a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge like every other ball?
What magic makes a tube magically make you see in parallel lines? And what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye?
Do you accept that looking through a level tube will allow you to see an entire house if you stand far enough away?
In the set up I gave out, you can't...but you play games. You're fooling yourself, not me.
You mean your ridiculously overcomplicated setup where you are merely trying to reduce the FOV, by making the eye 11 feet away from the end of the tube instead of ~2?
The only one playing games here is you. The only one trying to fool people here (and failing miserably) is you.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
For a constant gradient, no. But you do still need to show an actual FOV, rather than just a pathetic line.
For a curve, scale is important.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
Again, already explained.
WE DON'T SEE IN 1D.
Our "FOV" is not merely a line that goes straight out.
It is a cone, or in 2D, it is the region between 2 lines.
Again, so simple a moron can understand.
Once more, here it is for a constant downwards gradient:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
The FOV is made from the 2 dark red/brown lines.
Notice how it is 2 lines, rather than just a singe level line?
Notice how 1 of the downwards gradients shown enters the FOV, meaning you can see it?
Can you show anything wrong with this diagram at all?
And remember, you claim to accept that you do have a FOV, so you can't object to that without showing yourself to be a liar yet again.
-
If you think that explanation explains what is observed then more fool you. In reality it goes nowhere near explaining the facts of the matter.
It certainly explains what you claim the big issue is.
Please tell me just how it fails to explain why the moon appears upside down in the southern hemisphere.
No need to try to overcomplicate the argument. Stick to your initial pile of nonsense, and either defend it or admit it is wrong. (Especially given that I had already provided an argument using the moon which actually works).
All that had was that the moon appears upside down.
But even your latest pile of nonsense is overly simplistic.
-
Since I can't go outside, lets take a crack at another claim.
The claim that you can't see the edge of a ball you are standing on.
I don't have a ball big enough to stand on (not here anyway but I've stood on one before) but I do have a globe and a camera I can put the lens up to. So here is the view from on top of a globe.
That certainly looks like an edge to me. Or a horizon, as we like to call it on my planet. But I'm sure skeptimatic has a bunch of photos he took that he can use to show us what a real globe through a camera looks like.
( Huh, I need to dust more. )
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
-
If you think that explanation explains what is observed then more fool you. In reality it goes nowhere near explaining the facts of the matter.
It certainly explains what you claim the big issue is.
Please tell me just how it fails to explain why the moon appears upside down in the southern hemisphere.
No need to try to overcomplicate the argument. Stick to your initial pile of nonsense, and either defend it or admit it is wrong. (Especially given that I had already provided an argument using the moon which actually works).
All that had was that the moon appears upside down.
But even your latest pile of nonsense is overly simplistic.
You saying you have provided an explanation is false. Pasting pictures don’t cut the mustard. Nor would standing on ones head. Just repeating your lame excuse doesn’t change its lameness. It’s as simple as that. What exactly are you claiming is nonsense? The fact that the view of the inclination of the moon changes incrementally as one moves south along a line of latitude? Or what ? Please be specific. Or is that you just covering up for being wrong.... again!
-
You saying you have provided an explanation is false.
No, it is quite true.
Again, the pasting pictures on your roof was just to make it simple enough for you to understand.
Do you not agree that things look different depending on what angle you view it from?
What exactly are you claiming is nonsense?
Your claim that the moon appearing upside down in the southern hemisphere is proof that Earth is round.
And yes, I know you didn't explicitly claim that, but it was clear that that was your implication.
-
But in the northern hem the moon will be closer to south side, vice versa.
People will naturally anchor it to the "foundation" (lnot in the sceppy sense).
Hah
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
-
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
We can think that because everyone else can look through a tube and take pictures of our setup. Why can't you? What are you hiding? Where are the pictures of your own experiment? You are clearly very confused, why not look through a tube and show us?
Genuine people can follow my instructions and come to the same conclusion that I did.
Let me tell you this. You're smug and desperate to back me into a corner but you didn't expect to be backed into the corner yourself and this is why you bottled the experiment.
If you knew I was wrong, you'd take great delight in showing your internet mates, never mind doing it for my benefit, alone.
Where are the pictures of your own experiments? Why are you avoiding even talking about them? Aren't you proud of how impressive your setup is and all the wonderful pictures you took of it and through it? What possible reason would you have to not show us?
There's nothing complicated about the set up I've put forward. You managed it with what I mentioned. The only issue you had was not understanding what level set up means on a downward gradient...deliberately, of course.
Any honest normal thinking person can prove to themselves what I've put forward.
-
Plumb bobs, multiple tubes, crosshairs, pencils... nothing at all absurd. ::)
They're only absurd to people like you because they show you up.
It's clear you don't actually KNOW what a view through a tube looks like
Yeah, ok.
Calling me out would be posting pictures of your experimental setup, not cowering in fear of even discussing them. What you are doing, is simple denial with no evidence, effort or work on your end and just calling me a liar. Where is your experiment? I'm sure you have it all set to post, just can't find the time to press the button, is that it?
Do the experiment and shut me up.
-
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
it can, because i can draw triangles.
can you draw triangles?
try it.
come on sceppy
can you draw triangles?
here
jackB has helped you out.
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
a brown field of view, of a purple downward gradient.
let me know what you're confused about and we can discuss.
if you continue to stone wall, well then it's obvious you're dodging.
You don't have a field of view like that through a tube, so why are you using it?
We aren't arguing naked eye or wide angled lenses, so what are you using this for?
-
Logic will always tell you that a downward gradient with a level overlook, will absolutely not offer you a view of that gradient if you use a tube that creates a tunnel vision,
And logic would also state that if a tube doesn't create MagicTunnel vision, and instead creates an angular field of view that is dependent on the diameter and length of the tube, geometry will tell you precisely if the gradient will be visible or not.
If you ever want anyone to do anything other than laugh at your argument, you need to demonstrate this MagicTunnel vision that you think your tube creates.
(Of course, if you demonstrate it, it would then logically falsify your own imagined world, but that's another subject ...)
Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
To see it you would need to angle the tube towards the ground. It's pretty simple to test and I have done it for myself. You have not.
JJA likely has but won't admit he's wrong, like you and others like you.
Your diagram is stupid and has already been self admitted to not be to scale.
JackB has provided a more rwasonable diagram disproving your stupid premise.
Yes, Its pretty simple.
Yet you keep insisting on using a NOT TO SCALE diagram.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
why can't you draw it to scale?
is it possible for someone else to draw it to scale?
YOUR drawing, your self admitted not to scale drawing, the very same one you insist people won't see the ground because you are using this drawing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png)[/url]
by my estimated your tower is approx 2,500km above the earth.
that would be ~0:48 in the video.
Well, look at the base of the line and use that to see the very same thing I'm pointing out.
Would you like me to make the lines smaller so you can't see them?
-
If you truly accepted that we have a FOV, and wanted that to be a refutation of the RE, you would show an angular FOV, like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That is why your diagram is garbage. WE DO NOT SEE IN 1D.
We have a FOV. This FOV allows us to see the hill.
Don't waste your time going through that " oh we don't see in 1D nonsense. You're not gaining anything by doing it and you know fine well I'm showing a simple diagram and leaving it up to the genuine people to see it for what it is, not for what you pretend it isn't.
Your diagram is using the naked eye to gain your FOV.
Why do you neglect the simple tube with no curved lens?
I implore anyone to go out with a simple tube and look level over their street or field and tell me they can see the ground under their tube vision.
-
Since I can't go outside, lets take a crack at another claim.
The claim that you can't see the edge of a ball you are standing on.
I don't have a ball big enough to stand on (not here anyway but I've stood on one before) but I do have a globe and a camera I can put the lens up to. So here is the view from on top of a globe.
That certainly looks like an edge to me. Or a horizon, as we like to call it on my planet. But I'm sure skeptimatic has a bunch of photos he took that he can use to show us what a real globe through a camera looks like.
( Huh, I need to dust more. )
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
After all this you seriously go right back to a camera on a small ball and think you're proving something?
Let's try something better.
Instead of a camera that has a a lens that allows a wide FOV, try setting up a level straw on that globe and looking through it, then come back and show me the edge.
Also, why in the hell would you argue for an edge on a supposed global Earth when you know the atmosphere on the real Earth obscures a view at short distance?
If you are genuine in what you're trying to do then I sit here bemused.
If you are doing it for reasons that I suspect, then I 'm ok with it because I understand the desperation of keeping a globe in the head of the already indoctrinated.
-
If you truly accepted that we have a FOV, and wanted that to be a refutation of the RE, you would show an angular FOV, like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That is why your diagram is garbage. WE DO NOT SEE IN 1D.
We have a FOV. This FOV allows us to see the hill.
Don't waste your time going through that " oh we don't see in 1D nonsense. You're not gaining anything by doing it and you know fine well I'm showing a simple diagram and leaving it up to the genuine people to see it for what it is, not for what you pretend it isn't.
Your diagram is using the naked eye to gain your FOV.
Why do you neglect the simple tube with no curved lens?
I implore anyone to go out with a simple tube and look level over their street or field and tell me they can see the ground under their tube vision.
Yes
Can anyone Anyone go out and do it?
You go do it.
Or draw it to scale
Or let us know why your drawing cant be done to scale?
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://marvel-b1-cdn.bc0a.com/f00000000067126/www.wqpmag.com/sites/wqp/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/11.22waste-management.jpg?itok=oKnEgxHq)(https://i.imgur.com/koZSkws.png)
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5462c876e4b011fe10942daf/1504304199018-9YZE71VOJ3268MMV7J73/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kHwwVVpIDEotO6whwf-ctoFZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpxuA20WKTN7UU1ULhIFfAfmu94jb5-jqEUuDrVqpiQJjhwhmweNBLY5iscLK0GPHOg/Taler%C3%B8ret.jpg?format=1000w)(https://www.diepta.de/uploads/pta/news/GettyImages-643996606_opt.jpg)
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/nbbGy3F.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/5o5voyO.png)
-
If you truly accepted that we have a FOV, and wanted that to be a refutation of the RE, you would show an angular FOV, like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That is why your diagram is garbage. WE DO NOT SEE IN 1D.
We have a FOV. This FOV allows us to see the hill.
Don't waste your time going through that " oh we don't see in 1D nonsense. You're not gaining anything by doing it and you know fine well I'm showing a simple diagram and leaving it up to the genuine people to see it for what it is, not for what you pretend it isn't.
Your diagram is using the naked eye to gain your FOV.
Why do you neglect the simple tube with no curved lens?
I implore anyone to go out with a simple tube and look level over their street or field and tell me they can see the ground under their tube vision.
Yes
Can anyone Anyone go out and do it?
You go do it.
Or draw it to scale
Or let us know why your drawing cant be done to scale?
Not sure if you're capable but if you are, I suggest you get a tube and look through your window with the tube as level as you believe it to be. Now tell me you can see the floor. You can't. You simply can't do it.
You can if you use a scope or your naked eye.
Just try it. Don;t waste your time trying to argue something with me that I know already.
Prove it to yourself, not to me.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
lol. You never fail to disappoint.
Keep pretending.
-
Don't waste your time going through that " oh we don't see in 1D nonsense.
Maybe once you stop pretending we do.
That would mean accepting we see an angular range, rather than just a line.
you know fine well I'm showing a simple diagram and leaving it up to the genuine people to see it for what it is
No, you are presenting an extremely dishonest diagram, which in no way represents reality and which has a blatantly false conclusion on it.
If you did it accurately, you would have an angular FOV, rather than the line, because we don't see in 1D.
This would then show how even on a hill, you can still see it, and how even after Earth rotates, you can still see the sun. and you can still see the bulding.
Your entire diagram is based upon the false premise that we only see 1D, a single line extending from our eye; which is pure BS.
Your diagram is using the naked eye to gain your FOV.
Why do you neglect the simple tube with no curved lens?
STOP LYING!
That diagram of mine is using the FOV expected through a tube. It is a FOV of 10 degrees. The FOV for the naked eye is ~180 degrees, much much larger.
It is an accurate, too scale diagram, of what you actually expect when looking through a tube. I even provided the dimensions of the tube before.
Again, what you are suggesting, this garbage:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
requires a lens.
See the little grey thing? That is a lens.
This lens bends the light.
Rather than the light continuing straight as it would without a lens, this lens bends the parallel rays of light such that they converge on the eye. This also bends like that would otherwise strike the eye making it so it doesn't.
Without such a lens you instead have a setup like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
The orange line is stopped by the tube.
But the blue line travels straight, going straight to the eye.
The blue line can be anywhere in the region bounded by the 2 red lines.
Anywhere in that region allows the light to travel straight to the eye with no obstruction.
Those red lines are the actual FOV you get from that tube.
You not liking that has no bearing on reality.
If you wish to assert your garbage is correct you need to explain what magic stops the blue line and what magic causes the parallel lines to curve and hit your eye.
I implore anyone to go out with a simple tube and look level over their street or field and tell me they can see the ground under their tube vision.
Again, a much simpler test to show you are spouting BS.
Tape a piece of paper to a wall. Get your tube, put it up against the sheet of paper and draw a circle around it, touching the tube all the way (the closer the better).
Now stand back from the page, a few m between the end of the tube and the paper should be plenty, and then look at the page through the tube, making sure it is centred on the circle.
If your outright lies were correct, you wouldn't even see the circle.
But in reality, you can easily see the circle, and much more.
This shows conclusively that your vision is not magically bound by the physical size of the tube, and instead is bound by the angular size.
You can also use tubes of different length (or have them a different distance from your eye, and see how the FOV changes with distance. That wouldn't happen if you could only see the physical size of the tube, rather than the angular size of the end.
Again, another simple example is looking at a house, or any object known to be larger than the tube.
If your BS was correct, you would only see a tiny portion of it. But the simple fact is you can see more of it the further away it is.
And if it is so easy, why do you continually refuse?
And again you ignore the question: Why do you falsely claim that the RE should have a blend from light to dark rather than a clear edge like so many other observed balls?
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision, or normal tunnel vision, works based upon angles, just like all FOVs.
Light continues to travel in a straight line, as there is nothing to deflect it.
This gives you an angular FOV.
But your magic BS tunnel vision magically changes into a line.
That's why it is magic.
If you want to say it isn't magic you need to explain why it magically becomes a line and what magically stops the blue line.
2 things you are completely incapable of doing.
There's nothing complicated about the set up I've put forward.
Yes there is.
You want to precisely line up 3 sets of cross hairs, where 2 of these sets need adjustment based upon angle and height.
You managed it with what I mentioned.
He managed the much simpler version, with a single tube, which is easy to level and set up as you don't need precise alignment with another object.
He successfully demonstrated that you were wrong, and that a tube doesn't magically prevent you from seeing things above and below it.
Even without the hill, the ruler clearly demonstrates you can see above and below.
Trying to appeal to it being angled downwards just makes the section above harder to see.
Any honest normal thinking person can prove to themselves what I've put forward.
You mean they can prove it is pure BS, like several honest, normal thinking people here have done.
Plumb bobs, multiple tubes, crosshairs, pencils... nothing at all absurd. ::)
They're only absurd to people like you because they show you up.
No, absurd to any sane person.
A plumbob is used to establish a vertical level, not a horizontal one. Attaching anything to it can affect that level.
Adding additional tubes just serves to further complicate the experiment due to alignment issues.
It won't magically make it so they can't point down.
Everything you are suggesting just needlessly complicates the experiment. It in no way establishes that the tubes are level anymore than a single tube.
Do the experiment and shut me up.
He already did. You then called him a liar, dismissed his experiment as faked and put more ridiculous demands on your experiment.
And you refuse to outline everything that is needed such that when such an experiment proves you wrong you will just accept it. Instead you always demand to be allowed room to just dismiss the experiment because it shows you are wrong.
So how about YOU do the experiment?
Or even better, forget the experiment and stick to the logic.
You don't have a field of view like that through a tube, so why are you using it?
And there you go lying yet again. We do have a FOV like that. (And yet you claim that you accept that we do have a FOV through the tube and never claim we don't).
Because remember, a FOV covers an angular range. So the only question is how large it should be.
Just what is wrong with it?
The scale?
Or is it just that like so many other things, it shows you are spouting pure BS?
Would you like me to make the lines smaller so you can't see them?
No, we would like you to draw in a FOV, to scale, rather than just a line.
If you don't want it to scale and instead want the person much higher above Earth, then you need a correspondingly much larger FOV.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
lol. You never fail to disappoint.
Keep pretending.
There is no pretence, it's there in your face. Ask the person who put up the picture, if you need clarity.
-
After all this you seriously go right back to a camera on a small ball and think you're proving something?
Yes, as any sane person would.
Clearly showing you see an edge. Not this blend from light to dark BS you claim with no justification at all.
It has nothing to do with your lies regarding your magic tunnel vision.
Also, why in the hell would you argue for an edge on a supposed global Earth when you know the atmosphere on the real Earth obscures a view at short distance?
Because that "short distance" is typically hundreds of km, not the few km to the horizon.
If that was going to be an issue it would be an issue on your flat fantasy as well, and instead of a nice clear horizon we would see a blur, or a blend from light to dark.
The fact that we see a clear horizon shows that the atmosphere blocking light is not an issue.
I suggest you get a tube and look through your window with the tube as level as you believe it to be. Now tell me you can see the floor.
The floor of my house? No, that is on the other side of the tube. But the ground outside? YES!
Why don't you try it?
You can if you use a scope or your naked eye.
And if you can with a scope or your naked eye, you certainly can with a tube.
Your naked eye has a very large FOV, roughly 180 degrees.
A tube has a much smaller one, depending on the size of the tube.
A scope is made with a lens to give you a much smaller FOV, but make it appear larger.
This means the tube is between the scope and the naked eye.
So if you can see it with both of them, you certainly can see it with the tube.
Prove it to yourself, not to me.
We already have.
Perhaps you should start trying to prove your lies?
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
It isn't difficult to imagine your outright denial of reality.
There is no pretence, it's there in your face.
The horizon is there, in your face. Yet you claim it doesn't exist in that photo.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
Wait. Now I'm confused. You say that on a Globe Earth you don't see a horizon. Then for this picture you're saying that you don't see a horizon. So that means this image, according to your logic, is showing a Globe Earth.
-
No, you are presenting an extremely dishonest diagram, which in no way represents reality and which has a blatantly false conclusion on it.
I'm not presenting a dishonest diagram, at all.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
Wait. Now I'm confused. You say that on a Globe Earth you don't see a horizon. Then for this picture you're saying that you don't see a horizon. So that means this image, according to your logic, is showing a Globe Earth.
You're getting very desperate. I can see you're looking for the usual back patting.
I'm sitting back smirking at your silly post.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
Wait. Now I'm confused. You say that on a Globe Earth you don't see a horizon. Then for this picture you're saying that you don't see a horizon. So that means this image, according to your logic, is showing a Globe Earth.
You're getting very desperate. I can see you're looking for the usual back patting.
I'm sitting back smirking at your silly post.
Just using your own logic.
In any case. It appears that we have a lot of evidence that looking through a tube lets you still see the ground. And not this magic tunnel vision you've concocted. So that argument of yours is moot and debunked. Moving on. Unless you'd like to present some evidence to the contrary.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
lol. You never fail to disappoint.
Keep pretending.
There is no pretence, it's there in your face. Ask the person who put up the picture, if you need clarity.
Sceptimatic, why dont you drop the pretense and simply admit you were wrong about how you though vision works through a tube. I know you feel you will lose face, but being able to admit you are wrong is actually a strength, not a weakness. EVERYONE knows you are wrong. Everyone. Even you. It is as clear as the holographic sun in the sky on a bright blue day.
Just move on. Okay, you lost this one. Bad. Spectacularly even. But learning from failure is what people do to grow and progress.
No one will think less of you for simply acknowledging the facts and stopping this silly pretense about MagicTunnel vision.
-
You saying you have provided an explanation is false.
No, it is quite true.
Again, the pasting pictures on your roof was just to make it simple enough for you to understand.
Do you not agree that things look different depending on what angle you view it from?
What exactly are you claiming is nonsense?
Your claim that the moon appearing upside down in the southern hemisphere is proof that Earth is round.
And yes, I know you didn't explicitly claim that, but it was clear that that was your implication.
..... so what your saying is the incremental change in the appearance of the moon while moving down a line of longitude is not proof of a spherical earth, and those very same observations could be made on a flat earth. Is that what you are claiming?....while at the same time also causing the night sky to rotate. Remember the moon is only one part of the night sky, the dominant one, but for an observer moving along a line of longitude the whole shooting match changes, moon, stars, planets, observable galaxies..... everything..... and you claim this can all happen in a flat earth, your proof gleaned from pasting pictures on your ceiling!
Please explain how the actual rotation of the heavens happens incrementally when moving from one side of your flat earth to the next.
-
I'm not presenting a dishonest diagram, at all.
Again, your use of a line instead of an actual FOV shows that you are presenting a dishonest diagram.
Again, if your diagram was honest, instead of those pathetic lines you would have something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Again, if you wish to continue your lie and pretend it is justified at all, rather than dishonest garbage, you need to tell us what magic stops the blue line.
You have been provided with plenty of ways to show your claims are BS, and you refuse to do any of them.
It is literally your outright lie against everything else.
Likewise, if you wish to continue with your lie and pretend the RE can't possibly have a horizon, you need to tell us what magic causes it to be a blend from light to dark instead.
-
incremental change
What incremental change?
You were just appealing to the moon being upside down in the southern hemisphere.
Stick to that argument rather than trying to mend it once it has fallen to pieces.
What was wrong with my explanation for why the moon appears to be upside down in the southern hemisphere for a FE?
-
After all this you seriously go right back to a camera on a small ball and think you're proving something?
Yes, as any sane person would.
Clearly showing you see an edge. Not this blend from light to dark BS you claim with no justification at all.
If you think you can see an edge to your global Earth then you carry on with that.
I know it's utter nonsense and so will many.
-
Just using your own logic.
In any case. It appears that we have a lot of evidence that looking through a tube lets you still see the ground. And not this magic tunnel vision you've concocted. So that argument of yours is moot and debunked. Moving on. Unless you'd like to present some evidence to the contrary.
Of course there's a lot of evidence that looking through a tube will allow you to see ground.
The issue is in the angle of the tube and the run of the ground.
And this is where the clap trap comes in with people like you pretending it's all level on a downward gradient.
It's laughable.
I wouldn't bother arguing this if I hadn't checked it all out myself.
-
Sceptimatic, why dont you drop the pretense and simply admit you were wrong about how you though vision works through a tube. I know you feel you will lose face, but being able to admit you are wrong is actually a strength, not a weakness. EVERYONE knows you are wrong. Everyone. Even you. It is as clear as the holographic sun in the sky on a bright blue day.
Just move on. Okay, you lost this one. Bad. Spectacularly even. But learning from failure is what people do to grow and progress.
No one will think less of you for simply acknowledging the facts and stopping this silly pretense about MagicTunnel vision.
Take a leaf out of your own book with admittance.
-
I'm not presenting a dishonest diagram, at all.
Again, your use of a line instead of an actual FOV shows that you are presenting a dishonest diagram.
Again, if your diagram was honest, instead of those pathetic lines you would have something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Again, if you wish to continue your lie and pretend it is justified at all, rather than dishonest garbage, you need to tell us what magic stops the blue line.
You have been provided with plenty of ways to show your claims are BS, and you refuse to do any of them.
It is literally your outright lie against everything else.
Likewise, if you wish to continue with your lie and pretend the RE can't possibly have a horizon, you need to tell us what magic causes it to be a blend from light to dark instead.
Ok let's straighten this up.
In your diagram, what distance is the bottom vision over the ground before it hits ground, in your opinion?
-
If you think you can see an edge to your global Earth then you carry on with that.
I know it's utter nonsense and so will many.
You mean you continually assert that it is nonsense, with no justification at all.
Again, what would make the RE so magically special that it magically doesn't have an edge?
Every ball I have ever looked at has had a clear edge.
The only ones which have been at all difficult to see are ones made of glass.
Why should Earth be different?
What magic makes it have a light to dark blend instead?
Can you justify your lie at all?
And while you are it, can you tell us what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye, or provide a diagram with an actual FOV, rather than pretending we only see a line?
Of course there's a lot of evidence that looking through a tube will allow you to see ground.
The issue is in the angle of the tube and the run of the ground.
If you angle it straight up, you will find it hard. But if you have it level, you will almost certainly see the ground.
And this is where the clap trap comes in with people like you pretending it's all level on a downward gradient.
It's laughable.
You mean with people like you pretending you magically see in a line; continually avoiding extremely simple questions and refusing to justify your outright lies in any way?
Again, just what do you think is happening with the ruler?
If it is tilted down to see the lower numbers, how does it have any chance at seeing the higher numbers?
It simply only works if you see more than the physical size of the tube.
I wouldn't bother arguing this if I hadn't checked it all out myself.
Technically correct. Arguing would require you to actually justify your claims and engage with the refutation of them in a meaningful manner, such as either accepting it or explaining what is wrong with the refutation.
You aren't arguing. You are just spouting the same refuted BS again and again.
-
In your diagram, what distance is the bottom vision over the ground before it hits ground, in your opinion?
I don't remember exactly. I know it was between 20 and 30 m. I think it was 23 m.
This was based upon a tube which gives a FOV of 10 degrees, with an elevation of 2 m.
Redoing the math shows that the FOV of 10 degrees would mean it would hit a flat, level surface on a hypothetical FE, after 22.86 m.
On a RE, the drop over that distance (which is would be a mere 0.74 arc seconds), is a mere 4 micrometres.
After 23 m, the 10 degree FOV has dropped by 2.01m, and the drop is still 4 micrometres.
As for the tube, one such setup (potentially the one I used) was a 4 cm wide tube with a length of 23 cm, which gives a FOV of 9.94 degrees.
-
Again, what would make the RE so magically special that it magically doesn't have an edge?
Ok, you look out to sea. Tell me where your edge is?
Do you seriously think it's at the end of your global diameter?
Or would you go along with your edge being theoretical due to atmospheric impairments to your vision?
Every ball I have ever looked at has had a clear edge.
You have never seen any real edge on any ball. You can have a theoretical edge to your ball but , if you were to run your finger around it, you would never feel any edge and never see any physical edge.
Do you agree with this?
-
In your diagram, what distance is the bottom vision over the ground before it hits ground, in your opinion?
I don't remember exactly. I know it was between 20 and 30 m. I think it was 23 m.
This was based upon a tube which gives a FOV of 10 degrees, with an elevation of 2 m.
Redoing the math shows that the FOV of 10 degrees would mean it would hit a flat, level surface on a hypothetical FE, after 22.86 m.
On a RE, the drop over that distance (which is would be a mere 0.74 arc seconds), is a mere 4 micrometres.
After 23 m, the 10 degree FOV has dropped by 2.01m, and the drop is still 4 micrometres.
As for the tube, one such setup (potentially the one I used) was a 4 cm wide tube with a length of 23 cm, which gives a FOV of 9.94 degrees.
Let me see if I've got this right from your explanation.
So, you're saying that, on a FE your ground comes into view at around 22.86 metres but, if it was on your globe it would be 4 micrometres?
How about you explain what the hell all this means for this dummy you're talking to.
-
Sceptimatic, why dont you drop the pretense and simply admit you were wrong about how you though vision works through a tube. I know you feel you will lose face, but being able to admit you are wrong is actually a strength, not a weakness. EVERYONE knows you are wrong. Everyone. Even you. It is as clear as the holographic sun in the sky on a bright blue day.
Just move on. Okay, you lost this one. Bad. Spectacularly even. But learning from failure is what people do to grow and progress.
No one will think less of you for simply acknowledging the facts and stopping this silly pretense about MagicTunnel vision.
Take a leaf out of your own book with admittance.
Sure! I'm often wrong.
For example - for some reason I keep thinking that you have to possess some kernel of logic in between the muddled and confused thoughts. Some ability to understand others, and some ability to piece together a small number of cohesive thoughts into a logical argument that you can hold together for any length of time and try to build on.
Unfortunately, I am wrong in these thoughts.
But that means I try to learn and grow from being wrong. Hence, I know there is no point in spending any time arguing against such irrationality, you are entitled to your own private little craziness with little complaint from myself. I can simply make a simple comment here or there, or just sit back and laugh at the continued banter between impotent self righteous delusion and hard reality.
All the best!
-
Ok, you look out to sea. Tell me where your edge is?
The horizon.
That's the point you keep on running from.
Do you seriously think it's at the end of your global diameter?
Do you mean directly opposite from me? If so, no.
Every ball I have ever looked at has had a clear edge.
You have never seen any real edge on any ball.
And now you are just trying to play semantics.
I don't care if you want to pretend the edge is real vs theoretical or the like.
What is important is that there is a clear separation. It is clear where the ball ends and the surroundings begin.
Why should this be different between the RE and any other ball?
It being a continuous curve so you don't feel a sharp change in curvature or direction doesn't mean it doesn't have an edge.
-
In your diagram, what distance is the bottom vision over the ground before it hits ground, in your opinion?
I don't remember exactly. I know it was between 20 and 30 m. I think it was 23 m.
This was based upon a tube which gives a FOV of 10 degrees, with an elevation of 2 m.
Redoing the math shows that the FOV of 10 degrees would mean it would hit a flat, level surface on a hypothetical FE, after 22.86 m.
On a RE, the drop over that distance (which is would be a mere 0.74 arc seconds), is a mere 4 micrometres.
After 23 m, the 10 degree FOV has dropped by 2.01m, and the drop is still 4 micrometres.
As for the tube, one such setup (potentially the one I used) was a 4 cm wide tube with a length of 23 cm, which gives a FOV of 9.94 degrees.
Let me see if I've got this right from your explanation.
So, you're saying that, on a FE your ground comes into view at around 22.86 metres but, if it was on your globe it would be 4 micrometres?
No, I'm saying on a RE, the ground would have dropped by 4 micrometres over this distance.
So on a FE, the distance between straight out level (i.e. following a straight line, where at your eye, this line is level) from your eyes and the ground is 2 m, but on a RE, it is 2.000004 m. (where RE has an extra 4 micrometres)
The point of that was that for all practical purposes, the ability to see level ground through such a tube is the same with a flat Earth, or a round Earth with a radius of 6371 km (and that is just 1 particular number. If the radius is larger it would also hold, and depending on how accurately you can set it up, it will also hold for a smaller radius to some limit).
The curvature of Earth is so insignificant over this distance, that it may as well be flat (for the purpose of seeing the ground through a level tube).
And this is why that diagram is a too scale drawing for both a RE and a FE. Each pixel in that diagram is 2 cm. So 4 micrometres would be 0.0002 pixels.
Or to express it differently, in order to see the difference between a FE and a RE at that scale, each pixel would need to be 4 micrometres, so the 2 m height would need to be 500 000 px, making it quite a large image.
-
Ok, you look out to sea. Tell me where your edge is?
The horizon.
That's the point you keep on running from.
Do you seriously think it's at the end of your global diameter?
Do you mean directly opposite from me? If so, no.
Every ball I have ever looked at has had a clear edge.
You have never seen any real edge on any ball.
And now you are just trying to play semantics.
I don't care if you want to pretend the edge is real vs theoretical or the like.
What is important is that there is a clear separation. It is clear where the ball ends and the surroundings begin.
Why should this be different between the RE and any other ball?
It being a continuous curve so you don't feel a sharp change in curvature or direction doesn't mean it doesn't have an edge.
So, you have no real answer. That's why you struggle.
-
In your diagram, what distance is the bottom vision over the ground before it hits ground, in your opinion?
I don't remember exactly. I know it was between 20 and 30 m. I think it was 23 m.
This was based upon a tube which gives a FOV of 10 degrees, with an elevation of 2 m.
Redoing the math shows that the FOV of 10 degrees would mean it would hit a flat, level surface on a hypothetical FE, after 22.86 m.
On a RE, the drop over that distance (which is would be a mere 0.74 arc seconds), is a mere 4 micrometres.
After 23 m, the 10 degree FOV has dropped by 2.01m, and the drop is still 4 micrometres.
As for the tube, one such setup (potentially the one I used) was a 4 cm wide tube with a length of 23 cm, which gives a FOV of 9.94 degrees.
Let me see if I've got this right from your explanation.
So, you're saying that, on a FE your ground comes into view at around 22.86 metres but, if it was on your globe it would be 4 micrometres?
No, I'm saying on a RE, the ground would have dropped by 4 micrometres over this distance.
So on a FE, the distance between straight out level (i.e. following a straight line, where at your eye, this line is level) from your eyes and the ground is 2 m, but on a RE, it is 2.000004 m. (where RE has an extra 4 micrometres)
The point of that was that for all practical purposes, the ability to see level ground through such a tube is the same with a flat Earth, or a round Earth with a radius of 6371 km (and that is just 1 particular number. If the radius is larger it would also hold, and depending on how accurately you can set it up, it will also hold for a smaller radius to some limit).
The curvature of Earth is so insignificant over this distance, that it may as well be flat (for the purpose of seeing the ground through a level tube).
And this is why that diagram is a too scale drawing for both a RE and a FE. Each pixel in that diagram is 2 cm. So 4 micrometres would be 0.0002 pixels.
Or to express it differently, in order to see the difference between a FE and a RE at that scale, each pixel would need to be 4 micrometres, so the 2 m height would need to be 500 000 px, making it quite a large image.
Ok, so let's get this straightened up.
You have a level 2 inch diameter tube at 6 feet high on a gradient that slopes 10 degrees.
A person walks down that slope directly in front of your tube.
How far does the person walk before the person's head goes out of your sight?
-
If you truly accepted that we have a FOV, and wanted that to be a refutation of the RE, you would show an angular FOV, like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That is why your diagram is garbage. WE DO NOT SEE IN 1D.
We have a FOV. This FOV allows us to see the hill.
Don't waste your time going through that " oh we don't see in 1D nonsense. You're not gaining anything by doing it and you know fine well I'm showing a simple diagram and leaving it up to the genuine people to see it for what it is, not for what you pretend it isn't.
Your diagram is using the naked eye to gain your FOV.
Why do you neglect the simple tube with no curved lens?
I implore anyone to go out with a simple tube and look level over their street or field and tell me they can see the ground under their tube vision.
Yes
Can anyone Anyone go out and do it?
You go do it.
Or draw it to scale
Or let us know why your drawing cant be done to scale?
Not sure if you're capable but if you are, I suggest you get a tube and look through your window with the tube as level as you believe it to be. Now tell me you can see the floor. You can't. You simply can't do it.
You can if you use a scope or your naked eye.
Just try it. Don;t waste your time trying to argue something with me that I know already.
Prove it to yourself, not to me.
Sorry but youre garbage.
As alrwady pointed out - just because i cant see my feet because a tube is blocking it, or you cant see your dick because you gut is blocking it, doeant mean its not there.
The theoretical horizon is miles away.
Evem with the tube at whaeveer arbiteary length or height, it still dossnt prove your point - as pointed out by the circles and triangles diagrams.
Yku have yet to make a relevant or provide relevance to your point.
This is not, on your same level of dismssal, because actual diagrams and "debatable" ingormation had been presented, while your side has yet to provide
-
Sorry but youre garbage.
As alrwady pointed out - just because i cant see my feet because a tube is blocking it, or you cant see your dick because you gut is blocking it, doeant mean its not there.
Yeah, but this is about you people making out you see them being there. Did you forget that bit?
-
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
We can think that because everyone else can look through a tube and take pictures of our setup. Why can't you? What are you hiding? Where are the pictures of your own experiment? You are clearly very confused, why not look through a tube and show us?
Genuine people can follow my instructions and come to the same conclusion that I did.
Let me tell you this. You're smug and desperate to back me into a corner but you didn't expect to be backed into the corner yourself and this is why you bottled the experiment.
If you knew I was wrong, you'd take great delight in showing your internet mates, never mind doing it for my benefit, alone.
Where are the pictures of your own experiments? Why are you avoiding even talking about them? Aren't you proud of how impressive your setup is and all the wonderful pictures you took of it and through it? What possible reason would you have to not show us?
There's nothing complicated about the set up I've put forward. You managed it with what I mentioned. The only issue you had was not understanding what level set up means on a downward gradient...deliberately, of course.
Any honest normal thinking person can prove to themselves what I've put forward.
So you are just toing to call me a liar again, and not provide any reason or proof. An honest person would post pictures of their experiment so others could see it, where are yours? What do you have to hide? Why are you being so cowardly?
-
Plumb bobs, multiple tubes, crosshairs, pencils... nothing at all absurd. ::)
They're only absurd to people like you because they show you up.
Compared to you, who won't even describe or show pictures of their experiment. Right.
It's clear you don't actually KNOW what a view through a tube looks like
Yeah, ok.
Glad you at least admitted it.
Calling me out would be posting pictures of your experimental setup, not cowering in fear of even discussing them. What you are doing, is simple denial with no evidence, effort or work on your end and just calling me a liar. Where is your experiment? I'm sure you have it all set to post, just can't find the time to press the button, is that it?
Do the experiment and shut me up.
Doing the experiment hasn't stopped you from calling me a liar. Asking you to stop hasn't done it. I guess you have nothing except to call people liars and refuse to show your work.
You do your own experiment for once, if you can. I've even shown you what that looks like, should be easy for anyone to do. Why are you having such trouble?
-
Since I can't go outside, lets take a crack at another claim.
The claim that you can't see the edge of a ball you are standing on.
I don't have a ball big enough to stand on (not here anyway but I've stood on one before) but I do have a globe and a camera I can put the lens up to. So here is the view from on top of a globe.
That certainly looks like an edge to me. Or a horizon, as we like to call it on my planet. But I'm sure skeptimatic has a bunch of photos he took that he can use to show us what a real globe through a camera looks like.
( Huh, I need to dust more. )
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
After all this you seriously go right back to a camera on a small ball and think you're proving something?
Let's try something better.
Instead of a camera that has a a lens that allows a wide FOV, try setting up a level straw on that globe and looking through it, then come back and show me the edge.
Also, why in the hell would you argue for an edge on a supposed global Earth when you know the atmosphere on the real Earth obscures a view at short distance?
If you are genuine in what you're trying to do then I sit here bemused.
If you are doing it for reasons that I suspect, then I 'm ok with it because I understand the desperation of keeping a globe in the head of the already indoctrinated.
LOL.
Well, you did pretty much what I expected. Demanded I add a bunch of extra stuff and call me dishonest, again. Your inability to put forth a working argument is always reliable. ::)
The horizon at eye level is 5km away. On a clear day you can see a goof 160km. 160 is less than 5. You understand less than, right? So you are wrong once more. Try again.
I've got an idea... why don't you do your straw experiment and show us your setup and how it's done with all the bells and whistles your imagination can come up with. Because if I take a picture through a straw, you are just going to add MORE conditions. You know you will, you won't even deny it or promise not to. I might do it anyway, but are you willing to do some work for a change?
Or are you going to continue to be lazy and scared or showing yourself wrong?
-
Just using your own logic.
In any case. It appears that we have a lot of evidence that looking through a tube lets you still see the ground. And not this magic tunnel vision you've concocted. So that argument of yours is moot and debunked. Moving on. Unless you'd like to present some evidence to the contrary.
Of course there's a lot of evidence that looking through a tube will allow you to see ground.
The issue is in the angle of the tube and the run of the ground.
And this is where the clap trap comes in with people like you pretending it's all level on a downward gradient.
It's laughable.
I wouldn't bother arguing this if I hadn't checked it all out myself.
So where are the photos of your experiment?
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
so all this time we've been arguing "horizon", and sceppy has applied his own definition to "horizon"
aaahaha
astounding!
amazing!
astonishing!
seriously
the blue is the sky.
the brown-green parts is the ground.
the theoretical difinitive split between the two is the horizon.
-
So you are just toing to call me a liar again, and not provide any reason
The reason has been provided. It seems you do not have the ability to comprehend it.
-
Why are you having such trouble?
I'm having no trouble at all. I'm fine and in full control of the knowledge that you duped the experiment and refuse to follow instructions that make it difficult for you to dupe it.
That tells me all I need to know.
-
So you are just toing to call me a liar again, and not provide any reason
The reason has been provided. It seems you do not have the ability to comprehend it.
No, you're pulling the standard Flat Earth diversion.
Claiming you already answered, and never repeating it or pointing out where. Classic.
You have provided no reason other than the evidence proves you wrong, so it must be fake. Brilliant.
-
Why are you having such trouble?
I'm having no trouble at all. I'm fine and in full control of the knowledge that you duped the experiment and refuse to follow instructions that make it difficult for you to dupe it.
That tells me all I need to know.
All you are doing is calling me a liar, and refusing to state any reason for it. You just can't accept reality. Sad.
And you are the one who refuses to do any experiment. Where are your pictures?
-
Well, you did pretty much what I expected. Demanded I add a bunch of extra stuff and call me dishonest, again. Your inability to put forth a working argument is always reliable. ::)
It's been pout forward and it does work.
You could prove this to yourself and so could anyone else, if it was done properly.
The horizon at eye level is 5km away.
No it's not.
On a clear day you can see a goof 160km.
Is that like a big furry dinosaur or some kind of humongous gopher, or am I not in the know of these exotic animals or whatever that thing is.
160 is less than 5.
This is why we're probably having issues. I was of the understanding that 160 was more than 5....but, maybe I'm wrong.
You understand less than, right?
I'm not so sure now, after what you've calculated...you being a scientist and all that.
So you are wrong once more. Try again.
I'll try.
I've got an idea... why don't you do your straw experiment and show us your setup and how it's done with all the bells and whistles your imagination can come up with. Because if I take a picture through a straw, you are just going to add MORE conditions. You know you will, you won't even deny it or promise not to. I might do it anyway, but are you willing to do some work for a change?
Here's a better idea. Why don't you do the one I set out? You are already over half way there with the equipment you require.
Or are you going to continue to be lazy and scared or showing yourself wrong?
If I end up wrong I'll be sure to tell you or tell someone. As it stands....I'm not wrong.
-
As you stated, if you use a tube that creates a MagicTunnel vision, that would be true.
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Here's some magic tunnel vision:
(https://www.rubikon.news/uploads/store/e5ce21de17f953669fbc23638cab055b.jpg)
I like this one best. The horizon is clearly lower than the midline, so it can not be pointed down, and yet we can see a downward sloping road in the distance.
Imagine that.
There is no horizon in that picture. Imagine that.
so all this time we've been arguing "horizon", and sceppy has applied his own definition to "horizon"
aaahaha
astounding!
amazing!
astonishing!
seriously
the blue is the sky.
the brown-green parts is the ground.
the theoretical difinitive split between the two is the horizon.
No....it's not.
-
I've got an idea... why don't you do your straw experiment and show us your setup and how it's done with all the bells and whistles your imagination can come up with. Because if I take a picture through a straw, you are just going to add MORE conditions. You know you will, you won't even deny it or promise not to. I might do it anyway, but are you willing to do some work for a change?
Here's a better idea. Why don;t you do the one I set out? You are already over half way there with the equipment you require.
Why are you so obsessed with straws and toilet paper tubes? :o
Fine, you want a straw. What do you think it's going to prove, holding a straw in front of the camera? I'm not sure how you think light works, but it doesn't change anything, it just puts a straw in front of it. Just like all the other tubes and wires.
Give me a moment.
Here you go.
BEHOLD, A STRAW!
You can still see the edge. What did you expect?
Well, go on... lets see what extra conditions you will whine about and demand and excuses you come up with now.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Or are you going to continue to be lazy and scared or showing yourself wrong?
If I end up wrong I'll be sure to tell you or tell someone. As it stands....I'm not wrong.
You can't be wrong if you never post any actual experiments. Is that why you refuse to show your pictures, because you know they will prove you wrong? Lazy and sad.
-
I've got an idea... why don't you do your straw experiment and show us your setup and how it's done with all the bells and whistles your imagination can come up with. Because if I take a picture through a straw, you are just going to add MORE conditions. You know you will, you won't even deny it or promise not to. I might do it anyway, but are you willing to do some work for a change?
Here's a better idea. Why don;t you do the one I set out? You are already over half way there with the equipment you require.
Why are you so obsessed with straws and toilet paper tubes? :o
Fine, you want a straw. What do you think it's going to prove, holding a straw in front of the camera? I'm not sure how you think light works, but it doesn't change anything, it just puts a straw in front of it. Just like all the other tubes and wires.
Give me a moment.
Here you go.
BEHOLD, A STRAW!
You can still see the edge. What did you expect?
Well, go on... lets see what extra conditions you will whine about and demand and excuses you come up with now.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Or are you going to continue to be lazy and scared or showing yourself wrong?
If I end up wrong I'll be sure to tell you or tell someone. As it stands....I'm not wrong.
You can't be wrong if you never post any actual experiments. Is that why you refuse to show your pictures, because you know they will prove you wrong? Lazy and sad.
Even your global friends should pull you up on this one.
-
I've got an idea... why don't you do your straw experiment and show us your setup and how it's done with all the bells and whistles your imagination can come up with. Because if I take a picture through a straw, you are just going to add MORE conditions. You know you will, you won't even deny it or promise not to. I might do it anyway, but are you willing to do some work for a change?
Here's a better idea. Why don;t you do the one I set out? You are already over half way there with the equipment you require.
Why are you so obsessed with straws and toilet paper tubes? :o
Fine, you want a straw. What do you think it's going to prove, holding a straw in front of the camera? I'm not sure how you think light works, but it doesn't change anything, it just puts a straw in front of it. Just like all the other tubes and wires.
Give me a moment.
Here you go.
BEHOLD, A STRAW!
You can still see the edge. What did you expect?
Well, go on... lets see what extra conditions you will whine about and demand and excuses you come up with now.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Or are you going to continue to be lazy and scared or showing yourself wrong?
If I end up wrong I'll be sure to tell you or tell someone. As it stands....I'm not wrong.
You can't be wrong if you never post any actual experiments. Is that why you refuse to show your pictures, because you know they will prove you wrong? Lazy and sad.
Even your global friends should pull you up on this one.
So... that's your debating tactic for this one? To not even try? You got your straw, proving that you can see the edge of a globe... through a straw.
Where are your pictures?
-
So... that's your debating tactic for this one? To not even try? You got your straw, proving that you can see the edge of a globe... through a straw.
Where are your pictures?
This is two more times you've went to the trouble of trying to bullcrap me when you could have just done the experiment I asked for.
It shows you up for what you are....massively.
-
So... that's your debating tactic for this one? To not even try? You got your straw, proving that you can see the edge of a globe... through a straw.
Where are your pictures?
This is two more times you've went to the trouble of trying to bullcrap me when you could have just done the experiment I asked for.
It shows you up for what you are....massively.
You demanded I put a straw in front of the camera to look through. I did exactly what you asked, there is the straw. Do you not understand what straws are? ::)
Now you are just accusing me of 'bullcraping' and lying again, with zero reasons. Just baseless accusations, personal attacks and zero content.
What is your objection? Use your words!
Or better yet, why don't you post pictures of your own set up to show what you want.
-
You demanded I put a straw in front of the camera to look through.
No, I didn't.
What is your objection? Use your words!
Your dishonesty.
Or better yet, why don't you post pictures of your own set up to show what you want.
You know what I asked for.
-
You demanded I put a straw in front of the camera to look through.
No, I didn't.
What is your objection? Use your words!
Your dishonesty.
Or better yet, why don't you post pictures of your own set up to show what you want.
You know what I asked for.
Don't you ever get tired of calling me a liar?
I do know exactly what you asked. You asked me to take a picture through a straw. Here is the quote, in case you forgot what you typed.
Let's try something better.
Instead of a camera that has a a lens that allows a wide FOV, try setting up a level straw on that globe and looking through it, then come back and show me the edge.
Why can't you just take your own pictures and show us what you want? What is so hard for you? Is it the taking pictures? You just push the little camera button. I'm sure there are plenty of Flat Earthers here who would help teach you how to do your own experiments.
Here is your looking through a straw picture. In case you forgot it already.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
-
Don't you ever get tired of calling me a liar?
I don't recall ever calling you a liar.
I do know exactly what you asked. You asked me to take a picture through a straw. Here is the quote, in case you forgot what you typed.
Let's try something better.
Instead of a camera that has a a lens that allows a wide FOV, try setting up a level straw on that globe and looking through it, then come back and show me the edge.
I asked you to set up a level straw on your globe. You failed to do so because had you done it, it would show you up for the dupe you are.
Why can't you just take your own pictures and show us what you want?
You know what I asked for.
What is so hard for you? Is it the taking pictures? You just push the little camera button. I'm sure there are plenty of Flat Earthers here who would help teach you how to do your own experiments.
Here is your looking through a straw picture. In case you forgot it already.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Your straw is not on top of your globe and level. Massively dishonest, but no surprise.
-
Don't you ever get tired of calling me a liar?
I don't recall ever calling you a liar.
You haven't used the word, but you call me dishonest, say I am trying to dupe you, claim I'm tilting tubes and saying I didn't.
Carefully avoiding that one word doesn't change anything.
I do know exactly what you asked. You asked me to take a picture through a straw. Here is the quote, in case you forgot what you typed.
Let's try something better.
Instead of a camera that has a a lens that allows a wide FOV, try setting up a level straw on that globe and looking through it, then come back and show me the edge.
I asked you to set up a level straw on your globe. You failed to do so because had you done it, it would show you up for the dupe you are.
See, this is calling me a liar without saying the word.
If you can't use words correctly to ask what you want, you need to take or draw a picture. Why can't you do those simple things?
Why can't you just take your own pictures and show us what you want?
You know what I asked for.
Yes, you asked me to look through a straw. I did. Why won't you post pictures of what you are asking, if you can't use words to do it?
What is so hard for you? Is it the taking pictures? You just push the little camera button. I'm sure there are plenty of Flat Earthers here who would help teach you how to do your own experiments.
Here is your looking through a straw picture. In case you forgot it already.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Your straw is not on top of your globe and level. Massively dishonest, but no surprise.
The straw is level. The straw is over the globe. And you are calling me a liar again. Learn what words mean before using them.
dishonest [ dis-on-ist ]
adjective
not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief
-
Ok, you look out to sea. Tell me where your edge is?
The horizon.
That's the point you keep on running from.
Do you seriously think it's at the end of your global diameter?
Do you mean directly opposite from me? If so, no.
Every ball I have ever looked at has had a clear edge.
You have never seen any real edge on any ball.
And now you are just trying to play semantics.
I don't care if you want to pretend the edge is real vs theoretical or the like.
What is important is that there is a clear separation. It is clear where the ball ends and the surroundings begin.
Why should this be different between the RE and any other ball?
It being a continuous curve so you don't feel a sharp change in curvature or direction doesn't mean it doesn't have an edge.
So, you have no real answer. That's why you struggle.
Projecting yet again.
I gave you real answers.
You are the one who seems to have none.
I have repeatedly asked what causes the Earth to have a blend from light to dark and you have no answer.
The best you can come up with is the atmosphere, but we know that is not an issue as if it was there wouldn't be a clear horizon, and instead even on a FE you would have this blend from light to dark.
So again, what magic causes the blend?
Why doesn't the RE have a clearly visible edge just like so many other balls?
-
Ok, so let's get this straightened up.
You have a level 2 inch diameter tube at 6 feet high on a gradient that slopes 10 degrees.
A person walks down that slope directly in front of your tube.
How far does the person walk before the person's head goes out of your sight?
You left out the important part, the length of the tube (or the distance from the eye to the end of the tube).
If the length provides a FOV >= 20 degrees, the head will never leave (assuming the slope is straight rather than following the curve of Earth).
If the FOV is less than that, the head will leave quite quickly, assuming it was quite close to the end of the tube.
For example, after 10 m (horizontally), the person will be 1.76 m lower.
With a 20 degree FOV, the bottom of the FOV will also be that 1.76 m lower.
But with a 10 degree FOV, the bottom will only be 0.87 m lower, and thus the person will be out of view.
Using ~the same ratio tube as before, so it has a diameter of 2 inches and a length of 11 inches.
This gives us a FOV of 10.39 degrees, and thus half the FOV is 5.19 degrees.
This now gives us a simple triangle to solve, which can also be represented as simultaneous equations.
The gradient of the slope (downwards) can be s.
The gradient of the bottom of the FOV, i.e. half of the FOV, can be a.
The length of the tube will be l.
The distance the person needs to travel (horizontally) will be d.
The drop (h) for the person is given by tan(s)=h/d.
The drop (which needs to be the same h as above for them to cross) for the FOV is given by tan(a)=h/(l+d).
This gives us h=d*tan(s)
Subbing that into the second gives us:
tan(a)=d*tan(s)/(l+d).
Rearranging gives us:
tan(a)*(l+d)=d*tan(s)
tan(a)*l+tan(a)*d=d*tan(s)
tan(a)*l=d*tan(s)-tan(a)*d
tan(a)*l=d*(tan(s)-tan(a))
d=l*tan(a)/(tan(s)-tan(a))
And then putting in the numbers from before will give us d=11.7 inches.
i.e. once the person, starting at the end of the tube, walks 11.7 inches further away, they will no longer have the centre of their head in the FOV.
Of course, this is a simplification based upon them having a head that is a point. The top of their head will be still be visible and they will need to move further away to be entirely out of view.
Meanwhile, putting in a FOV of 20 degrees, to make s and a be equal, the bottom is now 0, and the distance required is infinite. That means they will never leave.
And if you put in a FOV greater than 2 times the slope, the bottom is negative, and that means that again they would never leave the FOV. (It means they would need to go behind the end of the tube to not be seen).
-
Yeah, but this is about you people making out you see them being there. Did you forget that bit?
No it isn't.
We aren't saying you can see straight down through a tube. We are just saying things below the line projected from the tube are still visible, if they are in the FOV.
So you are just toing to call me a liar again, and not provide any reason
The reason has been provided. It seems you do not have the ability to comprehend it.
The only "reason" that you have provided is that he showed you were wrong, by showing what logic dictates should be seen.
The results not being what you want them to be is not a reason for the experiment being fake.
It is a reason for you being wrong.
A reason would be showing something actually wrong with the experiment that is visible in the photos.
If you want to appeal to the result, you need to provide your own evidence to counter it.
You do your own experiment for once, if you can. I've even shown you what that looks like, should be easy for anyone to do. Why are you having such trouble?
I'm having no trouble at all.
Then why are you yet to post any results.
You make up an experiment, then when the results show you are wrong, you dismiss it as fake and throw in a bunch more demands while refusing to do it and post the results yourself.
That should tell everyone all they need to know.
Well, you did pretty much what I expected. Demanded I add a bunch of extra stuff and call me dishonest, again. Your inability to put forth a working argument is always reliable. ::)
It's been pout forward and it does work.
The problem isn't so much the working or not, it is the argument part.
You haven't put forward an argument. You put forward a baseless assertion which has been refuted, both with pure logic and with actual evidence.
That is not a working argument.
What's even more damning is that you contradict the very claim that the assertion is based upon.
You claim you can only ever see 1 inch, so the ground being below the 1 inch will make it impossible to see.
But then claim you can see more than 1 inch of a distant object.
You could prove this to yourself and so could anyone else, if it was done properly.
You mean he could prove you wrong, as he has done.
The horizon at eye level is 5km away.
No it's not.
Assuming you are standing roughly 2 m above level, it is.
You can do this by either having an object travel out to that horizon, and seeing when it starts to disappear and then measuring just how far away it is, or just by doing the math for the RE.
And as this is meant to be a discussion on if the RE has a horizon or not (i.e if your claim of a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge is substantiated) then the math for the RE is all that is needed.
On a clear day you can see a goof good 160km.
Is that like a big furry dinosaur
No, it is clearly a typo.
The point is you can typically see through the atmosphere much further than the distance to the horizon.
I was of the understanding that 160 was more than 5....but, maybe I'm wrong.
Again, likely another typo. But glad you can agree.
That 160 km you can clearly see through the atmosphere is greater than the distance to the horizon.
That means the air is not causing a problem. You should be able to see the edge of the RE.
Here's a better idea. Why don't you do the one I set out? You are already over half way there with the equipment you require.
He already did, and you dismissed it simply because it showed you were wrong.
Why should we assume it will change?
So here's a better idea, why don't you do the one you set out, or the one I set out?
If you were correct it would be easy to do and you wouldn't have anything to fear.
The only reason for you to not do it is that you know it shows you are wrong.
If I end up wrong I'll be sure to tell you or tell someone. As it stands....I'm not wrong.
No, you are most certainly wrong, as shown by both logic and evidence.
You have nothing except refuted, baseless assertions.
You refusing to accept that you are wrong does not mean that you are not wrong.
If you did the experiment you would easily see that you are wrong. But you continually refuse.
Again, the only reason for you to refuse is if you know they will show you are wrong.
the blue is the sky.
the brown-green parts is the ground.
the theoretical difinitive split between the two is the horizon.
No....it's not.
Then what is it? Because that certainly seems like the horizon.
Do you not want it to be the horizon because it isn't at eye level? Because that was just your baseless refuted claim. The horizon does not need to be at eye level.
This is two more times you've went to the trouble of trying to bullcrap me when you could have just done the experiment I asked for.
It shows you up for what you are....massively.
No, this is 2 more times you could have done the experiment you asked for (or the one we did) and tried to see if it shows you are right.
But your suggested experiment (the way you want it) this time is just pure nonsense.
If you place the straw on top so it is level in the middle, you have nothing like a person standing on Earth looking through a small tube.
Instead you have something equivalent to someone standing way above Earth with a tiny FOV.
Their height, combined with the tiny FOV means they wont see Earth.
His experiment is more akin to what is actually expected for the globe. It is a small FOV where the centre is a straight line that passes level above the globe.
You can tell by the fact that the globe is below the centre of the straw.
That means it is a level straw on top of the globe.
-
His experiment is more akin to what is actually expected for the globe. It is a small FOV where the centre is a straight line that passes level above the globe.
You can tell by the fact that the globe is below the centre of the straw.
That means it is a level straw on top of the globe.
Do you see the red line around the sphere?
That red line should be placed at the top and the front end of the straw should be resting directly on that red line.
This is a desperate measure for your globalists. It really is bemusing.
-
Do you see the red line around the sphere?
That red line should be placed at the top and the front end of the straw should be resting directly on that red line.
This is a desperate measure for your globalists. It really is bemusing.
No, it is just more desperation from you.
That is still not comparing it to what you are talking about for a RE.
For a RE, that would be putting a massive tube on the surface, and then asking if you can see the surface.
I already pointed out why it is fine. It is a small FOV where the centre is a straight line that passes level above the globe.
-
Do you see the red line around the sphere?
That red line should be placed at the top and the front end of the straw should be resting directly on that red line.
This is a desperate measure for your globalists. It really is bemusing.
No, it is just more desperation from you.
That is still not comparing it to what you are talking about for a RE.
For a RE, that would be putting a massive tube on the surface, and then asking if you can see the surface.
I already pointed out why it is fine. It is a small FOV where the centre is a straight line that passes level above the globe.
Dress it up as much as you feel you need to but the reality is, you do not see the ground from a level tube on a downward gradient.
-
Dress it up as much as you feel you need to but the reality is, you do not see the ground from a level tube on a downward gradient.
And to think, you seemed to be making progress before.
Again, if you wish to assert such pure BS you need to explain what magic stops the blue line.:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Unless there is something to obstruct or deflect the blue line, it will continue from below the level of the tube and reach the eye.
And that means just like all other times you have an angular FOV.
That means that if the slope is less than half the FOV, YOU CAN SEE IT THROUGH A LEVEL TUBE!
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same refuted BS, it won't magically make it true. You need an explanation of what magic stops the blue line.
And then along with that, and the fact that there is no reason at all for the RE to have anything but a clear edge, you can also see the horizon on a RE through such a level tube. (depending on your altitude).
-
Do you see the red line around the sphere?
That red line should be placed at the top and the front end of the straw should be resting directly on that red line.
This is a desperate measure for your globalists. It really is bemusing.
No, it is just more desperation from you.
That is still not comparing it to what you are talking about for a RE.
For a RE, that would be putting a massive tube on the surface, and then asking if you can see the surface.
I already pointed out why it is fine. It is a small FOV where the centre is a straight line that passes level above the globe.
Dress it up as much as you feel you need to but the reality is, you do not see the ground from a level tube on a downward gradient.
What’s hilarious is that you just keep saying that, stomping your feet like a toddler. When you have literally been shown over and over demonstration, evidence, clear as day, that you are wrong.
It’s really way beyond the time where you have to put up or shut up. Show us your version of these experiments others have done at your direction and request. Every time you come up with a new one, someone does it and you just crank up your stomping your feet schtick again when the result shows you’re wrong...again.
What is with you? Show some integrity and post some evidence for once. The stomping your feet thing is sooo old and tiresome. All evidence presented has shown you are wrong. You have shown none. At this point, you lose.
-
Dress it up as much as you feel you need to but the reality is, you do not see the ground from a level tube on a downward gradient.
And to think, you seemed to be making progress before.
Again, if you wish to assert such pure BS you need to explain what magic stops the blue line.:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Unless there is something to obstruct or deflect the blue line, it will continue from below the level of the tube and reach the eye.
And that means just like all other times you have an angular FOV.
That means that if the slope is less than half the FOV, YOU CAN SEE IT THROUGH A LEVEL TUBE!
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same refuted BS, it won't magically make it true. You need an explanation of what magic stops the blue line.
And then along with that, and the fact that there is no reason at all for the RE to have anything but a clear edge, you can also see the horizon on a RE through such a level tube. (depending on your altitude).
It's not about me making progress, it's about you understanding what's being said instead of twisting it all to suit yourself.
By all means do it and by all means copy and paste long posts...but you'll be wasting a lot of your time doing it.
Stick to one specific and deal with it instead of going into raptures.
And stop whining.
-
What’s hilarious is that you just keep saying that, stomping your feet like a toddler. When you have literally been shown over and over demonstration, evidence, clear as day, that you are wrong.
It’s really way beyond the time where you have to put up or shut up. Show us your version of these experiments others have done at your direction and request. Every time you come up with a new one, someone does it and you just crank up your stomping your feet schtick again when the result shows you’re wrong...again.
What is with you? Show some integrity and post some evidence for once. The stomping your feet thing is sooo old and tiresome. All evidence presented has shown you are wrong. You have shown none. At this point, you lose.
The feet stomping is in your mind. Feel free to envision that. I'm fine with it.
As for the experiments. All I ask for is honesty and I'm getting absolute zero worth of it from you lot.
I can say this because I see your pathetic attempts to dupe when I know the reality.
Otherwise I wouldn't say it.
-
It's not about me making progress, it's about you understanding what's being said instead of twisting it all to suit yourself.
No, it is about you making progress, either accepting that you are wrong, or actually starting to defend your claims.
What it certainly shouldn't be about is you continually asserting the same refuted crap again and again.
Stick to one specific and deal with it instead of going into raptures.
You had your chance at that and then ran when you couldn't justify your claim that the RE should magically have a blend from light to dark.
If YOU want to try to actually stick to one specific thing and deal with that rather than jumping ship as soon as you cannot defend your outright lies, then go ahead.
Until then I will continue pointing out what is wrong with your BS and asking you simple questions you cannot answer.
Again, until you have an explanation for what magic stops the blue line, either by stopping it completely or by bending it away you have no basis at all for your claim that you cannot see things below the level of the tube. And with that, all your other claims fall apart. You have no basis for your claim that you cannot see a downwards gradient as that is based entirely upon your claim that you can't see below the tube.
And again, we know that without the tube, the blue line does reach your eye, and the tube should have nothing there to stop or deflect the blue line, as there is no lens.
If you put a lens on the end you could deflect the blue line, but you made it clear that we are dealing with a tube with no lens.
And with the fact that we can see things below the tube, that also means that we can see the horizon on a RE, until you can explain why there should magically be a blend.
As for the experiments. All I ask for is honesty
And you have been given plenty of it, while providing none yourself.
If you know the reality so well, why haven't you gone out and done the experiment, even the simple one I suggested, to show that we are all wrong?
The sole reason you say BS like that is because the only excuse you have to dismiss the experiments showing you are wrong is that they have been faked, because they show you are wrong.
-
What’s hilarious is that you just keep saying that, stomping your feet like a toddler. When you have literally been shown over and over demonstration, evidence, clear as day, that you are wrong.
It’s really way beyond the time where you have to put up or shut up. Show us your version of these experiments others have done at your direction and request. Every time you come up with a new one, someone does it and you just crank up your stomping your feet schtick again when the result shows you’re wrong...again.
What is with you? Show some integrity and post some evidence for once. The stomping your feet thing is sooo old and tiresome. All evidence presented has shown you are wrong. You have shown none. At this point, you lose.
The feet stomping is in your mind. Feel free to envision that. I'm fine with it.
As for the experiments. All I ask for is honesty and I'm getting absolute zero worth of it from you lot.
I can say this because I see your pathetic attempts to dupe when I know the reality.
Otherwise I wouldn't say it.
You just don't get it. For example:
Don't you ever get tired of calling me a liar?
I don't recall ever calling you a liar.
I do know exactly what you asked. You asked me to take a picture through a straw. Here is the quote, in case you forgot what you typed.
Let's try something better.
Instead of a camera that has a a lens that allows a wide FOV, try setting up a level straw on that globe and looking through it, then come back and show me the edge.
I asked you to set up a level straw on your globe. You failed to do so because had you done it, it would show you up for the dupe you are.
You asked to:
- Set up a level straw on a Globe, check
- Look through it, check
- Show me the edge, check
Your only response, because what you asked for doesn't show what you want as a result is that You failed because it does not show what I want it to show as a result.
That's not how this works. Just because something does not result in what you want as a result doesn't mean it's a dupe or whathaveyou. It means that your predicted result is incorrect. How do you not get that? And all you're doing is stomping yur feet saying, "Nooooo! It's not supposed to work like that! It can't, because I say so!" But the thing is, and here's the rub, it does work like that whether you personally want it to or not. That's referred to as reality.
You could settle this for yourself if you simply did the same experiment and showed us your results. But for reasons, you refuse to do so. Which, at the end of the day, sucks all the credibility out of your argument because all you're doing is saying, "Nooooo! It's not supposed to work like that! It can't, because I say so!" You couldn't go farther away from science than that.
It's sad really. You're so caught up in your own indoctrination and so petrified to have that even questioned that you won't even do the simplest of experiments and show us. You're hiding behind that. And that is just sad.
All in all, it's been demonstrated numerous times that you are wrong, everyone can see that. Whether you would ever admit it is really neither here nor there. Everyone else knows you're hiding from the truth. If you want to stop hiding, do the experiment and post your results. Otherwise, you are beyond objectively wrong as all the evidence shows.
-
What’s hilarious is that you just keep saying that, stomping your feet like a toddler. When you have literally been shown over and over demonstration, evidence, clear as day, that you are wrong.
It’s really way beyond the time where you have to put up or shut up. Show us your version of these experiments others have done at your direction and request. Every time you come up with a new one, someone does it and you just crank up your stomping your feet schtick again when the result shows you’re wrong...again.
What is with you? Show some integrity and post some evidence for once. The stomping your feet thing is sooo old and tiresome. All evidence presented has shown you are wrong. You have shown none. At this point, you lose.
The feet stomping is in your mind.
It's actually in everyones mind. At this point, EVERYONE here sees you as nothing more than just mindlessly repeating a claim that is contrary to the observable world. No explanations given, no evidence, no support. Just empty claims about MagicTunnel Vision or invisible curved edges, and then just covering your eyes and ears to all evidence and arguments against your fantasy and just whining "No No No No" like a toddler.
Its nice for you that you don't seem to care that this is how you are seen, but you should be aware of it. Maybe even learn from it? (but that is probably a step too far).
-
It's not about me making progress, it's about you understanding what's being said instead of twisting it all to suit yourself.
No, it is about you making progress, either accepting that you are wrong, or actually starting to defend your claims.
It's about you lot proving your claims without twisting and turning and duping. Ask JJA about the duping....and Stash.
-
You asked to:
1.....- Set up a level straw on a Globe, check
Uncheck. It was not set up level on a globe.
2.....- Look through it, check
Check.
3.....- Show me the edge, check
Back to number 1.
Your only response, because what you asked for doesn't show what you want as a result is that You failed because it does not show what I want it to show as a result.
No. It was a dishonest representation just like he did in the gradient experiment. Absolute disgraceful duping and he's down to zero in my book. You're not far behind.
That's not how this works. Just because something does not result in what you want as a result doesn't mean it's a dupe or whathaveyou.
But these are and I know that you people know this.
It means that your predicted result is incorrect.
It is correct. I've done it all myself. I know what I know and so would any other honest person.
How do you not get that?
I do get it. You people play games because you're scared to go against your severe indoctrinated global mindset and fear mass ridicule attempts.
And all you're doing is stomping yur feet saying, "Nooooo! It's not supposed to work like that! It can't, because I say so!"
No stamping here. I'm as calm as can be. You on the other hand....hmmmmm.
But the thing is, and here's the rub, it does work like that whether you personally want it to or not. That's referred to as reality.
It works how you people want it to work.
Angling a tube on a gradient or placing a straw below the equatorial line of the globe model to make it appear you see the ground or a supposed horizon line. It's pretty sad to be fair but I understand the need for you people to do it.
You could settle this for yourself if you simply did the same experiment and showed us your results.
It's already settled for me. You people have ducked out of performing legitimate experiments in favour of the one's that can easily dupe unsuspecting questioners and out of the box thinkers.
But for reasons, you refuse to do so.
You refuse to play the honest game.
Which, at the end of the day, sucks all the credibility out of your argument because all you're doing is saying, "Nooooo! It's not supposed to work like that! It can't, because I say so!" You couldn't go farther away from science than that.
I do not require anything from you to decide my credibility. You have went down to my shoe sole in terms of the way you've went on, after a promising start. This is down to fear of going against the masses.
And...and...I know you may not give a damn about what I think. I'm just returning the compliment.
It's sad really. You're so caught up in your own indoctrination and so petrified to have that even questioned that you won't even do the simplest of experiments and show us. You're hiding behind that. And that is just sad.
I feel that way about you and your internet back patters.
All in all, it's been demonstrated numerous times that you are wrong, everyone can see that.
It's never been demonstrated once that I am wrong.
Whether you would ever admit it is really neither here nor there.
Obviously it is or why would you bother trying to convince me with all kinds of duping when you know fine well you could follow the instructions I gave.
The issue is you people didn't expect me to add in those extras for better proof of truthfulness and are struggling to find a way past what I set out, which is why none of you will do the experiment and why you keep changing it to the easy dupe method.
You don't fool me and nobody worth their salt should be fooled, either.
Everyone else knows you're hiding from the truth.
No. You might convince some that I am but there will be many that know I'm not hiding from anything.
The issue they will have is, why would they back me up when it would lead to mind numbing ridicule for them. I agree with their thoughts.
It just so happens that I'm immune to the shenanigans of you people.
If you want to stop hiding, do the experiment and post your results. Otherwise, you are beyond objectively wrong as all the evidence shows.
How about you people do the proper one's. Should I hold my breath?
-
It's actually in everyones mind. At this point, EVERYONE here sees you as nothing more than just mindlessly repeating a claim that is contrary to the observable world. No explanations given, no evidence, no support. Just empty claims about MagicTunnel Vision or invisible curved edges, and then just covering your eyes and ears to all evidence and arguments against your fantasy and just whining "No No No No" like a toddler.
Its nice for you that you don't seem to care that this is how you are seen, but you should be aware of it. Maybe even learn from it? (but that is probably a step too far).
Were you wanting to add something?
-
It's about you lot proving your claims without twisting and turning and duping.
No, it hasn't been.
You are the one who came here and started making all sorts of outrageous claims.
So it is actually about YOU proving YOUR claims.
So far you haven't even attempted to. Instead all you have done is repeatedly assert the same refuted claims.
Our job is just to refute your claims, or show they are unsupported, and we have done that wonderfully.
For example, by providing a simple image to show your claims about magic tunnel vision are pure nonsense.
Especially when combined with the simple question you just can't answer:
What magic stops the blue line?
The fact that you continually fail to answer that shows just how pathetic your claims are.
Likewise, your inability to explain why the RE should magically have a blend from light to dark rather than a clearly visible edge also shows just how pathetic your claims are.
So when will you start trying to prove your claims rather than continually deflecting?
1.....- Set up a level straw on a Globe, check
Uncheck. It was not set up level on a globe.
Again, it was level. It passed over a point where the centre of the FOV was going level.
That's not how this works. Just because something does not result in what you want as a result doesn't mean it's a dupe or whathaveyou.
But these are and I know that you people know this.
No, it is never like that.
You never get to dismiss something just because it doesn't show the result you want, not in any honest, rational discussion.
It means that your predicted result is incorrect.
It is correct. I've done it all myself.
Then post your results. So far all we have is your claim.
All honest people know your claim is BS.
If you were honest you would post your results.
It's pretty sad to be fair but I understand the need for you people to do it.
What is sad is you continually spouting the same refuted BS, without doing anything at all to justify it, and being entirely unable to defend your BS against refutations of it.
You people have ducked out of performing legitimate experiments
You dismissing them isn't us ducking out.
Your extra complications do nothing but needlessly complicate the experiment and lower the FOV.
The only one ducking out of legitimate experiments is you.
I do not require anything from you to decide my credibility.
No, your actions show your credibility, and that is that you have none.
It's never been demonstrated once that I am wrong.
You rejecting reality doesn't magically change it.
Until you can answer the simple questions, and until you post your own results, it has been proven beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
The issue is you people didn't expect me to add in those extras for better proof
No, I entirely expected you to do it because that is how you always act.
You make demands for an experiment, and then when it is met, you just dismiss it as fake and make more demands.
It truly is pathetic.
But like I have already said, those extras just make the entire thing more complex. It doesn't make it any more reliable.
nobody worth their salt should be fooled, either.
And nobody worth their salt will be fooled by your BS.
there will be many that know I'm not hiding from anything.
No, there won't be a single person that knows that, due to the fact that it is false, and it needs to be true for people to know it.
-
Everyone else knows you're hiding from the truth.
No. You might convince some that I am but there will be many that know I'm not hiding from anything.
The issue they will have is, why would they back me up when it would lead to mind numbing ridicule for them. I agree with their thoughts.
All the lol. Sceptimatic's Hidden Army with their Magic TunnelVision tubes. They see him as a ray of light in the fight against the darkness of those who would look through toilet roll tubes and claim to see an angular field of view, and those who believe curved surfaces have an apparent edge!
You are truly a brave leader, willing to take the slings and arrows of mockery for them, I just hope you know how much they appreciate you.
-
It's not about me making progress, it's about you understanding what's being said instead of twisting it all to suit yourself.
No, it is about you making progress, either accepting that you are wrong, or actually starting to defend your claims.
It's about you lot proving your claims without twisting and turning and duping. Ask JJA about the duping....and Stash.
Are you capable of doing anything other than ranting that I'm a liar over and over? You have been proven wrong at every step and your only defense is to claim everyone is lying and trying to dupe you or twist things. It's a globe. How exactly do you think I'm 'twisting' things by taking pictures of a globe? You won't do your own experiments. You won't give any reasons for why you are claiming I'm lying.
You can see the edge of a globe. From far away. From close up. Even when standing on it. Big or small. I've shown this, and you have shown... nothing. Done nothing but whine about needing straws and plumb bobs. Do some actual work and prove it for once. Show us all your fancy experimental pictures. Since you have done all these experiments yourself it should be easy to just post them, right? So where are your photos? Dog ate them again, right? ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
-
Again, it was level. It passed over a point where the centre of the FOV was going level.
No, it wasn't.
-
Are you capable of doing anything other than ranting that I'm a liar over and over?
There's no ranting.
I'm more than happy to debate with you when you find it in you to actually do something that is not dishonest.
-
Are you capable of doing anything other than ranting that I'm a liar over and over?
There's no ranting.
I'm more than happy to debate with you when you find it in you to actually do something that is not dishonest.
What debate? You just called me a liar again, that's not debating. You failed to provide any reason or evidence to why you are accusing me. Are you ever going to answer why you won't post your own evidence? You say you have done all these experiments and got different results... well where are they? You claim I am 'doing it wrong' and trying to dupe you. How? Why can't you show your setup to show how it should be done? Where are your photos? Can you do it, or are you limited to just accusing people of being dishonest? Sad.
-
You claim I am 'doing it wrong' and trying to dupe you. How? Why can't you show your setup to show how it should be done?
You are and I've already shown you and you've bottled it but weirdly decided to the straw one which you've went and done exactly the same to.
You are dishonest and I'll keep calling you out until you do the experiment.
-
You claim I am 'doing it wrong' and trying to dupe you. How? Why can't you show your setup to show how it should be done?
You are and I've already shown you and you've bottled it but weirdly decided to the straw one which you've went and done exactly the same to.
You are dishonest and I'll keep calling you out until you do the experiment.
Why do you always claim you said things instead of just saying them? You never even provide a quote or a link. It's as if you never said it at all in the first place.
You whined that I didn't use a straw, so I did. You and your tubes. ::)
Your objections are, what? Show a picture or use your words. Don't just claim you already did because I can't find any detailed descriptions of what you're actually asking.
Don't blame others because you're unable to articulate whatever crazy setup is bouncing around in your head. That's your problem, not anyone elses.
-
Your objections are, what?
You shouldn't need to be asking. You know exactly what they are.
-
Your objections are, what?
You shouldn't need to be asking. You know exactly what they are.
Can you do anything but deflect and avoid answering questions? Why don't you quote where you explained what I did 'wrong' with my picture of a globe. You are avoiding answering, and it's obvious to everyone.
It shows perfectly well that yes you can see the edge of a ball. I have no idea what YOU think the edge of a ball looks like, but you should look at my pictures because... that's what it looks like. An edge.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Where are your photos showing examples of how to take a picture of a straw? Still need help? Just push the button!
-
Again, it was level. It passed over a point where the centre of the FOV was going level.
No, it wasn't.
And yet again, you just assert the same nonsense and ignore everything else that has been said.
Just how isn't it level?
Again, the fact that the globe is below the centre of the straw shows that it passes over it when it is level.
I'm more than happy to debate with you when you find it in you to actually do something that is not dishonest.
Pure BS.
You have shown you have no interest in honest debate.
If you did you would have either admitted you were wrong, or told us what magic stops the blue line and why the RE should have a blend from light to dark.
Likewise, you would either accept that you were wrong thanks to JJA's experiments, or you would have provided your own experimental results to show it is different.
Continually ignoring logical arguments and dismissing evidence that shows you are wrong as fake is NOT debating.
Your objections are, what?
You shouldn't need to be asking. You know exactly what they are.
And your only objection seems to be that it shows you are wrong.
That is not a valid objection.
So care to try showing that you are happy to debate? By actually addressing the issues?
Again, what magic stops the blue line, and why should Earth have a blend from light to dark?
-
JJA, I don't know why you and others here are getting so uptight with sceptimatic.
Sceptimatic has already declared his experience of the world as it appears, is all he will accept.
He doesn't experience the world scientifically, and has never experienced the globe or planetary systems described by science. If you were honest with yourself, neither have you, or any of us. You trust and value what has been told to you by science, over just your own observations.
The experience of the earth as flat, disc like, motionless, stationary, and as a contained system, with a sun that moves around it, just as the ancient Mesopotamians did, is a return to the basic human experience of the world you can have. It is how humans first perceive the world.
Science posits a mechanical world outside the human perception and moves the emphasis of meaning and the centre of the world to outside the human experience and outside the world itself.
For a person who values scientific explanation and meaning first of the world, you will never change somebody's mind, who values first the conscious experience and human perception.
Thus thread perfectly illustrates a difference in values.
-
JJA, I don't know why you and others here are getting so uptight with sceptimatic.
Sceptimatic has already declared his experience of the world as it appears, is all he will accept.
He doesn't experience the world scientifically, and has never experienced the globe or planetary systems described by science. If you were honest with yourself, neither have you, or any of us. You trust and value what has been told to you by science, over just your own observations.
The experience of the earth as flat, disc like, motionless, stationary, and as a contained system, with a sun that moves around it, just as the ancient Mesopotamians did, is a return to the basic human experience of the world you can have. It is how humans first perceive the world.
Science posits a mechanical world outside the human perception and moves the emphasis of meaning and the centre of the world to outside the human experience and outside the world itself.
For a person who values scientific explanation and meaning first of the world, you will never change somebody's mind, who values first the conscious experience and human perception.
Thus thread perfectly illustrates a difference in values.
We're talking about looking through a tube here.
There is no value judgment in seeing the ground through a tube, or seeing the edge of a sphere. These are everyday things we all experience constantly and he is claiming that they are all wrong.
That's not a 'difference in values' it's a complete lack of understanding of rather simple concepts, ones that are easy to observe in 30 seconds.
I don't expect to change his mind, he's incapable of that.
He doesn't value experience and human perception, he rejects both of them in favor of whatever he imagines the world to be.
I continue to argue because it's fun to do some of these little experiments, I like playing with cameras and it's a nice diversion from the more complicated things I do. Take a picture of a globe? Kind of relaxing, and yes, it's satisfying to actually validate ones assumptions.
Something skepti should try sometime. But he 'knows' he is right, so never will.
-
Holy crap, scepti is still going? You know, when I first saw him, I didn't think he had the legs, he wouldn't last.
But damn Scepti, you proved me wrong.
Your theories are still trash and your methods sloppy and inconsistent, but hey, you are still here.
-
Your objections are, what?
You shouldn't need to be asking. You know exactly what they are.
Can you do anything but deflect and avoid answering questions? Why don't you quote where you explained what I did 'wrong' with my picture of a globe. You are avoiding answering, and it's obvious to everyone.
It shows perfectly well that yes you can see the edge of a ball. I have no idea what YOU think the edge of a ball looks like, but you should look at my pictures because... that's what it looks like. An edge.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Where are your photos showing examples of how to take a picture of a straw? Still need help? Just push the button!
Rest the front edge of your straw on the red equator line. And level it off.
Now show me through it.
-
Holy crap, scepti is still going? You know, when I first saw him, I didn't think he had the legs, he wouldn't last.
But damn Scepti, you proved me wrong.
Your theories are still trash and your methods sloppy and inconsistent, but hey, you are still here.
I'm still here because I believe in what I'm arguing against, which is the global nonsense.
My methods will always be inconsistent with anyone's methods they adhere to. I expect and accept that.
My methods tell me a lot more than people can seem to decipher...maybe because it's just too simple for those who are brought up on the complicated storylines and absolute inability to prove what those storylines depict.
-
JJA, do you start your day off looking through a used dunny roll? No. So, we don't all experience that daily, do we? I don't see 50 pages of people looking through used toilet rolls and straws to be overly enjoyable, but whatever floats your boat, pal.
There is a difference in values here, when a person's mind is completely shut off to anything outside their expectations. Did you make the adjustment like I suggested?
If you really enjoy taking photos of used dunny rolls and straws so much, can you at least do it in a way that proves what you are saying, and not keep doing it at your fav piblic toilet block with the holes in the cubicle walls? I don't want to have to show you up with my camera skills. Plus, can we get some side views of your globe? Please?
-
I'm still here because I believe in what I'm arguing against, which is the global nonsense.
The problem is that you are just spouting nonsense and refusing to justify your claims.
If you actually believed in the nonsense you spout, why do you continually refuse to answer simple questions?
Why are you unable to tell us what magic stops the blue line, or what magic causes the Earth to have a light to dark blend instead of a clearly visible edge?
My methods will always be inconsistent with anyone's methods they adhere to.
Because your "methods" seems to be spouting baseless nonsense and refusing to defend it and then after the same issues are brought up and you continue to dodge, you just start claiming you have already answered/addressed them.
You also love to appeal to experiments and claim what results they give, without justifying that at all and dismissing anything that shows you are wrong as fake.
It tells you nothing about the real world. All it tells you about is the fantasy world in your head.
it's just too simple for those who are brought up on the complicated storylines and absolute inability to prove what those storylines depict.
Projecting again.
You are the one spouting a complicated storyline where Earth, unlike every other round object, magically has a light to dark blend.
You are the one spouting a complicated storyline where putting a tube in front of your face magically drastically alters your view, so instead of light coming in straight to your eye from all angles (bound by the tube) it instead magically comes in parallel so you only see 1 inch of any distant object, but the object in the distance is magically shrunk so you can see more than 1 inch of it, but you still magically see the ground.
And you are completely incapable of providing anything of what those storylines claim.
Compare that to the simple reality of the RE.
The RE, being a round object, has a clearly visible edge.
A tube merely blocks part of your FOV, with light still coming in straight to your eye.
And that can be proven, with photos of the horizon on the RE, and photos through a tube, and simple logic.
-
Your objections are, what?
You shouldn't need to be asking. You know exactly what they are.
Can you do anything but deflect and avoid answering questions? Why don't you quote where you explained what I did 'wrong' with my picture of a globe. You are avoiding answering, and it's obvious to everyone.
It shows perfectly well that yes you can see the edge of a ball. I have no idea what YOU think the edge of a ball looks like, but you should look at my pictures because... that's what it looks like. An edge.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjRYdBK.jpg)
Where are your photos showing examples of how to take a picture of a straw? Still need help? Just push the button!
Rest the front edge of your straw on the red equator line. And level it off.
Now show me through it.
Why? You still haven't even explained why you need a straw in the first place to see the edge of an object.
You say you can't see the edge of a ball while standing on it, well I have shown that you can in fact see the edge of objects.
Are you getting confused with your "can't see the ground though a level tube" experiment? This is not the same.
Why don't you take some pictures and explain what you're trying to prove.
-
JJA, do you start your day off looking through a used dunny roll? No. So, we don't all experience that daily, do we? I don't see 50 pages of people looking through used toilet rolls and straws to be overly enjoyable, but whatever floats your boat, pal.
There is a difference in values here, when a person's mind is completely shut off to anything outside their expectations. Did you make the adjustment like I suggested?
If you really enjoy taking photos of used dunny rolls and straws so much, can you at least do it in a way that proves what you are saying, and not keep doing it at your fav piblic toilet block with the holes in the cubicle walls? I don't want to have to show you up with my camera skills. Plus, can we get some side views of your globe? Please?
I'm not sure if you were never a kid, or just don't have an imagination or any curiosity but I can assure you most people when they see a tube, will look through it at some point. If you truly have never done this, well, that's very strange.
At what point did I ever give the impression that I don't want you to take your own pictures? Feel free, go for it, show your modified experiment for whatever reasons you feel it's necessary. Nobody is stopping you, and I'm not going to feel jealous if you post pictures of your own.
I can't see through a tube if I shut my eyes, but I'm not going to take pictures with the lens cap on to simulate that either. I'll try reasonable suggestions, not pointless ones.
-
Why are you unable to tell us what magic stops the blue line, or what magic causes the Earth to have a light to dark blend instead of a clearly visible edge?
I gave you the instructions. A level scope and the crosshairs. This is to ensure you do not look down from the crosshairs towards the ground and instead look directly level through a set up crosshair and then two scopes....like this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hs8knKgr/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This ensures you do not angle your view.
It's my fail safe method to stop the duping.
This has become a major problem to you lot because you can't figure a way around it.
I'm pretty sure if you can find a way, no matter how silly it is, you'll attempt to show it, just like this straw on the globe effort that gets a 1 out of 10.
-
Why? You still haven't even explained why you need a straw in the first place to see the edge of an object.
You say you can't see the edge of a ball while standing on it, well I have shown that you can in fact see the edge of objects.
Are you getting confused with your "can't see the ground though a level tube" experiment? This is not the same.
Why don't you take some pictures and explain what you're trying to prove.
Let's make this more clear, as if you don't already know.
You see, if I was to walk up a small gradient and then decide to place a level tube looking at that hill, I'm going to see that hill.
If I was to get to the top of that hill and level the tube, I wouldn't be seeing any ground below it.
Soooo, just like you did with the tube pic you decided to do it with the straw, placing it below the curve instead of on the curve.
Your dishonesty reeks to high heaven.
-
Why? You still haven't even explained why you need a straw in the first place to see the edge of an object.
You say you can't see the edge of a ball while standing on it, well I have shown that you can in fact see the edge of objects.
Are you getting confused with your "can't see the ground though a level tube" experiment? This is not the same.
Why don't you take some pictures and explain what you're trying to prove.
Let's make this more clear, as if you don't already know.
You see, if I was to walk up a small gradient and then decide to place a level tube looking at that hill, I'm going to see that hill.
If I was to get to the top of that hill and level the tube, I wouldn't be seeing any ground below it.
Soooo, just like you did with the tube pic you decided to do it with the straw, placing it below the curve instead of on the curve.
Your dishonesty reeks to high heaven.
You are so very very confused. Forget about your tube obsession for one second. Ok? Put down the tube and back away slowly.
You have said multiple times you can't see the edge of a globe you are standing on. You have said their is no horizon, no edge.
You are claiming that the existence of a horizon proves a flat earth, because you think round balls have no edges and no horizon.
The pictures are to disprove that. It has nothing to do with tubes. The globe photo is to prove that yes, balls like any solid object has edges. It's also called a horizon.
You need to stop, and think very hard for a while until you get this, ok?
tldr; You can see the edge of a ball that you are standing on, this picture is an example of that. See the edge? Of the ball?
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
-
You are so very very confused. Forget about your tube obsession for one second. Ok? Put down the tube and back away slowly.
You have said multiple times you can't see the edge of a globe you are standing on. You have said their is no horizon, no edge.
And there isn't. And you and every person should be under absolutely no illusions about it once a little bit of sit down and think time, without fear of peer pressure to the contrary.
And edge to a ball?....for crying out loud.
You are claiming that the existence of a horizon proves a flat earth,
No I didn't. You claim that because I go against your global model you were indoctrinated, severely, into.
Just so you don't go into a frenzy, I did say the sea will give you a theoretical horizon.
because you think round balls have no edges and no horizon.
Anyone should know this. How in the hell a ball can have an edge , is....well...think on it.
The pictures are to disprove that.
The prove nothing that you push.
It has nothing to do with tubes. The globe photo is to prove that yes, balls like any solid object has edges.
Well, you failed miserably. Absolutely miserably.
It's also called a horizon.
Think about that for a little bit. HORIZON. Horizontal.
I'll let you ponder it.
You need to stop, and think very hard for a while until you get this, ok?
I've done all the thinking on this stuff. The bits you can't get take little time to understand.
tldr; You can see the edge of a ball that you are standing on, this picture is an example of that. See the edge? Of the ball?
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
There is no edge.
-
You are so very very confused. Forget about your tube obsession for one second. Ok? Put down the tube and back away slowly.
You have said multiple times you can't see the edge of a globe you are standing on. You have said their is no horizon, no edge.
And there isn't. And you and every person should be under absolutely no illusions about it once a little bit of sit down and think time, without fear of peer pressure to the contrary.
And edge to a ball?....for crying out loud.
You are claiming that the existence of a horizon proves a flat earth,
No I didn't. You claim that because I go against your global model you were indoctrinated, severely, into.
Just so you don't go into a frenzy, I did say the sea will give you a theoretical horizon.
because you think round balls have no edges and no horizon.
Anyone should know this. How in the hell a ball can have an edge , is....well...think on it.
The pictures are to disprove that.
The prove nothing that you push.
It has nothing to do with tubes. The globe photo is to prove that yes, balls like any solid object has edges.
Well, you failed miserably. Absolutely miserably.
It's also called a horizon.
Think about that for a little bit. HORIZON. Horizontal.
I'll let you ponder it.
You need to stop, and think very hard for a while until you get this, ok?
I've done all the thinking on this stuff. The bits you can't get take little time to understand.
tldr; You can see the edge of a ball that you are standing on, this picture is an example of that. See the edge? Of the ball?
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
There is no edge.
Do you really not understand what 'the edge of an object' or a horizon is? Why do simple words like edge and horizon send you into such a confused state?
You don't see an horizon on that ball? Hint, it's where the ball stops... see the curved line? Below it is ball. Above it is no ball.
What do you think that line is? Do I need to explain what a line is to you as well?
Just so you don't go into a frenzy, here is one example of what you have been saying, just to remind you in case you get more confused.
Or, if you are willing to accept that the RE my global Earth does have a horizon and amend your claim to just be that this horizon wouldn't be visible through a level scope, do that and admit the RE my global Earth does have a horizon.
It would never have any horizon.
That is why I posted that picture. To show you that balls do have horizons. How can you not understand this?
-
Do you really not understand what 'the edge of an object' or a horizon is? Why do simple words like edge and horizon send you into such a confused state?
You don't see an horizon on that ball? Hint, it's where the ball stops... see the curved line? Below it is ball. Above it is no ball.
Ball stops? Where is the edge of a ball?
Curved line for horizon?
What are you talking about?
-
Do you really not understand what 'the edge of an object' or a horizon is? Why do simple words like edge and horizon send you into such a confused state?
You don't see an horizon on that ball? Hint, it's where the ball stops... see the curved line? Below it is ball. Above it is no ball.
Ball stops? Where is the edge of a ball?
Curved line for horizon?
What are you talking about?
Lets take this slow.
See the ball in the picture? It's the part with the continents and water drawn on it. It takes up the bottom part of the picture.
See the top of the picture where there is no ball?
In between... what do you see? Do you see a line? A border? It's where all the pretty colors stop, and the darkness starts.
That is a line. An edge. A horizon. It's not a physical edge, it's the edge of what you can see, which is what we call a horizon.
This isn't rocket science. It's literally looking at the line where an object visually stops. I'd try and explain self-occlusion but that would just add to your confusion I'm sure.
Hint... you need to take context into account when using and understanding words.
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
-
Lets take this slow.
See the ball in the picture? It's the part with the continents and water drawn on it. It takes up the bottom part of the picture.
Yes.
See the top of the picture where there is no ball?
Yes.
In between... what do you see?
A colourful convex curve against a dark concave curve.
Do you see a line?
No.
A border?
No.
It's where all the pretty colors stop, and the darkness starts.
Yes, I see that, as stated above.
That is a line.
No, it's not.
An edge.
No, it's not.
A horizon.
Absolutely, not.
It's not a physical edge
Now you're getting there.
, it's the edge of what you can see, which is what we call a horizon.
No, it's not.
This isn't rocket science.
What is?
It's literally looking at the line where an object visually stops.
A theoretical curved or concave, line?
I'd try and explain self-occlusion but that would just add to your confusion I'm sure.
I'm waiting for you to explain this in a manner that appeals but feel free to explain the other, if you feel the need.
Hint... you need to take context into account when using and understanding words.
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
What I need to take into account is you starting to be a bit more upfront and honest about stuff, instead of the pretence you put on.
-
Lets take this slow.
See the ball in the picture? It's the part with the continents and water drawn on it. It takes up the bottom part of the picture.
Yes.
See the top of the picture where there is no ball?
Yes.
In between... what do you see?
A colourful convex curve against a dark concave curve.
Do you see a line?
No.
A border?
No.
It's where all the pretty colors stop, and the darkness starts.
Yes, I see that, as stated above.
That is a line.
No, it's not.
An edge.
No, it's not.
A horizon.
Absolutely, not.
It's not a physical edge
Now you're getting there.
, it's the edge of what you can see, which is what we call a horizon.
No, it's not.
This isn't rocket science.
What is?
It's literally looking at the line where an object visually stops.
A theoretical curved or concave, line?
I'd try and explain self-occlusion but that would just add to your confusion I'm sure.
I'm waiting for you to explain this in a manner that appeals but feel free to explain the other, if you feel the need.
Hint... you need to take context into account when using and understanding words.
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
What I need to take into account is you starting to be a bit more upfront and honest about stuff, instead of the pretence you put on.
What is clear now, is your problem is you don't understand what words mean, and have trouble figuring out simple concepts. I'm not sure if it's intentional or you simply don't have the capacity to understand what a border is.
A line, an outline, a horizon, an edge, a border... those are all valid descriptions of what is between the ball and the not-ball.
You disagreeing with all of these means you simply don't understand any of them.
No wonder you have trouble understanding the view through a tube, or what a ball looks like.
You almost got it though... you managed to see a 'colorful convex curve' but don't seem to understand what a curve is. Hint... it's a line.
-
JJA, do you start your day off looking through a used dunny roll? No. So, we don't all experience that daily, do we? I don't see 50 pages of people looking through used toilet rolls and straws to be overly enjoyable, but whatever floats your boat, pal.
There is a difference in values here, when a person's mind is completely shut off to anything outside their expectations. Did you make the adjustment like I suggested?
If you really enjoy taking photos of used dunny rolls and straws so much, can you at least do it in a way that proves what you are saying, and not keep doing it at your fav piblic toilet block with the holes in the cubicle walls? I don't want to have to show you up with my camera skills. Plus, can we get some side views of your globe? Please?
Gosh, every time I see a dunny roll I instinctively do the "Hole in Hand" trick:
(https://www.fabscience.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Hole-in-the-hand-e1585730846602.jpg)
So yeah, toilet paper/paper towel tubes are fun to play with. Where's your joy?
-
What is clear now, is your problem is you don't understand what words mean, and have trouble figuring out simple concepts. I'm not sure if it's intentional or you simply don't have the capacity to understand what a border is.
Or maybe it's you that doesn't understand.
A line, an outline, a horizon, an edge, a border... those are all valid descriptions of what is between the ball and the not-ball.
No, it's not.
You disagreeing with all of these means you simply don't understand any of them.
No.
Me disagreeing with them means you don;t understand what you are talking about.
No wonder you have trouble understanding the view through a tube, or what a ball looks like.
I understand both. I await the day (with patience) when you finally do.
You almost got it though... you managed to see a 'colorful convex curve' but don't seem to understand what a curve is. Hint... it's a line.
The convex or the concave, as viewed?
-
What is clear now, is your problem is you don't understand what words mean, and have trouble figuring out simple concepts. I'm not sure if it's intentional or you simply don't have the capacity to understand what a border is.
Or maybe it's you that doesn't understand.
A line, an outline, a horizon, an edge, a border... those are all valid descriptions of what is between the ball and the not-ball.
No, it's not.
You disagreeing with all of these means you simply don't understand any of them.
No.
Me disagreeing with them means you don;t understand what you are talking about.
No wonder you have trouble understanding the view through a tube, or what a ball looks like.
I understand both. I await the day (with patience) when you finally do.
You almost got it though... you managed to see a 'colorful convex curve' but don't seem to understand what a curve is. Hint... it's a line.
The convex or the concave, as viewed?
It's convex, since it's the edge of a sphere. But why would I expect you to know that either?
Do you understand that a curve is just a line that bends? So if you see a curve, you see a line. And a border is also what a line defines, and a horizon is the visible edge of an object.
How did you ever make it out of kindergarten?
Keep claiming a ball doesn't have a visible edge. It's making me laugh, which I need after 2020.
-
It's convex, since it's the edge of a sphere. But why would I expect you to know that either?
You mentioned seeing your so called edge against a dark background that made it so, by your reckoning.
I asked you if your line was convex or concave...or is it both, or none.
Theoretical?
Do you understand that a curve is just a line that bends?
No, I don't...and if you do, then you have issues.
So if you see a curve, you see a line.
A theoretical line as long as it's got a contrasting background....right?
And a border is also what a line defines, and a horizon is the visible edge of an object.
No, it's not.
How did you ever make it out of kindergarten?
I never went to kindergarten.
Keep claiming a ball doesn't have a visible edge.
I will, because it doesn't.
It's making me laugh, which I need after 2020.
Good for you. It's best to keep happy.
-
It's convex, since it's the edge of a sphere. But why would I expect you to know that either?
You mentioned seeing your so called edge against a dark background that made it so, by your reckoning.
I asked you if your line was convex or concave...or is it both, or none.
Theoretical?
I answered you already. It's concave because it's the edge of a sphere. Do you even understand what convex and concave mean? Considering they have no relevancy to the discussion at hand, I have to assume you have no clue. You can have a concave or convex horizon, or curve, or border.
Do you understand that a curve is just a line that bends?
No, I don't...and if you do, then you have issues.
Read a dictionary.
curve - noun - a line or outline which gradually deviates from being straight for some or all of its length.
Until you understand what simple, common words mean, the rest of your argument is senseless. You need some serious education.
And a border is also what a line defines, and a horizon is the visible edge of an object.
No, it's not.
I'd love to hear your definition for all those words, since you disagree with every dictionary on the planet. Where do you get your definitions from?
Can you explain what the following words actually mean, instead of simply denying their actual definitions?
Border.
Line.
Horizon.
Edge.
I am so very curious what you think all of those mean.
How did you ever make it out of kindergarten?
I never went to kindergarten.
Did you make it through high school? College? Genuinely curious now.
Keep claiming a ball doesn't have a visible edge.
I will, because it doesn't.
It's making me laugh, which I need after 2020.
Good for you. It's best to keep happy.
You are surely a fount of amusement and bemusement.
You know... I have a theory. Maybe sceptimatic needs glasses? If he has really bad vision, all spheres and balls would just be fuzzy blurs with no discernable edge. And it would also explain how he kept claiming a curve was straight. And why he can't seem to take pictures, or post them.
-
Why are you unable to tell us what magic stops the blue line, or what magic causes the Earth to have a light to dark blend instead of a clearly visible edge?
I gave you the instructions.
And JJA carried out the experiment according to your instructions. You then dismissed that as fake and made your instructions more complex, and a smaller FOV, making it more equivalent to an 11 foot long tube rather than just a standard tube you find in a kitchen, potentially to try to make the FOV so small you can't see the ground.
And this needless complexity does nothing to ensure the tubes are actually level, so if the experiment was carried out and still showed you were wrong, you would just dismiss it as fake and make more ridiculous demands.
Again, what stops something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
And no, your extra cross hair wont help with that either.
It does not ensure you don't angle your view.
It is just a needless complexity likely to make no one want to do the experiment so you can pretend you have won, while also reducing the FOV making it harder to see the ground.
Meanwhile, my logical argument against your nonsense remains unchallenged.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Unless you have an answer, there is no reason to think a tube magically gives you your magic parallel tunnel vision.
And again, the fact that you can see more of an object that is further away through the same tube shows that you are not seeing parallel.
If I was to get to the top of that hill and level the tube, I wouldn't be seeing any ground below it.
That is your baseless claim, which has been refuted by the logical argument you refuse to engage with, and by the evidence provided by JJA.
Stop just asserting the same BS, and start trying to defend it.
Your dishonesty reeks to high heaven.
Projecting yet again.
You are so very very confused. Forget about your tube obsession for one second. Ok? Put down the tube and back away slowly.
You have said multiple times you can't see the edge of a globe you are standing on. You have said their is no horizon, no edge.
And there isn't. And you and every person should be under absolutely no illusions about it once a little bit of sit down and think time, without fear of peer pressure to the contrary.
And edge to a ball?....for crying out loud.
We are under no illusions about it.
All balls have clearly visible edges.
Why should Earth be any different?
How in the hell a ball can have an edge
You have seen plenty of pictures of balls in this thread.
And what did they all have in common?
There is a clear division between the ball and not the ball.
That is an edge.
A ball is pretty much all edge.
It has nothing to do with tubes. The globe photo is to prove that yes, balls like any solid object has edges.
Well, you failed miserably.
Projecting again.
Again, you clearly see a region where the ball is, and clearly see a region where the ball is not. There is a clear separation between the 2.
That is the edge.
Forget your semantic BS about if that edge is real or theoretical. It is a clearly visible edge to the ball.
It is not a blend from light to dark like you claim Earth should have.
Think about that for a little bit. HORIZON. Horizontal.
Notice how they are 2 different words?
They don't need to mean the same thing.
Or do you think orienting something means you need to put it in Asia? (i.e. the Orient)?
Because that is even simpler. Orient, Orient.
I've done all the thinking on this stuff. The bits you can't get take little time to understand.
You mean the bits you can't get takes very little time to understand, but it requires you to not hate the RE so much that you will use whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss it.
Perhaps this will make it easier:
(https://i.imgur.com/UIf3HLw.png)
See that red line? That is an edge of the ball. That is the "horizon" in this picture.
It doesn't matter what semantic BS you wish to invoke.
It is a clear separation between the ball and the surroundings.
This is just like the horizon which is observed in reality.
Now with this ball clearly having an edge/horizon, why shouldn't the RE?
-
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
LMAO, Sceppy, how do you screw up something so simple?
-
Here you go.
BEHOLD, A STRAW!
You can still see the edge. What did you expect?
Well, go on... lets see what extra conditions you will whine about and demand and excuses you come up with now.
Actually just cut the middle section out of the straw and use 3 sets of crosshairs and Sceppy should consider it legit.
-
Here you go.
BEHOLD, A STRAW!
You can still see the edge. What did you expect?
Well, go on... lets see what extra conditions you will whine about and demand and excuses you come up with now.
Actually just cut the middle section out of the straw and use 3 sets of crosshairs and Sceppy should consider it legit.
That's all you think it would take? I love your optimism! :P
-
It's convex, since it's the edge of a sphere. But why would I expect you to know that either?
You mentioned seeing your so called edge against a dark background that made it so, by your reckoning.
I asked you if your line was convex or concave...or is it both, or none.
Theoretical?
Do you understand that a curve is just a line that bends?
No, I don't...and if you do, then you have issues.
So if you see a curve, you see a line.
A theoretical line as long as it's got a contrasting background....right?
And a border is also what a line defines, and a horizon is the visible edge of an object.
No, it's not.
How did you ever make it out of kindergarten?
I never went to kindergarten.
Keep claiming a ball doesn't have a visible edge.
I will, because it doesn't.
It's making me laugh, which I need after 2020.
Good for you. It's best to keep happy.
After all these years, especially the last 4, it's nice to see that you can still be a constant septic.
You are simply playing word games now, the delineation between what is that globe and what isn't is finite and relative to the observer. You intuitively know this, you're just being incredibly obtuse, which is very very you.
Just because you will only accept that an edge is a hard cut off of something, doesn't mean that's true. I hold up a baseball and to everyone that observes that baseball from any angle (remember, the edge is finite and relative to the observer) it will have a clearly observable edge.
You muppet.
-
Did you make it through high school? College? Genuinely curious now.
I'll let you decide that. You're scraping your own barrel. You're lost.
-
Why are you unable to tell us what magic stops the blue line, or what magic causes the Earth to have a light to dark blend instead of a clearly visible edge?
I gave you the instructions.
And JJA carried out the experiment according to your instructions. You then dismissed that as fake and made your instructions more complex, and a smaller FOV, making it more equivalent to an 11 foot long tube rather than just a standard tube you find in a kitchen, potentially to try to make the FOV so small you can't see the ground.
And this needless complexity does nothing to ensure the tubes are actually level, so if the experiment was carried out and still showed you were wrong, you would just dismiss it as fake and make more ridiculous demands.
Again, what stops something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/3qyF9my.png)
The hanging crosshair stops something like that.
This is what JJA showed and then used an angled look to the ground, instead of a direct look through the crosshairs on a level.
The whole reason as to why I showed you the diagram to stop this duping.
-
Perhaps this will make it easier:
(https://i.imgur.com/UIf3HLw.png)
See that red line? That is an edge of the ball. That is the "horizon" in this picture.
It doesn't matter what semantic BS you wish to invoke.
It is a clear separation between the ball and the surroundings.
This is just like the horizon which is observed in reality.
Another dupe. What is it with you people?
Place the straw front edge directly on the line and get back to me.
Ensure it's levelled.
-
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
LMAO, Sceppy, how do you screw up something so simple?
Nothing screwed up. This is how your nonsense globe would be and you know it.
It makes no sense to you because your globe makes no sense....but you just can't see it.
-
The hanging crosshair stops something like that.
No it doesn't.
And before that you just added a second tube for no reason at all.
But dealing with the crosshair:
It likely wouldn't all be visible. meaning it could be set at an angle and tied up out of frame.
If it was all in frame, the angle it would be tilted would be so slight you wouldn't be able to tell.
This is what JJA showed and then used an angled look to the ground
No, he had a level tube, and just showed you were wrong.
The whole reason as to why I showed you the diagram to stop this duping.
Again, all it does is add needless complexity and reduce the FOV. It in no way helps to stop any alleged duping. As evidence by even you being unwilling to do the experiment or commit to the results of someone else doing it by saying if they do, and show all those crosshairs you will simply admit you are wrong.
And again, if you want to stop the duping, quit the BS appeals to ridiculous experiments and either do them yourself and post the results, or deal with the simple logical arguments.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until there is something to stop it or bend it it should continue and hit the eye, meaning you CAN see things which are below the level of a level tube.
Perhaps this will make it easier:
(https://i.imgur.com/UIf3HLw.png)
See that red line? That is an edge of the ball. That is the "horizon" in this picture.
It doesn't matter what semantic BS you wish to invoke.
It is a clear separation between the ball and the surroundings.
This is just like the horizon which is observed in reality.
Another dupe. What is it with you people?
No, not another dupe, just another pathetic deflection from you.
The red line is drawn over the clear separation between the ball and the region that is not the ball.
Again, regardless of what semantic BS you want to invoke, that is a clear separation, i.e. a horizon, for a round object.
It is not the magical blend you claim should exist.
Nothing screwed up. This is how your nonsense globe would be and you know it.
Only if you think we see in 1D, rather than having a FOV.
Again, if you were honest you would draw it with actual FOVs, and as soon as a curve gets involved that means either drawing it to scale, or drawing it with the FOV significantly exaggerated.
It makes no sense to you because your globe makes no sense....but you just can't see it.
The reason we "just can't see it" is because all you can do to attack it is to continually spout the same refuted assertions and the same pathetic strawmen.
As an actual example, for your second diagram, this would be what an actual globe Earth would be like:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
Notice a key part?
Instead of pretending we magically only see 1 line (which would go against all observable evidence and simple rational thought), it instead has something far more consistent with reality, an actual FOV showing the range of angles you see.
It even has 3 different FOVs, using 2 angles and 2 heights, showing how changing the height and FOV changes if the building and horizon is visible.
If you were honestly trying to represent the RE, you would also have an angular FOV, rather than pretending we only see in a straight line.
-
The hanging crosshair stops something like that.
No it doesn't.
And before that you just added a second tube for no reason at all.
The second tube with a picture of the set up was to ensure the tubes weren't configured like you showed them.
The crosshair hanging behind them both was to add a level element to the view into those two tubes, so as to ensure that the situation you gave, doesn't happen.
This is exactly why JJA won't do it. He's trying to figure out a way to dupe it and he's struggling to make it look legitimate.
-
The second tube with a picture of the set up was to ensure the tubes weren't configured like you showed them.
And as pointed out, the second tube does not prevent that.
The crosshair hanging behind them both was to add a level element to the view into those two tubes, so as to ensure that the situation you gave, doesn't happen.
And as pointed out, the cross hair or other "level" elements will not prevent that. Not unless you are easily able to tell if it isn't level with the view, such a water level, which was used to prove the horizon is below eye level.
This is exactly why JJA won't do it.
Are you sure it isn't because he realises you will still just dismiss it as fake and throw in more BS?
Like I said, why don't you do the simple experiment I suggested?
Or, why don't you answer the questions you continue to avoid?
Again, what magic stops the blue line. Until you have an answer there is no justification at all for your insane claim that you magically can't see anything below the tube.
Likewise, why should the RE have a blend from light to dark instead of a clearly visible edge like in so many images?
And why do you continually pretend we magically only see 1 line rather than accepting an angular FOV?
-
The second tube with a picture of the set up was to ensure the tubes weren't configured like you showed them.
And as pointed out, the second tube does not prevent that.
Hence why I added in the hanging crosshair.
It's harder to carry od the unlevel set up with two scopes but, as you mention, it doesn't stop it happening. The hanging crosshair does.
And you know it and that's why you're avoiding it.
-
Hence why I added in the hanging crosshair.
And as I pointed out, THAT WONT STOP SOMEONE FAKING IT!
All it does is make the experiment harder, regardless of if you want to fake it or not.
Again, if you don't want someone to be able to fake it, what you need is something self levelling, like a water filled loop which clearly demonstrated the horizon is below eye level.
Of course, you could never accept something like that, because that would require admitting you have already been shown to be wrong.
And you know it and that's why you're avoiding it.
No, I'm "avoiding" it because it serves no purpose. The evidence has already been provided that shows you are wrong, and you refuse to accept it. Any evidence that is provided you just dismiss as fake. Even if I went and did all that, you would claim it is fake. Maybe you will claim the hill is actually going up, not down. You will come up with some excuse to dismiss it.
That is why I prefer sticking to the logic, rather than trying to appeal to experiments you just ignore.
Unlike the experiments you can't simply dismiss the logic as fake. You would need to show an actual problem with it.
That is why you continually cling to convoluted experiments and avoid logic at all costs.
Simple logic demands that the blue line continues as there is nothing to stop it or deflect. This means it continues and hits the eye. This means you CAN see objects that are below the level of the tube.
Likewise, simple logic dictates that the round Earth should have a clearly visible edge (again, semantic BS aside), not some magic blend from light to dark.
The only way to have it produce a blend from light to dark is if the air obstructed the view, and if that was the case, with the air obstructing the view in a short enough distance that it does so before the horizon, then you would also have such a blur on a FE, and the only hope to have a horizon is to have a smaller round Earth.
-
Did you make it through high school? College? Genuinely curious now.
I'll let you decide that. You're scraping your own barrel. You're lost.
Well, since you surrendered and gave up even trying to answer any of my questions I suppose I'll have to guess that no you didn't, or you didn't pay attention.
I'm pretty sure they teach people what the shape of a ball is in high school. How you failed to learn that is a mystery.
So where are the pictures of your experiment? Why so scared to show your work? Don't be shy.
-
And as I pointed out, THAT WONT STOP SOMEONE FAKING IT!
All it does is make the experiment harder, regardless of if you want to fake it or not.
It only makes it marginally harder to set up but massively harder to cheat...and you know it...and so does JJA, which is why he went and done the globe experiment after telling me he wasn't going to do the one I set up.
It stinks of dishonestly, no matter what you say.
-
I'm pretty sure they teach people what the shape of a ball is in high school. How you failed to learn that is a mystery.
I did learn it. It was called severe indoctrination...and just like god and santa and the tooth fairy, plus the devil and all the rest of the little add ons...I managed to grow out of it and see it for what it was. Story telling fantasy.
You still believe it all and likely have pictures on your bedroom wall. That's fine, by the way...but.... you have had the ability to see past the story due to seeing it being questioned. Many people haven't had the time nor the inclination to bother.
-
I'm pretty sure they teach people what the shape of a ball is in high school. How you failed to learn that is a mystery.
I did learn it. It was called severe indoctrination...and just like god and santa and the tooth fairy, plus the devil and all the rest of the little add ons...I managed to grow out of it and see it for what it was. Story telling fantasy.
You still believe it all and likely have pictures on your bedroom wall. That's fine, by the way...but.... you have had the ability to see past the story due to seeing it being questioned. Many people haven't had the time nor the inclination to bother.
No, you clearly didn't learn it because you can't even explain what the words you use mean.
I think the only words you really understand are synonyms for liar, as you think the whole world is lying to you. I hate to break it to you, but you not being able to understand the world doesn't mean it's false. It just means you don't understand it.
So where are your experimental photos? You must have a lot of hungry dogs. Feed the poor things!
-
I'm pretty sure they teach people what the shape of a ball is in high school. How you failed to learn that is a mystery.
I did learn it. It was called severe indoctrination...and just like god and santa and the tooth fairy, plus the devil and all the rest of the little add ons...I managed to grow out of it and see it for what it was. Story telling fantasy.
You still believe it all and likely have pictures on your bedroom wall. That's fine, by the way...but.... you have had the ability to see past the story due to seeing it being questioned. Many people haven't had the time nor the inclination to bother.
No, you clearly didn't learn it because you can't even explain what the words you use mean.
I think the only words you really understand are synonyms for liar, as you think the whole world is lying to you. I hate to break it to you, but you not being able to understand the world doesn't mean it's false. It just means you don't understand it.
So where are your experimental photos? You must have a lot of hungry dogs. Feed the poor things!
You've got yourself into a right mess here. It's tantrum attacking. I think you need to calm it down now. You're getting nowhere with this. Either do the experiment or don't. I'm not going to spend post after post trying to pacify your crying and whining.
Get back to me when you've got something honest.
-
I'm pretty sure they teach people what the shape of a ball is in high school. How you failed to learn that is a mystery.
I did learn it. It was called severe indoctrination...and just like god and santa and the tooth fairy, plus the devil and all the rest of the little add ons...I managed to grow out of it and see it for what it was. Story telling fantasy.
You still believe it all and likely have pictures on your bedroom wall. That's fine, by the way...but.... you have had the ability to see past the story due to seeing it being questioned. Many people haven't had the time nor the inclination to bother.
No, you clearly didn't learn it because you can't even explain what the words you use mean.
I think the only words you really understand are synonyms for liar, as you think the whole world is lying to you. I hate to break it to you, but you not being able to understand the world doesn't mean it's false. It just means you don't understand it.
So where are your experimental photos? You must have a lot of hungry dogs. Feed the poor things!
You've got yourself into a right mess here. It's tantrum attacking. I think you need to calm it down now. You're getting nowhere with this. Either do the experiment or don't. I'm not going to spend post after post trying to pacify your crying and whining.
Get back to me when you've got something honest.
All you can do is call me a liar as you just did again, and refuse to answer questions.
I'm getting nowhere because you simply refuse to answer questions. The most I get out of you is a "No" when asked something simple like to verify you understand what a word means. If you can't figure out what a line, curve or boundary is, you really need to go back to school. Learning what words mean isn't indoctrination, you aren't extra smart for not knowing things, just ignorant.
I've done several experiments and your only response is to demand I add more straws and crosshairs and tubes. Yawn.
Why won't you show your own experiment? Are you embarrassed at the quality, or did you prove yourself wrong and now have to hide all the quality pictures you took?
I'm happy to show my setup... what's got you so terrified and scared of yours to the point where you can't even come up with excuses any more?
-
All you can do is call me a liar as you just did again, and refuse to answer questions.
Do the experiment and shut me up. Make sure I can't pick at it.
-
All you can do is call me a liar as you just did again, and refuse to answer questions.
Do the experiment and shut me up. Make sure I can't pick at it.
Why can't you just post pictures of your own experiments? Why are you refusing to show them?
-
All you can do is call me a liar as you just did again, and refuse to answer questions.
Do the experiment and shut me up. Make sure I can't pick at it.
Why can't you just post pictures of your own experiments? Why are you refusing to show them?
No need to, I know exactly what's what.
You decided you'd dupe me and got well called out.
Do it honestly and you can shut me right up.
-
All you can do is call me a liar as you just did again, and refuse to answer questions.
Do the experiment and shut me up. Make sure I can't pick at it.
Why can't you just post pictures of your own experiments? Why are you refusing to show them?
No need to, I know exactly what's what.
You decided you'd dupe me and got well called out.
Do it honestly and you can shut me right up.
How about you stop calling me a liar and post all the photos of your own experiments. If you are so sure of your results, why are you afraid to show them?
-
How about you stop calling me a liar
I've never called you a liar, Now how about you do your experiment I asked for and do it honestly.
-
How about you stop calling me a liar
I've never called you a liar, Now how about you do your experiment I asked for and do it honestly.
You did so, and just did it again. What do you think dishonest means? What do you think duping means? What do you think accusing people of not being honest is saying? Do you understand what a synonym is? Why don't you show your experimental photos? Since you can't describe them properly, show us the photos of how you do it. Quit your baseless attacks and accusations and show us, quit making excuses.
-
How about you stop calling me a liar
I've never called you a liar, Now how about you do your experiment I asked for and do it honestly.
You did so, and just did it again. What do you think dishonest means? What do you think duping means? What do you think accusing people of not being honest is saying? Do you understand what a synonym is?
You are being very dishonest by claiming I called you a liar.
Now then, if you don't want to do the experiment due to being unable to find a way to dupe me and others, then fine. No issues from me.
-
How about you stop calling me a liar
I've never called you a liar, Now how about you do your experiment I asked for and do it honestly.
You did so, and just did it again. What do you think dishonest means? What do you think duping means? What do you think accusing people of not being honest is saying? Do you understand what a synonym is?
You are being very dishonest by claiming I called you a liar.
Now then, if you don't want to do the experiment due to being unable to find a way to dupe me and others, then fine. No issues from me.
LOL. You just called my a liar while claiming you aren't calling me a liar. This would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad. You should stop using words you don't understand, which seems to be most of them. Why don't you look up 'dishonest' in the dictionary and then explain what you think it means instead. You demand I change my own experiment and at the same time you won't even show photos of your own. Why not post them? What are you hiding? Are you shamed of your own setup?
-
Are you shamed of your own setup?
See if you can replicate it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/c192zncR/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Are you shamed of your own setup?
See if you can replicate it.
That's a drawing of your imaginary setup, not a photo. Surely you did this experiment yourself to verify what you see? Why won't you post your photos of it? What are you hiding?
-
Are you shamed of your own setup?
See if you can replicate it.
That's a drawing of your imaginary setup, not a photo. Surely you did this experiment yourself to verify what you see?
Are you capable of replicating it?
-
Are you shamed of your own setup?
See if you can replicate it.
That's a drawing of your imaginary setup, not a photo. Surely you did this experiment yourself to verify what you see?
Are you capable of replicating it?
Yes I can replicate your experiment. Post photos of your experiment and I'll do so, after all it's not replicating it if you never did it in the first place. Drawing it isn't performing the experiment. So show photos of your actual setup and I'll happily replicate it.
-
Did you make it through high school? College? Genuinely curious now.
I'll let you decide that. You're scraping your own barrel. You're lost.
Well, since you surrendered and gave up even trying to answer any of my questions I suppose I'll have to guess that no you didn't, or you didn't pay attention.
I'm pretty sure they teach people what the shape of a ball is in high school. How you failed to learn that is a mystery.
So where are the pictures of your experiment? Why so scared to show your work? Don't be shy.
Oh no, see my signature, septic has claimed multiple times he has many many degrees and certifications.
You are simply playing word games now, the delineation between what is that globe and what isn't is finite and relative to the observer. You intuitively know this, you're just being incredibly obtuse, which is very very you.
Just because you will only accept that an edge is a hard cut off of something, doesn't mean that's true. I hold up a baseball and to everyone that observes that baseball from any angle (remember, the edge is finite and relative to the observer) it will have a clearly observable edge.
I see you are also still doing the whole "ignore any post you can't answer" thing as well.
Place the straw front edge directly on the line and get back to me.
Ensure it's levelled.
Again septic, semantics. This logic is so clearly flawed its not even fun to debate you on it.
I am genuinely sad at the state of the these forums, we all knew 99% of the people here didn't believe the world was flat, but the mental exercise of debating both sides helped sharpen the logical mind.
Now we have... this.
-
It only makes it marginally harder to set up but massively harder to cheat
No, it makes both significantly harder and doesn't make it relatively harder to cheat.
It requires you to carefully line up 3 crosshairs over 11 feet.
That will be quite hard. Especially if whoever is doing it doesn't have fancy equipment made to level distant poles.
And due to the angles involved, it will do nothing to stop someone who wants to cheat not having them actually level.
It stinks of dishonestly, no matter what you say.
It stinks of your dishonesty. You demand an experiment, and then dismiss it as fake when it shows you are wrong. You then add on a bunch more conditions to try to pretend the previous experiment you demanded wasn't good enough, when all your conditions to is make it more complicated.
Like I said, the simple ruler experiment shows you are wrong. There is no need to then go to one on a hill or the like.
What is your excuse for that?
He had a fake ruler custom made and switched them between photos?
Because like I said before, if he needs to tilt the tube down to see the lower number, then that would require the higher numbers to be cut off.
It shows that you can see beyond the edges of the tube.
Just like simple logic demands.
Again, what magic stops the blue line.
I did learn it. It was called severe indoctrination
Then you didn't learn.
If you did learn, then you wouldn't see it as indoctrination because you would actually understand.
Instead you didn't learn a thing, saw it as fake nonsense and just parroted back without any understanding at all.
you have had the ability to see past the story due to seeing it being questioned.
The only one promoting a story here is you.
You promote it with numerous outright lies.
Lies you refuse to justify with experiment or logic.
Likes which have been refuted by experiment and logic.
Get back to me when you've got something honest.
Follow your own advice. The only person currently in this thread who isn't showing any honesty is YOU!
So perhaps you should leave and come back when you've got something honest, like photos from your own experiments, or answers to the simple questions you continue to avoid:
What magic stops the blue line?
Do you accept that you can see an entire house through a much smaller level tube?
Why should the RE have a blend from light to dark as opposed to a clearly visible edge like all other round objects?
You are being very dishonest by claiming I called you a liar.
No, that is still you with the dishonesty. You are appealing to semantic BS.
You may have technically never directly said he is a liar, but the implication is clear.
You claim his experiment is fake, that even though he provided a photo clearly showing that the tube is level, that it magically wasn't level and that instead he intentionally tilted the tube down to pretend you can see the ground.
You are accusing him of extreme dishonesty when all you have to go on is that he proved you were wrong.
That is effectively calling him a liar.
Now then, if you don't want to do the experiment due to being unable to find a way to dupe me and others, that's only fine if you can actually respond to the logic and you stop repeating your pathetic demands for anyone to do your ridiculous experiments, especially after one was already done and showed you were wrong.
Are you shamed of your own setup?
See if you can replicate it.
Replicating it would require someone to have already done it. So perhaps you can go and do it first?
-
Oh no, see my signature, septic has claimed multiple times he has many many degrees and certifications.
Now we have... this.
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a liar. Either is fine.
I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but here in the States that would be the equivalent of graduating K through 12...
-
Yes I can replicate your experiment.
Then, let's see how honest you are in doing so.
-
Again septic, semantics. This logic is so clearly flawed its not even fun to debate you on it.
I am genuinely sad at the state of the these forums, we all knew 99% of the people here didn't believe the world was flat, but the mental exercise of debating both sides helped sharpen the logical mind.
Now we have... this.
If it's so soul destroying for you then stop torturing yourself by replying. Just see it for what you think it is and be happy.
-
It only makes it marginally harder to set up but massively harder to cheat
No, it makes both significantly harder and doesn't make it relatively harder to cheat.
It requires you to carefully line up 3 crosshairs over 11 feet.
That will be quite hard. Especially if whoever is doing it doesn't have fancy equipment made to level distant poles.
And due to the angles involved, it will do nothing to stop someone who wants to cheat not having them actually level.
If you think that's hard to replicate then change it to a simple stick in the ground beside the roadway and place the tube atop of the stick.
Set two up like this and a stick behind them with a crosshair, as in my diagram.
How simple is that?
No need for tripods, just a level and a hammer to tap down each stick to a desired plumb and level. Farthest being the longest stick and tube then up the gradient to the second, lined up and then farther with a shorter stick and hanging crosshair...and....voila.
Having said that, obviously none of you need bother to do it and you can still spend all your time arguing it...but you're proving nothing to me and I have nothing whatsoever to prove to you people.
My stuff is for those who are willing to think.
-
Yes I can replicate your experiment.
Then, let's see how honest you are in doing so.
Like he said, in order to replicate it, you need to do it first.
So run along, do the experiment and post your results.
If you think that's hard to replicate then change it to a simple stick in the ground beside the roadway and place the tube atop of the stick.
Set two up like this and a stick behind them with a crosshair, as in my diagram.
How simple is that?
The difficulty is in lining them up.
Having said that, obviously none of you need bother to do it
That's right. Because simlpe logic shows you are wrong, as does the experiment with the ruler.
Again, until you come up with a reason for why the blue line should magically stop because you bring in a tube, logic dictates that you are wrong.
My stuff is for those who are willing to think.
You mean for those willing to accept whatever BS you spout without thinking, and who will just take your word for the result of these experiments, rather than doing it themselves or using the already provided results with actual evidence of those results.
Because even just a little bit of thinking shows your claims to be pure nonsense.
All the tube does is block a part of your FOV. It isn't magic.
Likewise, all balls have clearly visible edges, so the RE would have a horizon.
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
-
Yes I can replicate your experiment.
Then, let's see how honest you are in doing so.
As honest as you cutting out the rest of my quote? I said I'd replicate your experiment after you perform it first and show photographs. Nobody can replicate something that hasn't been done in the first place, so lets see your experiment. Where are your photos of it?
Where is your experiment, sceptimatic?
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then why can't you post photos of your experiment if it's so easy to do?
-
As honest as you cutting out the rest of my quote?
It's just repetition.
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then why can't you post photos of your experiment if it's so easy to do?
You were the one that got smug and tried to dupe people.
I'm asking you to prove your honesty and you're showing me you can't, which isn't any surprise, to me.
-
As honest as you cutting out the rest of my quote?
It's just repetition.
Yes, you repeatedly avoiding answering questions you are afraid to hear. You're very good at deflecting, ignoring and pretending you didn't see the question asked. Once you perform and show your experiment, then I'll replicate it. How long for you to post your photos then?
Where is your experiment? You can't replicate an experiment that was never performed in the first place. You're asking the impossible, again. Do you not understand how repeating works?
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then why can't you post photos of your experiment if it's so easy to do?
You were the one that got smug and tried to dupe people.
I'm asking you to prove your honesty and you're showing me you can't, which isn't any surprise, to me.
No, you are the only one here accusing me of trying to dupe you. I'm smug because you can't respond in any way other than accusations with nothing to back them up. You are asking no such thing, you are asking me to replicate an experiment you never performed, so you need to actually do it first so it can be replicated. Why can't you perform such a simple experiment? The only surprise here is you thinking you are fooling anyone.
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
It requires you to carefully adjust the height to a fairly decent accuracy.
Even a mm to high or low can be enough to screw up the experiment as it will no longer produce a level line between the 3.
It is easy to do if you don't really care about getting it level, but hard to do properly.
As honest as you cutting out the rest of my quote?
It's just repetition.
No, it is ignoring the things which expose your hypocrisy and dishonesty.
And with my posts it is you continually ignoring all the logical arguments that show you are wrong.
You were the one that got smug and tried to dupe people.
No, that would be you, continually spouting outright lies and dismissing evidence as fake just because it shows you are wrong.
We are now asking to prove your honesty by posting the result of simple experiments yourself, rather than expecting us to do everything for you just for you to dismiss it as fake.
But all you are doing is repeatedly showing your dishonesty and your completely inability or unwillingness to engage in any form of honest rational debate.
Now are you going to try to justify your lies? Either by doing your experiment and posting the result, or doing the experiment I suggested and posting your result, or by answering the simple questions you continually avoid because you know that an honest answer will reveal that you have spouting pure BS?
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Again, what magic causes the RE to have a blend from light to dark rather than a clearly visible edge like every other ball?
-
You've also been told.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fzwm8p/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9Y4YFd3)
LMAO, Sceppy, how do you screw up something so simple?
Nothing screwed up. This is how your nonsense globe would be and you know it.
It makes no sense to you because your globe makes no sense....but you just can't see it.
Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.
No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.
When you live in books, this is when you struggle.
-
Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?
No. Try again.
-
And yet again, you ignore the simple questions which destroy your garbage and still refuse to do any experiments yourself and provide the results here.
It's almost like you know that doing the experiments will prove you wrong.
Again, what magic stops the blue line and why should the RE have a blend from light to dark rather than a clearly visible edge?
Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.
No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.
[/quote]
No, quite different.
You typically don't have the bricks actually touch the string, as that would disturb the level. And a brick wall can have variations. You are trying to line up cross hairs, which needs far greater accuracy.
When you live in books, this is when you struggle.
When you live in a delusional fantasy land, you struggle everywhere, which probably explains why you are unable to answer simple questions or do experiments you claim should be easy.
Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?
No. Try again.
Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.
No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.
When you live in books, this is when you struggle.
I have to agree, it's sad seeing you struggle because you won't perform any experiments but just talk about them. So why don't you try this experiment for yourself and show us your results?
-
Do you not understand how repeating works?
Yep, I see it time and time again with copy/paste from you and JakeyBlacko.
-
Do you not understand how repeating works?
Yep, I see it time and time again with copy/paste from you and JakeyBlacko.
So if you understand how repeating works, you understand that you need to do your experiment before anyone else can repeat it. So what are you waiting for? Why won't you perform and show your own experiment?
-
No, you are the only one here accusing me of trying to dupe you. The only surprise here is you thinking you are fooling anyone.
If you were honest you'd shut me right up with this experiment. You're struggling with how you can dupe it.
I'll call you out because you deserve it.
-
Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.
What are you talking about?
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.
No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.
When you live in books, this is when you struggle.
I have to agree, it's sad seeing you struggle because you won't perform any experiments but just talk about them. So why don't you try this experiment for yourself and show us your results?
I don't even need all that. I can simply use a tube and levelled up to see that you do not see the ground beneath you over a gradient.
Any honest person can do this.
You being dishonest are required to followed my instructions to ensure you cannot cheat, again.
-
The difficulty is in lining them up.
There's no difficulty.
Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.
No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.
When you live in books, this is when you struggle.
I have to agree, it's sad seeing you struggle because you won't perform any experiments but just talk about them. So why don't you try this experiment for yourself and show us your results?
I don't even need all that. I can simply use a tube and levelled up to see that you do not see the ground beneath you over a gradient.
Any honest person can do this.
You being dishonest are required to followed my instructions to ensure you cannot cheat, again.
If any honest person can do it, why can't you? If it's so easy, just do it and post your results. It's clear to everyone you are unwilling or unable to perform your own 'easy' experiment, no matter how many times you desperately ignore the question. You aren't fooling anyone.
-
No, you are the only one here accusing me of trying to dupe you. The only surprise here is you thinking you are fooling anyone.
If you were honest you'd shut me right up with this experiment. You're struggling with how you can dupe it.
I'll call you out because you deserve it.
Everyone else sees my experiment for whit it is, simple pictures of a level tube. Why won't you do it yourself? What are you so sacred of about performing and showing your own experiment?
-
@JJA, what do you think scepty ought to see when they look down the level tube (preferably by a large body of water, which we can be certain is mostly flat)?
I am reasonably certain, having never tried this or anything much like it in my life, that scepty is correct and that only at extreme elevations would this possibly fail to work the way they describe.
Do you disagree, or do you just want to make scepty look through a tube because you had to?
-
Im back!
I see nothings changed.
-
Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?
No. Try again.
Then why does your diagram show and say so?
Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.
What are you talking about?
Your diagram. Are you really this bad at following a conversation? Let's look at what you said...
Red line is sight and blue is building height. Obviously not to scale. Line of sight towards the sun at elevations, you can see that sun at various points in the sky.
As soon as the Earth supposedly rotates anti clockwise, we lose the sight.
Never would tehre be any horizon in among any of that sight.
But, you agree then that we have a field of view and can look up and down correct? So as Earth rotates, as soon as the sun is below level line of sight, it would still be visible.
-
And yet again you ignore the simple questions that show you are wrong.
Again, what magic stops the blue line? Without some magic to stop it, the blue line will continue into the tube and hit the eye, meaning you can see below it?
And again, what magic would cause the RE to magically have a blend from light to dark instead of the clearly visible horizon/edge that every other round object has?
Especially when you act like a FE would have a similar, clearly visible horizon, which makes no sense at all.
Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?
No. Try again.
Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.
What are you talking about?
Why do you continually play dumb?
You know exactly what I am talking about.
In your pathetic diagram that you use to pretend there is a massive problem for the RE, you just draw in a bunch of straight to pretend that you wouldn't be able to see the sun, or the top of a hill, or a building on the RE.
You know, like this garbage:
(https://i.imgur.com/CBArODE.png)
If you were doing it honestly, you would draw in actual FOVs, which cover an angular range. But instead you have straight lines.
That is because you need these straight lines to pretend there is a problem.
Do you not understand how repeating works?
Yep, I see it time and time again
Then you would understand that in order for him to repeat/replicate the experiment, someone has to do it first.
So until you do it and post your results, he can't replicate it.
If you were honest you'd shut me right up with this experiment.
We all saw how well that worked last time.
He did the experiment you wanted him to, and what was your response?
You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?
He posted the results and you instantly dismissed it as fake.
And what was your justification for doing so? Because it showed you were wrong.
Why would we expect it to be any different for this experiment?
If evidence is provided that shows you are wrong, you just dismiss it as fake, because you don't give a damn about reality and are quite happy to stay here lying to everyone.
What the hell is your issue?
I don't even need all that. I can simply use a tube and levelled up to see that you do not see the ground beneath you over a gradient.
Any honest person can do this.
Yet you still refuse to do so.
It is as if you know that claim of yours is pure BS, and you are refusing because you are not honest.
Any honest person can do the simple experiment I suggested, and realise your claims are pure BS.
So thanks for showing your dishonesty yet again.
-
@JJA, what do you think scepty ought to see when they look down the level tube (preferably by a large body of water, which we can be certain is mostly flat)?
You mean which we can be certain is mostly LEVEL, not flat.
The 2 are very different.
having never tried this or anything much like it in my life, that scepty is correct
Do you understand what he is claiming, especially with the insane internal contradiction?
He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.
He is claiming that you can't see the ground at all through a level tube because the ground is below the tube.
i.e. this:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
and this (note that he is claiming this happens with an ordinary tube, with no lens in it at all):
What you see, is parallel.
No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.
Yep, they converge once at the tube and back to the eye, hence the compression.
From the tube end you see parallel, you do not suddenly go fluted from that point.
Do you really agree with that?
That you should only see 1 inch of a distant object if you look at it through a 1 inch diameter tube?
Because if not, you aren't agreeing with scepti.
So do you think you would see ground/sea through a level tube?
-
@jackblack
You mean which we can be certain is mostly LEVEL, not flat.
The 2 are very different.
Only in a classroom / textbook. In reality, they never differ - nor can anyone provide a demonstration of them doing so.
In any case, the point is moot because on the scales we are viewing (to the horizon is only a few miles depending on weather conditions) the water is, as I said, "mostly flat" regardless of what conception you have on the shape of the earth.
You could go to a large parking lot or another large mostly flat location, but the concrete was leveled the same way the oceans (and all bodies of water) are ;)
He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.
My understanding, which they confirmed once (granted, 70 pg's ago), is the opposite.
In the case that the world is a flat plane, you ought to be able to look at that flat plane as you look out over it because of perspective (shrinking to a vanishing dot in the center of your vision). The ground will never disappear from view when the world is a plane stretching beyond the limited/finite bounds of an observers view.
Alternatively, when it is a globe - again of sufficient size that to us (on the scale of the observers finite visual bounds) the ground once again appears to be an infinite plane - we expect that the ground should curve away at some point - against this perspective "lifting" illusion.
Scepty is saying the exact opposite of what you think they are. On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't. That is scepty's whole point.
-
Scepty is saying the exact opposite of what you think they are. On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't. That is scepty's whole point.
What makes you think we can't? If you set your camera to level and zoom in far enough you will eventually see only sky and no water, just as you say.
Now you will need a very long zoom and a small field of view, not something you can do with your cell phone camera.
If you go high up onto a cliff it will be easier, the horizon will be lower and you won't need to zoom in as far. Even then it's going to take some serious equipment. A telescope would help.
The world is big, very big, much bigger than scepty's imagination as he can't seem to understand the scale and the amount of zoom needed to actually see the effect.
Can you?
-
Scepty is saying the exact opposite of what you think they are. On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't. That is scepty's whole point.
How do you zoom with a toilet paper roll?
-
@JJA, what do you think scepty ought to see when they look down the level tube (preferably by a large body of water, which we can be certain is mostly flat)?
You mean which we can be certain is mostly LEVEL, not flat.
The 2 are very different.
having never tried this or anything much like it in my life, that scepty is correct
Do you understand what he is claiming, especially with the insane internal contradiction?
He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.
He is claiming that you can't see the ground at all through a level tube because the ground is below the tube.
i.e. this:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
and this (note that he is claiming this happens with an ordinary tube, with no lens in it at all):
What you see, is parallel.
No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.
Yep, they converge once at the tube and back to the eye, hence the compression.
From the tube end you see parallel, you do not suddenly go fluted from that point.
Do you really agree with that?
That you should only see 1 inch of a distant object if you look at it through a 1 inch diameter tube?
Because if not, you aren't agreeing with scepti.
So do you think you would see ground/sea through a level tube?
Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.
I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.
You people are the one's being, either dishonest or unbelievably inept at understanding what's being put forward.
You're using scopes and naked eye FOV to claim you see ground on a gradient. I understand why.... because if you didn't, you kill your globe mindset.
-
Only in a classroom / textbook. In reality, they never differ - nor can anyone provide a demonstration of them doing so.
Except all the times they do, such as in a simple case of water in a glass where it curves up the edge, or if it is a droplet on a surface (especially a hydrophobic one), or in a barometer like device, or just on Earth over a large body of water.
It is only for a small surface where you can't detect the curvature of Earth and ignore the other curvature that it is "flat".
In any case, the point is moot because on the scales we are viewing (to the horizon is only a few miles depending on weather conditions) the water is, as I said, "mostly flat" regardless of what conception you have on the shape of the earth.
But it is that very curvature which causes the horizon.
You could go to a large parking lot or another large mostly flat location, but the concrete was leveled the same way the oceans (and all bodies of water) are ;)
Where the curvature is insignificant?
As an approximation, the drop is d^2/(2*R).
If you had a carpark that was 1 km wide, the drop would be ~8 cm.
That means the bulge at the middle would be ~ 2 cm.
He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.
My understanding, which they confirmed once (granted, 70 pg's ago), is the opposite.
I provided quotes which showed exactly what he as claiming, and that is that you magically don't see below a level tube.
Care to address that?
stretching beyond the limited/finite bounds of an observers view.
There is no bound for distance. If Earth was flat, you would be able to continually zoom in and see more and more distant ground until it got so far away it passed through so much atmosphere that it is just s blur.
we expect that the ground should curve away at some point - against this perspective "lifting" illusion.
Yes, the horizon.
On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't.
But we can.
Go look at some of the images at the start of the thread. The horizon is clearly below eye level.
But if you are standing on the RE, a mere 2 m above the surface, you need to reduce your FOV to less than ~ 5.4 arc minutes. Quite tiny.
And you need to ensure you have it levelled to that accuracy.
Regardless, for this part of the discussion he has specifically excluded all possible lenses that would allow you to zoom like that.
This means you would need to get high enough to be able to have the FOV provided by the tube exclude the horizon.
For the example I provided earlier with a FOV of 10 degrees, that means you would need to get to an altitude of 25 km.
-
Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.
That still allows for an angled view, it just prevents a downwards view. You still see up high.
But that is not simply looking through a tube, and it definitely is not looking level at a cross hair which needs to be centred.
I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle
If you want to prevent any angle, you need to replace your tube with an infinitely long one.
Any finite tube will produce an angular FOV which will allow you to see below it.
The only question is how large and thus what angle it gives.
In order to see a continuous downwards gradient, all that is required is for the FOV to be more than twice the gradient.
You people are the one's being, either dishonest or unbelievably inept at understanding what's being put forward.
And of course, more pathetic projection from you.
If we are the dishonest ones rather than you, why do you refuse to do the experiment yourself and post your results?
Why do you refuse to do the experiment I suggested?
Why do you refuse to answer simple questions which clearly show you are wrong?
You're using scopes and naked eye FOV to claim you see ground on a gradient.
No, I'm using a tube and simple logic. Something you seem to be unable to cope with.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until you have an answer, there is no reason at all to think you would not be able to see an object along that line.
And again, if you can see it with the naked eye, with a FOV significantly larger than the tube, and with a scope, with a FOV significantly smaller than the tube, then you can certainly see it with just the tube.
Again, see the little grey bit in that diagram?
That is a lens.
What you are appealing to is not a simple tube. Instead it is a tube with a lens which gives it an infinite zoom, an infinite magnification.
There is a very simple way to determine the magnification for a lens, look at what the FOV is on each side of the lens and divide one by the other (out/in).
i.e. if light comes into the lens with a FOV of 1 degree, and the lens makes that hit the eye over a FOV of 10 degrees, that would have a magnification of 10 X (i.e. 10/1)
But what you have is more like 10/0, which is infinite.
So you definitely need a lens for that.
And with such a lens, in order to see the ground, or any object below a straight line parallel to this 0 degree FOV, it would need to be infinitely far away.
-
I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.
Oh, are you finally setting up your experiment? Can we expect pictures of your setup soon so we can replicate it ourselves?
-
Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.
That still allows for an angled view, it just prevents a downwards view. You still see up high.
But that is not simply looking through a tube, and it definitely is not looking level at a cross hair which needs to be centred.
Hence why I asked for the two scopes and the hanging crosshair, to enable the person to look level and not deviate the eye view or dip the camera.
It cuts out both angles and leaves the tube diameter as the tunnel view, which does not see any downward gradient. You know this.
-
I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.
Are you? How will you even know the strings are aligned if they're behind a pencil, or that the entire thing isn't simply aligned at a slight angle up or down?
Also, if the horizon is below eye level when looking through the tubes, what is this telling us?
-
Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.
That still allows for an angled view, it just prevents a downwards view. You still see up high.
But that is not simply looking through a tubbe, and it definitely is not looking level at a cross hair which needs to be centred.
Hence why I asked for the two scopes and the hanging crosshair
Which then entirely defeats your argument as then you are looking at the centre of the tube, meaning you get an "angled view" downwards to the bottom of the tube and upwards to the top. You know, like a normal angular FOV, which then allows you to see things below the bottom level of the tube.
Again, in order to prevent that, with your eye at the centre of the tube, you need some magic to stop the blue line.
Alternatively, you need a tube which has a FOV of effectively 0. That means either an infinitely long tube, an infinitely thin tube, or one with a lens with an infinite magnification.
Otherwise, you have an angular FOV and can see things either above or below the tube.
It cuts out both angles and leaves the tube diameter as the tunnel view, which does not see any downward gradient. You know this.
No, I know it doesn't do that, as that would require pure magic.
I know that the light will continue going straight as it enters the tube at an angle and hits your eye, even with a level tube. Just like I have repeatedly explained and you have been unable to refute and instead just continue to repeat the same lie.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
-
I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.
Are you? How will you even know the strings are aligned if they're behind a pencil, or that the entire thing isn't simply aligned at a slight angle up or down?
Also, if the horizon is below eye level when looking through the tubes, what is this telling us?
Clearly you don't understand the experiment. Just carry on as you are.
-
Alternatively, you need a tube which has a FOV of effectively 0.
Otherwise, you have an angular FOV and can see things either above or below the tube.
You'll always have a FOV. The tube diameter always allows that. You know this and you know I know this, so why bother going on about FOV?
The set up is to stop two things.
1. To stop angular dip, meaning looking down the tube, unlevel.
2. To ensure the crosshairs are centred onto each other so as not to change angle of sight.
All you're doing from that point is having a FOV that corresponds with the actual diameter of the tube end at that particular distance on a gradient.
And, the reality is, you do not see the ground, unlike the little attempted dupe by a certain person.
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
-
Alternatively, you need a tube which has a FOV of effectively 0.
Otherwise, you have an angular FOV and can see things either above or below the tube.
You'll always have a FOV. The tube diameter always allows that. You know this and you know I know this, so why bother going on about FOV?
Because you keep pretending we don't have a FOV.
You keep pretending that we magically only see thing in the 1 inch size of the tube, that we don't see things below or above the tube.
And, the reality is, you do not see the ground, unlike the little attempted dupe by a certain person.
No, the reality is not what you are trying to dupe people into.
The reality is that you have a FOV, just like always which allows you to see things below the level of the tube.
Your ability to see a downwards gradient is dependent upon the FOV and the gradient, as repeatedly explained.
Again, in order to be certain that you cannot see the downwards gradient, you need a FOV of 0. That is not a FOV. That is not having a FOV.
Again, this is easily shown by the simple diagram and question you continually avoid.
What magic stops the blue line?
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
Except all the countless times they already have.
-
Because you keep pretending we don't have a FOV.
No I don't. I never have and you know this.
Making stuff up to suit and twisting is all you seem to do.
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
Quite true. But then what does 'proof' actually mean? I Googled the word proof and found this link.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/?sh=2e2b378b5392
So ultimately no-one can unconditionally prove anything. If you have proved to your own satisfaction that the Earth is as you believe it to be then no-one can prove any different to you.
Equally though you cannot prove to us that our model of the world is wrong. You can be as dismissive as you like and make whatever verbal comments you like about how you think we are all a load of mindless idiots who have been indoctrinated or whatever. But you cannot prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Other than to yourself. Neither has that ever been your intention. I know that. You are simply here to give your beliefs.
There is loads of evidence out there. That evidence is the same for everyone. It is only our interpretations that are different. You see it one way to suit your beliefs. We see it another way based on our experience. But no one can actually 'prove' anything.
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
Quite true. But then what does 'proof' actually mean? I Googled the word proof and found this link.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/?sh=2e2b378b5392
So ultimately no-one can unconditionally prove anything. If you have proved to your own satisfaction that the Earth is as you believe it to be then no-one can prove any different to you.
Equally though you cannot prove to us that our model of the world is wrong. You can be as dismissive as you like and make whatever verbal comments you like about how you think we are all a load of mindless idiots who have been indoctrinated or whatever. But you cannot prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Other than to yourself. Neither has that ever been your intention. I know that. You are simply here to give your beliefs.
There is loads of evidence out there. That evidence is the same for everyone. It is only our interpretations that are different. You see it one way to suit your beliefs. We see it another way based on our experience. But no one can actually 'prove' anything.
This.
Proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol.
-
I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.
Are you? How will you even know the strings are aligned if they're behind a pencil, or that the entire thing isn't simply aligned at a slight angle up or down?
Also, if the horizon is below eye level when looking through the tubes, what is this telling us?
Clearly you don't understand the experiment. Just carry on as you are.
Maybe if you actually tried your own experiment you would also understand us. Then you could even show us all! Are you willing to try?
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
You could, though, prove it.
I havent gone through back to pg100.
It only 10pg but i ll assume you never did your own photo to shut us all up.
-
Because you keep pretending we don't have a FOV.
No I don't. I never have and you know this.
Incorrect
You do
This is a forum with very easy ability to fact check what youve said.
You ve continually posted the NOT TO SCALE diagram of a person standing on absurdly tall tower and said he can only look level and never see a fov.
You were provided a diagram of a fov showing you can see, at a certain distance, the ground.
-
Because you keep pretending we don't have a FOV.
No I don't. I never have and you know this.
Incorrect
You do
This is a forum with very easy ability to fact check what youve said.
You ve continually posted the NOT TO SCALE diagram of a person standing on absurdly tall tower and said he can only look level and never see a fov.
You were provided a diagram of a fov showing you can see, at a certain distance, the ground.
Bring it up where it say what you say, like for like....or find out what was really said.
-
I think this foolio is saying directly directly below the tube.
Which is irrelevant.
Because when i look straight without a tube, i cant see my feet.
So what ?
It proves nothing of the original of 1inch claim and also dossnt reuqire two tubes and a vert plumb line.
Course you can see below when you do not use the tube. It's because you have a wider vision.
A classic case of you going right back to the beginning. I'm sat here smiling.
smiling from the amazing troll game you got on here.
You, jackass, were asked to restate your position so we don't go all the way back becuase it's become so convoluted.
you refused to do it and we have to go back and assume you're still on about the same thing.
or saying things so void of english or descirption we can only guess at your meaning.
luckily this is a forum and other people have provided diagrams, and all on record.
so i'll pick just the few claims related to this tube business.
your claim was someone couldn't see the
ground through a tube,
that the horizon rises to eye level and
people don't see in 1dimension
Don't use angle down with level. It doesn't work for you, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
And again you appeal to a FOV of 0.
Remember, if you are looking level with a FOV greater than 0, then part of that will be angled down and part will be angled up.
Refusing to have any part angled down will never work, no matter how hard you try to make it work.
Again, here is a too scale diagram of the RE, with a FOV of 10 degrees. The observer is standing with the scope at 2 m above the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
That's a not your FOV through a 1 inch tube.
Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.
your instance was that the blue line doesn't exists or doesn't exist?
clarify.
or that people don't and do see in 1dimension
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
here someone's pointed out that a tube doesn't do anything but obstruct the field of view, which you've admitted is a thing, and has hand drawn in a tube, which oho does not consequently affect the fact horizon doesn't rise to eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/f79dkec.png)
while still saying stupid things like people are unable to look down or have a field of view
Here's a quick diagram. Genuine people....take time to understand what's being said with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
you claim to understand yet every statement following you continue to beileve people see in 1dimension
You're making out one dimension to what I'm saying. I'm giving out nothing of the sort.
Tunnel vision is not one dimensional.
I've already mentioned a compressed FOV, so what's the issue?
no, i see NOOO contradictions here.
anyone else?
-
Because you keep pretending we don't have a FOV.
No I don't. I never have and you know this.
If that really was the case, you wouldn't have dishonestly removed the section of the post clearly explaining that you continually act like we have no FOV.
You saying we have a FOV is an entirely empty gesture when you continually act like we don't.
All it does is further how dishonest you are willing to be.
Again, accepting we have a FOV means accepting that we don't just magically see a straight line.
It means accepting that we have FIELD of view, that is that our view spans a field, i.e. a range of angles.
I.e. this useless garbage from you shows no FOV:
(https://i.imgur.com/CBArODE.png)
These straight lines clearly show no FOV.
And you used it to claim we wouldn't be able to see the sun as soon as Earth rotates, and that we wouldn't be able to see the horizon at all.
Those claims are based upon there being no FOV.
Accepting that we have a FOV (rather than just the empty gesture of saying we do and claiming you have never acted like we have no FOV) means accepting that even when looking through a level tube, we don't magically just see perfectly level and instead we can see things above and below level as well, within the limits of the FOV.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
The tube limits your FOV to the red lines.
This means you can't see the orange line, as the walls of the tube block it.
But you can see the blue line and that means you can see things below the tube.
If you actually acknowledged and accepted the fact that we still have a FOV, you wouldn't keep repeating the same pathetic lies which relies upon rejecting the fact that we do have a FOV.
So you saying we have a FOV is worthless and just shows how little integrity you have.
Making stuff up to suit and twisting is all you seem to do.
Projecting again I see.
You are the one who continually makes stuff up, like your fantasy that we magically only see 1 inch of any object when looking through a 1 inch tube.
And you then continually twist what other people say or just outright ignore it so you can pretend your fantasy is true.
Now again, what magic stops the blue line to prevent us having an actual FOV?
And what magic causes the RE to have a blend from light to dark?
-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
Perhaps that's because nobody can prove what you're saying, Scepti. Mind if I flower up the proceedings with some photos?
-
How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?
Because nobody can prove against what I'm saying.
Perhaps that's because nobody can prove what you're saying, Scepti. Mind if I flower up the proceedings with some photos?
I'm more than happy for any of you to prove whatever you think you can.
-
I'm more than happy for any of you to prove whatever you think you can.
And then to completely ignore it or just dismiss it as fake.
Again, what magic what stops the blue line?
Again, what magic causes the round Earth to magically have a blend from light to dark.
Because until you come up with an answer I have proven that you are wrong.
-
And then to completely ignore it or just dismiss it as fake.
Then ensure there's no twisting or trickery. Make it so I can't criticise.
If you can't do that then you have no case.
-
I'm more than happy for any of you to prove whatever you think you can.
And then to completely ignore it or just dismiss it as fake.
Again, what magic what stops the blue line?
Again, what magic causes the round Earth to magically have a blend from light to dark.
Because until you come up with an answer I have proven that you are wrong.
Then ensure there's no twisting or trickery. Make it so I can't criticise.
I have.
You have no criticism of the logical argument.
Instead all you do is continually ignore it.
Unlike the evidence that you just dismiss as fake, you can't do the same for a logical argument.
Again, what magic what stops the blue line?
Again, what magic causes the round Earth to magically have a blend from light to dark.
Because until you come up with an answer I have proven that you are wrong.
-
I have.
No, you haven't.
-
I have.
No, you haven't.
And just like I said, you just ignore it.
Again, see this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
It clearly shows the problem.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until you have an answer, you have been proven wrong.
The fact you continue to ignore it rather than even trying to respond shows that.
Now grow up and either answer the question or admit you have no answer and have been shown that you are wrong.
-
I have.
No, you haven't.
And just like I said, you just ignore it.
Again, see this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
It clearly shows the problem.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until you have an answer, you have been proven wrong.
The fact you continue to ignore it rather than even trying to respond shows that.
Now grow up and either answer the question or admit you have no answer and have been shown that you are wrong.
There is no problem. You made a diagram making out the blue line has meaning.
It does if you're using a scope. A telescope or your naked eye. Are you? .....Because, if you are then you're twisting the issue when you know fine well I'm arguing the 1 inch diameter tube.
I have also stated you have to be looking level through a crosshair not angled down from the top of the back of the tube to the bottom of the front.
What you claim to see is in your mind, unless you are using naked eye or telescope.
So which is it?
-
I'm more than happy for any of you to prove whatever you think you can.
And then to completely ignore it or just dismiss it as fake.
Again, what magic what stops the blue line?
Again, what magic causes the round Earth to magically have a blend from light to dark.
Because until you come up with an answer I have proven that you are wrong.
Exaclty
PROVE it yourself sceppy for all to see and remove all doubt.
If youre right this would be mind blowing.
-
And then to completely ignore it or just dismiss it as fake.
Then ensure there's no twisting or trickery. Make it so I can't criticise.
If you can't do that then you have no case.
The only one who can do that is you.
You are happy with you and only you know what you want.
Show to us.
-
And then to completely ignore it or just dismiss it as fake.
Then ensure there's no twisting or trickery. Make it so I can't criticise.
If you can't do that then you have no case.
If you would just show your own experiment we could settle this once and for all. Why are you afraid to show your photos? If you are so sure you are right, what is there to worry about?
-
What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?
Well in general the burden of proof is on the FE community. But I'll give you some stuff to go on.
1st: If the Earth is flat why does the hull of a ship disappear before the mast?
2nd: If the Earth is flat, by what mechanism does gravity exist? (btw saying gravity is a theory is proof that you don't understand the scientific method, just look at the Cavendish experiment which is performed by ALL physics undergrads).
3rd: If the Earth is flat and, by extension, most of the modern astrophysics is wrong, what the fuck do astrophysicists do? Are all of them in collusion with the government? I'm studying astrophysics right now, am I going to be indoctrinated?
Just some food for thought.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/l0bzRxrm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/EUGe63em.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HqQk3iam.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/l0bzRxrm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/EUGe63em.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HqQk3iam.jpg)
Aaahahaha
-
And just like I said, you just ignore it.
Again, see this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
It clearly shows the problem.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until you have an answer, you have been proven wrong.
The fact you continue to ignore it rather than even trying to respond shows that.
Now grow up and either answer the question or admit you have no answer and have been shown that you are wrong.
There is no problem. You made a diagram making out the blue line has meaning.
There is a massive problem for you, which you are yet to address.
All you can do is continually ignore the problem and pretend I am saying or doing things I aren't. You have no actual criticism against his disproof of your nonsense.
This shows what happens when you have a simple tube without a lens.
This shows how the tube restricts your FOV.
Each of the thick coloured lines has a very significant meaning, showing a possible path of light.
We can easily see that the orange line must pass through the wall of the tube in order to reach your eye. Assuming the tube is opaque this means the beam of light represented by the orange line cannot reach your eye and instead it will be blocked by the wall of the tube.
Conversely, we can easily see how the red, green and blue lines do not intersect the wall.
There is nothing in their way to stop them, nor is there a lens to deflect them and thus they can reach the eye.
The red lines are the limit, the edge of the FOV you have through a tube.
This means you FOV is the region bounded by the 2 red lines.
The blue line is in that region. Again, there is nothing to stop light travelling along it from reaching your eye.
This means that light can travel from below the level of the tube and go up and into your eye. This can allow you to see the ground, even when looking level, even on some downwards slopes, depending on the FOV of the tube and the gradient of the slope.
It does if you're using a scope. A telescope or your naked eye. Are you?
No, it is a simple tube.
Again, if you would like an example with a scope, then an extreme example would be this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
Notice the lens shown in grey which bends the light?
That is what you need for your nonsense to be correct.
I have also stated you have to be looking level through a crosshair not angled down from the top of the back of the tube to the bottom of the front.
It is quite clear that in this diagram the eye is centred.
It is looking directly level.
But because it has a FOV it also sees above and below level.
What you claim to see is in your mind, unless you are using naked eye or telescope.
So which is it?
Neither.
It is simply that you are wrong, and you are looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss this logical proof that you are wrong, when you have no criticism of it at all and thus need to invent criticism when it clearly has no place.
Everyone can see that this diagram has a tube, and thus it is not merely the naked eye.
Everyone can see that there is no lens, and thus it is not a scope.
Yet you play dumb and act like both could be the case.
You play dumb and pretend that the lines have no meaning, when they have been explained to you repeatedly.
You play dumb and pretend that the eye isn't looking level, and instead want to pretend it is somehow looking from the top of the tube when the image clearly has it in the middle.
There is no twisting or trickery by me.
The only attempts at that are by you, trying to use whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss the fact that you are wrong.
And you have no criticism of it. The only "criticism" you provide is of your strawmen.
The valid criticism you could make against this requires you to explain what magic stops the light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye.
Without such criticism, you are wrong.
So there you have it, simple proof that you are wrong with no twisting or trickery (except the attempts by you) and which you cannot criticise.
You are wrong. It's time for you to grow up, accept that you are wrong, and move on.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/l0bzRxrm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/EUGe63em.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HqQk3iam.jpg)
You beat me to it. I see you prefer the double length rolls! I always find those ones don't roll as easily on the spool, and you have to manually turn the roll to get your length of paper. Very annoying when you're in a rush. >:(
But, your use of the roll with the full length of paper still on, is the correct way to perform the experiment. The resident toilet roll peeping experts, aka sceptimatic and JJA, will argue otherwise. I believe that's because they both enjoy performing the experiment naked in public places. Without the paper, it's a lot less weight for their morning glory to hold up, after they've slipped the roll on, to rest between experiments. 8)
-
You beat me to it. I see you prefer the double length rolls! I always find those ones don't roll as easily on the spool, and you have to manually turn the roll to get your length of paper. Very annoying when you're in a rush. >:(
True indeed good sir! I however, refuse to use the spool and keep the toilet paper with in easy reach at all times having experienced many the unfortunate emergency toilet paper situation.
But, your use of the roll with the full length of paper still on, is the correct way to perform the experiment. The resident toilet roll peeping experts, aka sceptimatic and JJA, will argue otherwise. I believe that's because they both enjoy performing the experiment naked in public places. Without the paper, it's a lot less weight for their morning glory to hold up, after they've slipped the roll on, to rest between experiments. 8)
The nakedness is perhaps akin to the efficiency of performing all of these Tube Viewing experiments. Having the need for so many empty tubes would elude to the excessive amount of ass-wiping required in the name of science. Clothing would only get in the way. That said, I would recommend the Charmin brand of toilet paper. The double-ply strength and superior texture help prevent chafing as I'm sure there there is no end in sight to this particular Tube Viewing debate.
-
There is a massive problem for you, which you are yet to address.
I've already addressed it.
The problem is what you created from your drawing.
I already asked you questions and you refused to answer but I don't expect anything else to be fair.
-
There is a massive problem for you, which you are yet to address.
I've already addressed it.
The problem is what you created from your drawing.
I already asked you questions and you refused to answer but I don't expect anything else to be fair.
And again you just continue to ignore the problem because you cannot criticise it.
Yes, the problem is clearly shown in the drawing, a problem you have no answer to.
If you wish to claim you have already addressed it, then provide the post where you have.
And no, the one time you tried to deflect by asking why it should reach the eye doesn't count as that was already addressed.
I addressed every question you posed in that response of yours.
You ignoring the answers and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically mean they don't.
Just what do you think I haven't answered?
Because I can easily tell you what you continually refuse to answer.
What magic prevents the light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye?
Again, unless you have a sound answer, you have no criticism of this proof that you are wrong.
-
There is a massive problem for you, which you are yet to address.
I've already addressed it.
The problem is what you created from your drawing.
I already asked you questions and you refused to answer but I don't expect anything else to be fair.
And again you just continue to ignore the problem because you cannot criticise it.
Yes, the problem is clearly shown in the drawing, a problem you have no answer to.
If you wish to claim you have already addressed it, then provide the post where you have.
And no, the one time you tried to deflect by asking why it should reach the eye doesn't count as that was already addressed.
I addressed every question you posed in that response of yours.
You ignoring the answers and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically mean they don't.
Just what do you think I haven't answered?
Because I can easily tell you what you continually refuse to answer.
What magic prevents the light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye?
Again, unless you have a sound answer, you have no criticism of this proof that you are wrong.
Did you forget this?
How about you answer it.
Alternatively, you need a tube which has a FOV of effectively 0.
Otherwise, you have an angular FOV and can see things either above or below the tube.
You'll always have a FOV. The tube diameter always allows that. You know this and you know I know this, so why bother going on about FOV?
The set up is to stop two things.
1. To stop angular dip, meaning looking down the tube, unlevel.
2. To ensure the crosshairs are centred onto each other so as not to change angle of sight.
All you're doing from that point is having a FOV that corresponds with the actual diameter of the tube end at that particular distance on a gradient.
And, the reality is, you do not see the ground, unlike the little attempted dupe by a certain person.
-
There is a massive problem for you, which you are yet to address.
I've already addressed it.
The problem is what you created from your drawing.
I already asked you questions and you refused to answer but I don't expect anything else to be fair.
And again you just continue to ignore the problem because you cannot criticise it.
Yes, the problem is clearly shown in the drawing, a problem you have no answer to.
If you wish to claim you have already addressed it, then provide the post where you have.
And no, the one time you tried to deflect by asking why it should reach the eye doesn't count as that was already addressed.
I addressed every question you posed in that response of yours.
You ignoring the answers and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically mean they don't.
Just what do you think I haven't answered?
Because I can easily tell you what you continually refuse to answer.
What magic prevents the light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye?
Again, unless you have a sound answer, you have no criticism of this proof that you are wrong.
Did you forget this?
How about you answer it.
No, I didn't forget it, and I have already addressed it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2301801#msg2301801
Now how about you stop just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and answer the question:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
-
No, I didn't forget it, and I have already addressed it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2301801#msg2301801
Now how about you stop just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and answer the question:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You failed to answer the question. You've dodged it like you always do.
-
No, I didn't forget it, and I have already addressed it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2301801#msg2301801
Now how about you stop just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and answer the question:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You failed to answer the question. You've dodged it like you always do.
That would be you.
It is clearly there in my post.
But here is another answer just for you.
I know you know there is a FOV, but you keep on lying and pretending there is no FOV with your repeatedly lie that we magically only see in a single line, with your repeatedly lie that we magically can't see what is below the tube.
Meanwhile, you continually use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid answering extremely simple questions.
Now again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Have you though of a way out other than continually ignoring the question?
-
No, I didn't forget it, and I have already addressed it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2301801#msg2301801
Now how about you stop just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and answer the question:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You failed to answer the question. You've dodged it like you always do.
That would be you.
It is clearly there in my post.
But here is another answer just for you.
I know you know there is a FOV, but you keep on lying and pretending there is no FOV with your repeatedly lie that we magically only see in a single line, with your repeatedly lie that we magically can't see what is below the tube.
Meanwhile, you continually use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid answering extremely simple questions.
Now again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Have you though of a way out other than continually ignoring the question?
Answer the question and I can answer yours.
-
No, I didn't forget it, and I have already addressed it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2301801#msg2301801
Now how about you stop just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and answer the question:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You failed to answer the question. You've dodged it like you always do.
Like you dodge any questions on why you won't do your own experiment? You're the one not backing up your claims. Post your experimental photos.
-
You're the one not backing up your claims.
My claim is simple. You tried to debunk it and failed by trying to dupe me.
I put a stringent experiment at your door and you bottled it.
I'm more than happy for you to deck out but would really enjoy seeing you try to dupe this one.
-
You're the one not backing up your claims.
My claim is simple. You tried to debunk it and failed by trying to dupe me.
I put a stringent experiment at your door and you bottled it.
I'm more than happy for you to deck out but would really enjoy seeing you try to dupe this one.
No, backing up your claim is simple... do your experiment and post photos of the result. You have refused to do this, so you have zero evidence to back up your claims. All you did was add conditions which you are unwilling to do yourself. Sad.
-
You're the one not backing up your claims.
My claim is simple. You tried to debunk it and failed by trying to dupe me.
I put a stringent experiment at your door and you bottled it.
I'm more than happy for you to deck out but would really enjoy seeing you try to dupe this one.
No, backing up your claim is simple... do your experiment and post photos of the result. You have refused to do this, so you have zero evidence to back up your claims. All you did was add conditions which you are unwilling to do yourself. Sad.
Let's put this to bed.
I'm doing no experiment for you.
Are you willing to follow the experiment I set out for you. If so, then get it done. If not, make this your last post on it.
-
why do you refuse to do your own experiment to prove to all us what's what?
-
You're the one not backing up your claims.
My claim is simple. You tried to debunk it and failed by trying to dupe me.
I put a stringent experiment at your door and you bottled it.
I'm more than happy for you to deck out but would really enjoy seeing you try to dupe this one.
No, backing up your claim is simple... do your experiment and post photos of the result. You have refused to do this, so you have zero evidence to back up your claims. All you did was add conditions which you are unwilling to do yourself. Sad.
Let's put this to bed.
I'm doing no experiment for you.
Are you willing to follow the experiment I set out for you. If so, then get it done. If not, make this your last post on it.
So you are at least now openly refusing to show any of your own evidence or experiments. I wonder why that might be... you seem so convinced your experiments prove everyone wrong, but you are afraid to show them. How curious. If I had evidence backing me up I'd sure post it, oh wait, I did.
You are quick to demand people re-do their experiments with all your added tubes and crosshairs so you are in no position to tell others to shut up. You said you did these experiments that show us all wrong, so show us. Or admit you are wrong if you can't prove it.
-
why do you refuse to do your own experiment to prove to all us what's what?
Because this isn't about me proving anything to you people. You people aren't my target. My target is genuine people. One's that can go and check for themselves and do not feel the need to offer up clap trap.
-
So you are at least now openly refusing to show any of your own evidence or experiments.
I never offered in the first place. You decided you would dishonestly do the experiment I put out. You showed me exactly what I suspected.
-
So you are at least now openly refusing to show any of your own evidence or experiments.
I never offered in the first place. You decided you would dishonestly do the experiment I put out. You showed me exactly what I suspected.
I also did my own experiment with a globe, and you jumped right in demanding straws and other conditions so don't pretend you didn't. No, you never agreed to do an experiment, and that is very curious. Why would you be so concerned and worried with showing your results? I wonder what they actually look like.... why wouldn't you show them if they backed you up? It's pretty obvious, isn't it.
-
Sceptimatic, it's hilarious how much you've failed in this thread. Do you have a youtube channel? If so, I bet there's plenty of entertainment to be had.
-
No, I didn't forget it, and I have already addressed it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2301801#msg2301801
Now how about you stop just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and answer the question:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You failed to answer the question. You've dodged it like you always do.
That would be you.
It is clearly there in my post.
But here is another answer just for you.
I know you know there is a FOV, but you keep on lying and pretending there is no FOV with your repeatedly lie that we magically only see in a single line, with your repeatedly lie that we magically can't see what is below the tube.
Meanwhile, you continually use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid answering extremely simple questions.
Now again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Have you though of a way out other than continually ignoring the question?
Answer the question and I can answer yours.
Ignoring the answer doesn't magically make it disappear. Again, just what question do you think I haven't answered, considering I addressed all your nonsense in the post you quoted before?
Meanwhile, my question to you remain unanswered, and unlike you I can clearly show what it is.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You're the one not backing up your claims.
My claim is simple. You tried to debunk it and failed
Your claim being simple doesn't mean you back it up.
All you do is continually assert the same refuted nonsense.
That is not backing it up.
Meanwhile, JJA debunked it with evidence you are yet to challenge in any meaningful way and I have debunked it through simple logic and questions you need to continually flee from.
I put a stringent experiment at your door and you bottled it.
Why the dishonesty?
You put an experiment at his door.
He did it and showed you were wrong.
Rather than accept you were wrong, you dismissed it as fake, repeatedly insulted him and threw in more ridiculous which just further removes the experiment from your original claim, which do not help verify the tube(s) are level.
I don't know about you, but my kitchen roll tubes aren't 11 feet long.
All you are doing is making the overall experiment more complex and reducing the FOV, all while refusing to do it yourself.
So how about you stop making pathetic excuses and do the experiment yourself?
I'm more than happy for you to deck out but would really enjoy seeing you try to dupe this one.
And there is the problem. Before he even does the experiment, you have already concluded he will fake it.
So if he provides results that show you are wrong, you will dismiss it as fake, again with no justification.
That is all you ever do with these experiments.
You set up ridiculous criteria, demand someone else does it while you continually refuse; then when they do, you just dismiss it as fake and throw in more demands.
It truly is pathetic.
I'm doing no experiment for you.
Then stop expecting others to do it for you.
This means you have no experimental evidence backing you up, and plenty showing you are wrong.
If you are not going to do the experiments, then the experiment stand as is, showing you are wrong.
This means you stop bringing the experiments up as anything other than clear proof that you are wrong.
Because this isn't about me proving anything to you people.
Yes it is. You come into this thread, spouting loads of lies, and then refuse to justify those lies in any way.
You showed me exactly what I suspected.
That you were wrong?
We all know the reason you refuse to do any experiements.
If other people do them, you can just pretend they are faking them and that their results are wrong.
But if you do them and post your results, it doesn't make much sense to claim you faked it.
Grow up.
-
Because this isn't about me proving anything to you people. You people aren't my target. My target is genuine people.
By genuine I take it you mean anyone you can find who actually agrees with you and would support your fantasy. Is there any such person? As for your idea of an 'experiment' you wouldn't know what a true experiment is. Unless of course it is all carefully engineered to produce exactly the result you want it to. That is not an experiment.
The fact is that no experiment will ever produce the result you want it to genuinely and that is why you can't show us any photos or results of your 'experiment'. Because they don't exist except in your mind. You can tell us and claim all you like but that proves absolutely nothing.
In the meantime several people here have been kind enough to get up off their backsides and actually do experiments of their own which show that all your claims are completely wrong. But you just dismiss all that effort as 'duping' you. Have you ever been wrong about anything in your life? If not can you please share the secret with us so we can learn how to be brilliant as well?
You have proved your beliefs are true to yourself and that is enough for you isn't it. No more evidence required. In your mind you are right about everything.
-
why do you refuse to do your own experiment to prove to all us what's what?
Because this isn't about me proving anything to you people. You people aren't my target. My target is genuine people. One's that can go and check for themselves and do not feel the need to offer up clap trap.
Ok moving on then since yoyre obviously stonewalling and are wrong.
Im a focus on this layest statment
How do we qualify a genuine person?
What is the reason you refuse to share your knowledge? - in the sense of proofs.
Because i like to think we re all logical people who like to see proofs instead of essays of word salad.
Simple diagrams surpass allimitations of jarbled language.
You clearly want to tell us all what you think else you wouldnt be here, yet stop and refuse to diagram or photo to prove your thoughts correct.
Why.
Why do you continue to chose to fail at the 9th yard after going through all this effort?
-
Sceptimatic, it's hilarious how much you've failed in this thread. Do you have a youtube channel? If so, I bet there's plenty of entertainment to be had.
There's no failure on my part. I'm more than happy with my lot.
The failure is massively down to those who are trying to play games in order to push the agenda they were coaxed into.
You've yet to follow suit in terms of putting up a picture or diagram so all you are is a follower of the dishonest bunch, without knowing why.
-
Why the dishonesty?
There's no dishonesty from my side. Take a look at the efforts from your side.
-
Because this isn't about me proving anything to you people. You people aren't my target. My target is genuine people.
By genuine I take it you mean anyone you can find who actually agrees with you and would support your fantasy. Is there any such person? As for your idea of an 'experiment' you wouldn't know what a true experiment is. Unless of course it is all carefully engineered to produce exactly the result you want it to. That is not an experiment.
The fact is that no experiment will ever produce the result you want it to genuinely and that is why you can't show us any photos or results of your 'experiment'. Because they don't exist except in your mind. You can tell us and claim all you like but that proves absolutely nothing.
In the meantime several people here have been kind enough to get up off their backsides and actually do experiments of their own which show that all your claims are completely wrong. But you just dismiss all that effort as 'duping' you. Have you ever been wrong about anything in your life? If not can you please share the secret with us so we can learn how to be brilliant as well?
You have proved your beliefs are true to yourself and that is enough for you isn't it. No more evidence required. In your mind you are right about everything.
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
-
why do you refuse to do your own experiment to prove to all us what's what?
Because this isn't about me proving anything to you people. You people aren't my target. My target is genuine people. One's that can go and check for themselves and do not feel the need to offer up clap trap.
Ok moving on then since yoyre obviously stonewalling and are wrong.
Im a focus on this layest statment
How do we qualify a genuine person?
What is the reason you refuse to share your knowledge? - in the sense of proofs.
Because i like to think we re all logical people who like to see proofs instead of essays of word salad.
Simple diagrams surpass allimitations of jarbled language.
You clearly want to tell us all what you think else you wouldnt be here, yet stop and refuse to diagram or photo to prove your thoughts correct.
Why.
Why do you continue to chose to fail at the 9th yard after going through all this effort?
It's very simple. I know what I see. I put out the diagram of what I see. I'm told this is not what I really see and a diagram and a picture was used to pretend things are different.
I can see the dupe and you people don't, for obvious reasons. You're globalists with no reason to dare to go against it.
You lot think mass battering will coax a change from those who go against it.
You're wrong.
The genuine people are those who are sitting back saying nothing but who are testing out their own stuff based on what I mention and using their own logical senses to see that I'm not the one who is trying to dupe and be dishonest.
You people are what I always expect. A desperate attempt to keep a globe alive for whatever reasons you have for wanting to stick to it.
None of you have shown or proved anything legitimate.
-
But if youre right youre right.
I assume you believe yourself to be right, but do you beleive it to be truth or just theory?
Because right is right regardless of who presents it.
It is demonstrably done and repeatable.
If you had a secret so powerful you could shiw us and instantly convert and blow our minds.
This isnt about indoctrination - your excuse.
You can easily undontrinate the world if theory is truth.
Refusal of such a basic premise is ridiuculous if rhis is your only justifiable excuse to not step up and put your toilet tube where your mouth is.
-
But if youre right youre right.
I assume you believe yourself to be right, but do you beleive it to be truth or just theory?
Because right is right regardless of who presents it.
Correct, right is right regardless of who presents it. The issue is in people presenting something which they say is right, which is not.
This is what's being argued.
It is demonstrably done and repeatable.
If you had a secret so powerful you could shiw us and instantly convert and blow our minds.
This isnt about indoctrination - your excuse.
You can easily undontrinate the world if theory is truth.
It is demonstrably done and repeatable but one person's view seems to be another person's obscurity to the their truth/reality.
You think it's me and I think it's you lot.
Refusal of such a basic premise is ridiuculous if rhis is your only justifiable excuse to not step up and put your toilet tube where your mouth is.
There's a simple experiment I put up that JJA had set up. I added a little to it because of his unwillingness to be honest in what I asked for.
If you people don't want to see stuff for yourselves then I'm in no position to see it for you and nor do I care what you decide is your truth or what games you think you play against me.
I know what I know and none of you will ever change that ....unless you actually show a reality without attempts to dupe.
It's been so blatant that I have to wonder what I'm really up against with some of you lot.
-
But you havent proved what you know.
Your "know" is still in the relm of theory.
Complaining we re dishonest or farting around with vertical plumb lines is a waste of time if you HAVE the true reality.
Why not show it.
You claim to not want to engage the indoctrinated yet here you are 62pg later still arguing about the merits of the setup.
If its so good - show it.
If jja honsetly didnt set it up right, not due to DIShonesty - show it.
If its right - show it.
How weak is your pov that you cant stand up against the most basic levle1 scrunity?
If its a matter of "seeing" - show it
-
There's no failure on my part.
There sure seems to be.
You made a bunch of claims which you have been unable to justify in any way, which have been refuted by both logic and evidence.
That sure sounds like a massive failure.
The failure is massively down to those who are trying to play games in order to push the agenda they were coaxed into.
So you.
You were coaxed into the agenda of the FE and rejection of science, and now you use whatever dishonest BS you can to try to push it.
Why the dishonesty?
There's no dishonesty from my side.
There is plenty. You lie with almost every post you make.
Such as the previous posts directed to me where you falsely claimed I hadn't addressed something, yet couldn't tell me what it was.
And of course, you continued dishonesty of repeating the same lies again and again even though they have been refuted countless times and your refusal to answer a simple question which shows you are wrong.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
It's very simple. I know what I see.
Yet you refuse to provide evidence of it.
It is as if you know that what you see doesn't match what you claim.
I can see the dupe and you people don't, for obvious reasons.
Yes, because you are wrong, and need to see the dupe to pretend you are not wrong.
The "dupe" you speak of is all in your head.
The genuine people are those who are sitting back saying nothing but who are testing out their own stuff based on what I mention and using their own logical senses to see that I'm not the one who is trying to dupe and be dishonest.
No, they are the ones who have tried what you have suggested, and see that it doesn't match reality at all, and now object to your repeated lies.
The genuine people who have provided simple logical arguments and questions and evidence that you are wrong.
You people are what I always expect.
Honest people who see through your BS and can easily show you to be wrong?
The issue is in people presenting something which they say is right, which is not.
Yes, like you do repeatedly.
There's a simple experiment I put up that JJA had set up.
Which clearly demonstrated that you were wrong.
Because it showed you were wrong, you dismissed it as fake and added in a bunch of needless complexities to pretend you are justified in dismissing it.
Meanwhile, you refuse to provide your own evidence or engage with the logical arguments that show you are wrong.
unless you actually show a reality without attempts to dupe.
And by that what you really mean unless we show you things consistent with your fantasy, i.e. YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE!
Even after being shown to be wrong repeatedly, you will still claim you are correct.
-
But you havent proved what you know.
I have to myself and that's what counts.
Trying to prove anything to you people is not my aim. I'm more than happy to engage you and your posse because the more you people play games the more the genuine people see it and realise it's time to question what they were indoctrinated with in the same way you lot were but refuse to deviate from, even though you know it's as dodgy as all hell.
-
Even after being shown to be wrong repeatedly, you will still claim you are correct.
You have never once shown me I'm wrong.
Claiming it is all well and good but it means nothing.
-
Troll on.
-
Troll on.
The trolls are you people.
-
But you havent proved what you know.
I have to myself and that's what counts.
On a public forum, proving things to yourself is worthless. Proving them to others is what matters.
I'm more than happy to engage you
Not in any form of honest rational discussion.
All you want to do is play games.
You wont even answer simple questions like what magic stops the blue line?
Even after being shown to be wrong repeatedly, you will still claim you are correct.
You have never once shown me I'm wrong.
You ignoring reality doesn't change it.
If I hadn't shown you were wrong you would have answered the question already. You won't because you know it has shown that you are wrong, and there is no way out for you.
-
If I hadn't shown you were wrong you would have answered the question already.
You won't because you know it has shown that you are wrong, and there is no way out for you.
You haven't shown any question to be valid.
You simply asked me what stops a blue line.
I asked you to tell me what you were viewing through and how you were viewing.
You failed to answer it.
As for no way out. You put far too much emphasis on yourself mattering to me.
All you are is a copy and paste frenzy machine.
-
If I hadn't shown you were wrong you would have answered the question already.
You won't because you know it has shown that you are wrong, and there is no way out for you.
You haven't shown any question to be valid.
You simply asked me what stops a blue line.
I asked you to tell me what you were viewing through and how you were viewing.
And I explained it all, repeatedly. But because you can't answer without showing yourself to be wrong, you use whatever dishonest BS you can to refuse to answer. (And here you can again see the difference between how an honest person handles it compared to how you just repeat the same pathetic lies. Notice how that because I actually have an answer, and an argument that shows you are wrong, I can provide it yet again, whereas you just repeat the same lies or use other dishonest BS to avoid answering extremely simple questions).
Again, the diagram is incredibly simple. Even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you continue to pretend you can't?
Here it is again, see if you can figure it out this time:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
This is a side on, cross sectional view.
On the left, there is an eye, to represent the eye of the person looking through the tube. The tube is the purple box.
The left and right side of the tube are entirely open. They are the ends of the tube, i.e. the holes.
The top and bottom of the rectangle would be solid, the walls of the tube.
I even have a purple line extended out level with the bottom of the tube.
We can clearly see the eye is at the middle of the tube, and the tube is level.
So this is clearly the exact situation you started going down this rabbit hole with.
The solid coloured lines indicate different potential paths for light to travel along.
We can see the green, travelling level, just goes straight in to the eye. This means light travelling along it will travel along just fine and reach the eye, allowing you to see an object in that direction.
We see the orange travels up and enters the box from the bottom. This would indicate it hits the wall of the tube. Assuming the wall of the tube is opaque, this means the wall of the tube will block the light and stop it reaching the eye. This means you cannot see an object through this particular level tube in the direction of the orange line.
But they are not the only options.
There is also the blue line. This line passes through the end of the tube. It does not hit the wall of the tube and thus there is no reason for light travelling along it to be stopped. It will travel, just like the green line, entering the end of the tube and reaching the eye. This means through this tube, you can see light coming in from the direction of the blue line.
Note this is not moving the eye up to the top of the tube and looking down. This is the eye remaining at the centre of the tube, looking through it. It is simply due to the fact that there is a FOV, that they eye doesn't just magically see in 1D along a line, it has a FOV. This allows this eye to see a small amount in all directions around straight out level. This includes up and down.
The blue line is just one of many such lines.
The limits are the 2 red lines.
This shows were a beam of light would just miss the wall of the tube and instead enter through the end. Light from anywhere in the region bounded by the 2 red lines would be able to travel into the tube and reach the eye.
Importantly note that this includes regions below the level of the tube.
There can be an object below the tube (such as the ground) which has light scatter off it (or projects its own light) which travels along the blue line and hits the eye.
This means the eye can see that object.
That means you can see the ground when looking through a level tube, even with that ground below the tube (as long as it is in the FOV).
Now stop playing dumb and either accept you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue eye from reaching the eye.
-
Again, the diagram is incredibly simple. Even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you continue to pretend you can't?
Here it is again, see if you can figure it out this time:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
We can clearly see the eye is at the middle of the tube, and the tube is level.
So this is clearly the exact situation you started going down this rabbit hole with.
Now stop playing dumb and either accept you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue eye from reaching the eye.
How about you simply tell me if you are using the naked eye FOV or the scope curve FOV or the actual simple tube that I set out for you.
A simple enough question to answer....right?
-
Again, the diagram is incredibly simple. Even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you continue to pretend you can't?
Here it is again, see if you can figure it out this time:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
We can clearly see the eye is at the middle of the tube, and the tube is level.
So this is clearly the exact situation you started going down this rabbit hole with.
Now stop playing dumb and either accept you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue eye from reaching the eye.
How about you simply tell me if you are using the naked eye FOV or the scope curve FOV or the actual simple tube that I set out for you.
A simple enough question to answer....right?
Yes, an extremely simple one.
Does this help:
Again, the diagram is incredibly simple. Even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you continue to pretend you can't?
Here it is again, see if you can figure it out this time:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
This is a side on, cross sectional view.
On the left, there is an eye, to represent the eye of the person looking through the tube. The tube is the purple box.
The left and right side of the tube are entirely open. They are the ends of the tube, i.e. the holes.
The top and bottom of the rectangle would be solid, the walls of the tube.
I even have a purple line extended out level with the bottom of the tube.
We can clearly see the eye is at the middle of the tube, and the tube is level.
So this is clearly the exact situation you started going down this rabbit hole with.
The solid coloured lines indicate different potential paths for light to travel along.
We can see the green, travelling level, just goes straight in to the eye. This means light travelling along it will travel along just fine and reach the eye, allowing you to see an object in that direction.
We see the orange travels up and enters the box from the bottom. This would indicate it hits the wall of the tube. Assuming the wall of the tube is opaque, this means the wall of the tube will block the light and stop it reaching the eye. This means you cannot see an object through this particular level tube in the direction of the orange line.
But they are not the only options.
There is also the blue line. This line passes through the end of the tube. It does not hit the wall of the tube and thus there is no reason for light travelling along it to be stopped. It will travel, just like the green line, entering the end of the tube and reaching the eye. This means through this tube, you can see light coming in from the direction of the blue line.
Note this is not moving the eye up to the top of the tube and looking down. This is the eye remaining at the centre of the tube, looking through it. It is simply due to the fact that there is a FOV, that they eye doesn't just magically see in 1D along a line, it has a FOV. This allows this eye to see a small amount in all directions around straight out level. This includes up and down.
The blue line is just one of many such lines.
The limits are the 2 red lines.
This shows were a beam of light would just miss the wall of the tube and instead enter through the end. Light from anywhere in the region bounded by the 2 red lines would be able to travel into the tube and reach the eye.
Importantly note that this includes regions below the level of the tube.
There can be an object below the tube (such as the ground) which has light scatter off it (or projects its own light) which travels along the blue line and hits the eye.
This means the eye can see that object.
That means you can see the ground when looking through a level tube, even with that ground below the tube (as long as it is in the FOV).
And would you look at that. It was already answered in the very post you quoted. But of course, you need something to pretend to attack so you just dishonestly remove it from the quote and then pretend I never made it clear.
It has been made abundantly clear that we are talking about the view through a simple tube. A tube, without any lens, which you are using your eye (or a camera) to look through.
Now stop playing dumb and either accept you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue eye from reaching the eye.
-
For genuine people out there they see you dodging and avoiding while jackB and Jja have provided diagrams and photos.
Whos being disingeuous?
Whos hiding from expsoing the big con?
Whos unwilling to stand up (and to point you seem willing enough to talk endlessly!)?
-
Again, the diagram is incredibly simple. Even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you continue to pretend you can't?
Here it is again, see if you can figure it out this time:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
We can clearly see the eye is at the middle of the tube, and the tube is level.
So this is clearly the exact situation you started going down this rabbit hole with.
Now stop playing dumb and either accept you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue eye from reaching the eye.
How about you simply tell me if you are using the naked eye FOV or the scope curve FOV or the actual simple tube that I set out for you.
A simple enough question to answer....right?
Yes, an extremely simple one.
Does this help:
Again, the diagram is incredibly simple. Even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you continue to pretend you can't?
Here it is again, see if you can figure it out this time:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
This is a side on, cross sectional view.
On the left, there is an eye, to represent the eye of the person looking through the tube. The tube is the purple box.
The left and right side of the tube are entirely open. They are the ends of the tube, i.e. the holes.
The top and bottom of the rectangle would be solid, the walls of the tube.
I even have a purple line extended out level with the bottom of the tube.
We can clearly see the eye is at the middle of the tube, and the tube is level.
So this is clearly the exact situation you started going down this rabbit hole with.
The solid coloured lines indicate different potential paths for light to travel along.
We can see the green, travelling level, just goes straight in to the eye. This means light travelling along it will travel along just fine and reach the eye, allowing you to see an object in that direction.
We see the orange travels up and enters the box from the bottom. This would indicate it hits the wall of the tube. Assuming the wall of the tube is opaque, this means the wall of the tube will block the light and stop it reaching the eye. This means you cannot see an object through this particular level tube in the direction of the orange line.
But they are not the only options.
There is also the blue line. This line passes through the end of the tube. It does not hit the wall of the tube and thus there is no reason for light travelling along it to be stopped. It will travel, just like the green line, entering the end of the tube and reaching the eye. This means through this tube, you can see light coming in from the direction of the blue line.
Note this is not moving the eye up to the top of the tube and looking down. This is the eye remaining at the centre of the tube, looking through it. It is simply due to the fact that there is a FOV, that they eye doesn't just magically see in 1D along a line, it has a FOV. This allows this eye to see a small amount in all directions around straight out level. This includes up and down.
The blue line is just one of many such lines.
The limits are the 2 red lines.
This shows were a beam of light would just miss the wall of the tube and instead enter through the end. Light from anywhere in the region bounded by the 2 red lines would be able to travel into the tube and reach the eye.
Importantly note that this includes regions below the level of the tube.
There can be an object below the tube (such as the ground) which has light scatter off it (or projects its own light) which travels along the blue line and hits the eye.
This means the eye can see that object.
That means you can see the ground when looking through a level tube, even with that ground below the tube (as long as it is in the FOV).
And would you look at that. It was already answered in the very post you quoted. But of course, you need something to pretend to attack so you just dishonestly remove it from the quote and then pretend I never made it clear.
It has been made abundantly clear that we are talking about the view through a simple tube. A tube, without any lens, which you are using your eye (or a camera) to look through.
Now stop playing dumb and either accept you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue eye from reaching the eye.
As soon as you limit what you put in your post, I'll respond.
-
For genuine people out there they see you dodging and avoiding while jackB and Jja have provided diagrams and photos.
Whos being disingeuous?
Whos hiding from expsoing the big con?
Whos unwilling to stand up (and to point you seem willing enough to talk endlessly!)?
Do you actually have anything to say?
-
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
Claiming everyone else who actually performs experiments is wrong... without getting off your backside to prove it with experiments of your own is, what? Nothing to crow about. You say a lot, and repeat it constantly, but haven't shown any of it to be true.
-
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
Claiming everyone else who actually performs experiments is wrong... without getting off your backside to prove it with experiments of your own is, what? Nothing to crow about. You say a lot, and repeat it constantly, but haven't shown any of it to be true.
That's down to you people to prove stuff to yourselves.
Whether you do it and feel silly for admitting it on a forum, I'm not sure.
Any honest person can see what I'm getting at if they follow the instruction genuinely.
-
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
Claiming everyone else who actually performs experiments is wrong... without getting off your backside to prove it with experiments of your own is, what? Nothing to crow about. You say a lot, and repeat it constantly, but haven't shown any of it to be true.
That's down to you people to prove stuff to yourselves.
Whether you do it and feel silly for admitting it on a forum, I'm not sure.
Any honest person can see what I'm getting at if they follow the instruction genuinely.
You are right, it's up to us to prove things. And I proved you wrong with my experiments and photographs of it. Anyone can do your experiment and show you wrong, yes. You seem to be the only one not doing it... I wonder why. All you can do is say people are cheating, lying, being dishonest. Follow your own instructions, or explain why you can't.
-
By pure deduction
Sceppy is the only one who holds his particular beliefs while the rest are indoctrined or liars.
So the only honest person is sceppy.
So the only person able to perform his experiemt is himself.
And since he misuses english all the tine, he is also the only person able to show by what he says here and also to point out to us, what hes attempting to explain.
So - lets have it then
-
As soon as you limit what you put in your post, I'll respond.
So you can then pretend I haven't answered something already covered in the post, like last time?
This is your one chance at that. No playing dumb, no asking stupid questions which have already been answered, no bringing up objections which have already been refuted.
Directly address the issue or you throw away this chance.
Again, I have made it clear that we are discussing a simple tube, with your eye at one end of the tube, in the middle, with the tube level.
Now again, either admit you are wrong or explain what magic stops the blue line.
Any honest person can see what I'm getting at if they follow the instruction genuinely.
Any honest person can see that you are blatantly lying.
By doing the experiment themselves which shows you are completely wrong, by analysing your claims and seeing that they contradict each other, and by simple logic and how you repeatedly avoid simple questions.
-
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
Claiming everyone else who actually performs experiments is wrong... without getting off your backside to prove it with experiments of your own is, what? Nothing to crow about. You say a lot, and repeat it constantly, but haven't shown any of it to be true.
That's down to you people to prove stuff to yourselves.
Whether you do it and feel silly for admitting it on a forum, I'm not sure.
Any honest person can see what I'm getting at if they follow the instruction genuinely.
Sceptimatic, will you accept the results of any experiments regarding the horizon out at sea, using a surveyors instrument called a theodolite?
Not a bought one, but a homemade theodolite. What do you reckon?
Water always finds it's level! Right? Right? ;)
-
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
Claiming everyone else who actually performs experiments is wrong... without getting off your backside to prove it with experiments of your own is, what? Nothing to crow about. You say a lot, and repeat it constantly, but haven't shown any of it to be true.
That's down to you people to prove stuff to yourselves.
Whether you do it and feel silly for admitting it on a forum, I'm not sure.
Any honest person can see what I'm getting at if they follow the instruction genuinely.
Sceptimatic, will you accept the results of any experiments regarding the horizon out at sea, using a surveyors instrument called a theodolite?
Not a bought one, but a homemade theodolite. What do you reckon?
Water always finds it's level! Right? Right? ;)
If you're willing to do the experiments then be willing to follow instructions if I pick at them and ask you to tweak them....all in fairness.
JJA could easily tweak his but backed out.
Are you willing to go the extra mile?
-
Extra mile?
You didt even sign up for the race.
Garbage.
-
JJA could easily tweak his but backed out.
Are you willing to go the extra mile?
Are you willing to go the first mile and actually perform your own experiment and show us exactly how you think it should be done? Prove us all wrong. Why are you so afraid to try?
-
If you want to make this experiment in any way scientific then a consensus needs to be reached on how it is done and what equipment is used. That way everyone would do the experiment using the same equipment and using the same method. You could then even draw a scale diagram with figures and angles which allows you to predict what the result will be. For example, referencing JBs diagram you would be able to predict how far ahead the intersection point would be between the blue line and the ground. Scepti seems to be claiming that you cannot see the ground when looking through the tube (no intersection between the ground and the blue line) but JBs diagram predicts you clearly can. One is right, one is wrong. Both cannot be right.
The angle the blue line makes with the horizonal is defined by both the length and the diameter of the tube. For the ground not to be visible then the ground would need to slope away at the same angle as the blue line. Otherwise the ground is definitely going to come into view at some distance ahead of the line of sight of where the tube it. That distance will depend on the height of the tube off the ground. Assuming the ground is level and parallel with the tube.
As a for instance you could use a piece of A4 card or paper to make the tube. That would mean everyone was using the same size tube. It could be rolled up along the long edge for instance to make a particular diameter and then placed on a levelled tripod so it was say 2m off the ground. Photographic tripods are easily adjustable so this would be no great problem to achieve.
So we have a tube of x mm length and y mm diameter which is placed on the tripod head platform with the lower side (bottom of tube) z mm off the ground. You can use a spirit level to make sure the tripod head is level. The tube is therefore placed where the camera normally would be.
You can now draw a scaled diagram which illustrates this setup and you can use simple geometry to calculate how far ahead of where the tripod is the ground should start to appear. That can then be confirmed by actual measurement.
The experiment could then be repeated by using another piece of white card rolled around the short edge and after that by doubling the diameter. Each time you can calculate and then measure how each change in the set up affects the distance to the point where the ground starts to appear. It will be the same for everyone so that removes any potential for 'duping'. If you don't believe what one person says then you can do it yourself to verify it personally.
We can then compare Sceptimatics hypothesis against ours. In short no single person (Sceptimatic included) dictates how the experiment should be carried out or the equipment that is used. If one person is dictating the equipment used and/or the method used then they are also controlling the potential result and that cannot be allowed. Instead we all reach a common agreement and it is therefore a fair test. Pretty much everyone has access to a photographic tripod (or two) and everyone has access to A4 white card or paper.
-
If you're willing to do the experiments then be willing to follow instructions if I pick at them and ask you to tweak them....all in fairness.
JJA could easily tweak his but backed out.
He "backed out" because you provided no justification for why you thought his first result was false and instead dismissed it just because it showed you were wrong.
And more importantly, all your needless complications did was make the experiment harder to carry out and reduce the FOV.
Your additions in no way help to establish that the tube is level, and further removes it from your claim.
And you had repeatedly refused to provide a list of requirements where you would then simply accept the results. You made it clear you always want a way out to dismiss the results.
You have shown that you are not willing to accept any evidence provided by anyone if it shows you are wrong.
If it shows you are wrong you will simply dismiss it as fake with no justification, and when pressed make up excuses and throw in needless complexities.
So why bother doing a more complex setup which he didn't even have everything for, just for you to dismiss it again?
But a similar claim of yours can be made against you.
You claimed were happy to discuss things, but then when you had no answer, you fled.
Even now you do that.
You were provided with a simple diagram which proves you are wrong. You were asked a simple question to show that. But rather than respond honestly and rationally by admitting you are wrong or answering the question/refuting the argument, you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid it.
Even repeatedly playing dumb and asking questions where the answer is already abundantly clear, even by simply reading the post you asked the question for.
And that just further shows how pathetic your position is.
Again, deal with the issues presented.
Either accept that you are wrong or explain what magic stops the light travelling along the blue line from reaching the eye.
-
Extra mile?
You didt even sign up for the race.
Garbage.
You're still waiting for the starter pistol to fire whilst the race is already underway.
-
If you want to make this experiment in any way scientific then a consensus needs to be reached on how it is done and what equipment is used. That way everyone would do the experiment using the same equipment and using the same method. You could then even draw a scale diagram with figures and angles which allows you to predict what the result will be. For example, referencing JBs diagram you would be able to predict how far ahead the intersection point would be between the blue line and the ground. Scepti seems to be claiming that you cannot see the ground when looking through the tube (no intersection between the ground and the blue line) but JBs diagram predicts you clearly can. One is right, one is wrong. Both cannot be right.
The angle the blue line makes with the horizonal is defined by both the length and the diameter of the tube. For the ground not to be visible then the ground would need to slope away at the same angle as the blue line. Otherwise the ground is definitely going to come into view at some distance ahead of the line of sight of where the tube it. That distance will depend on the height of the tube off the ground. Assuming the ground is level and parallel with the tube.
As a for instance you could use a piece of A4 card or paper to make the tube. That would mean everyone was using the same size tube. It could be rolled up along the long edge for instance to make a particular diameter and then placed on a levelled tripod so it was say 2m off the ground. Photographic tripods are easily adjustable so this would be no great problem to achieve.
So we have a tube of x mm length and y mm diameter which is placed on the tripod head platform with the lower side (bottom of tube) z mm off the ground. You can use a spirit level to make sure the tripod head is level. The tube is therefore placed where the camera normally would be.
You can now draw a scaled diagram which illustrates this setup and you can use simple geometry to calculate how far ahead of where the tripod is the ground should start to appear. That can then be confirmed by actual measurement.
The experiment could then be repeated by using another piece of white card rolled around the short edge and after that by doubling the diameter. Each time you can calculate and then measure how each change in the set up affects the distance to the point where the ground starts to appear. It will be the same for everyone so that removes any potential for 'duping'. If you don't believe what one person says then you can do it yourself to verify it personally.
We can then compare Sceptimatics hypothesis against ours. In short no single person (Sceptimatic included) dictates how the experiment should be carried out or the equipment that is used. If one person is dictating the equipment used and/or the method used then they are also controlling the potential result and that cannot be allowed. Instead we all reach a common agreement and it is therefore a fair test. Pretty much everyone has access to a photographic tripod (or two) and everyone has access to A4 white card or paper.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZypQLLQ/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
If you're willing to do the experiments then be willing to follow instructions if I pick at them and ask you to tweak them....all in fairness.
JJA could easily tweak his but backed out.
He "backed out" because you provided no justification for why you thought his first result was false and instead
He backed out because I backed him into a corner and he wasn't expecting it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZypQLLQ/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
If you're willing to do the experiments then be willing to follow instructions if I pick at them and ask you to tweak them....all in fairness.
JJA could easily tweak his but backed out.
He "backed out" because you provided no justification for why you thought his first result was false and instead
He backed out because I backed him into a corner and he wasn't expecting it.
Actually, I'm the only one between the two of us who stepped up to the challenge. You still haven't even performed your own experiment. So when are you going to show your photos? You certainly wouldn't be claiming everyone elses experiment is wrong if you haven't performed and documented it yourself first, would you?
-
You're still waiting for the starter pistol to fire whilst the race is already underway.
No, we are waiting at the finish line while you haven't even started.
He backed out because I backed him into a corner and he wasn't expecting it.
The only one backed into a corner is you.
And now that you are backed into the corner you are thrashing about, using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting you are wrong.
He provided experiment showing you are wrong.
You had no rebuttal so instead just thrashed out, dismissing it as fake and throwing in a bunch of needless BS.
You have failed to justify how this needless BS will change anything and as such it just shows that you are making excuses.
As you have already dismissed his evidence as fake, why would he waste time getting more resources to show you are wrong yet again just for you to dismiss it as fake again?
And this attitude and complete failure of a position of yours is also shown by you repeatedly using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid answering simple questions, and you not even providing your own evidence to counter his.
You have literally nothing except your outright lies.
You have no logic backing you up. You have no experimental evidence backing you up. All you have are your repeated lies and insults.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
This is an extremely simple question which you refuse to answer because you know as soon as you do you will have shown yourself to be wrong.
Now grow up, stop with the pathetic dishonest BS, stop playing dumb and either admit you are wrong or explain what magic stop the blue line.
-
Getting up off a backside to play games and produce something which does not match reality, is not a real experiment, no matter how much you want to crow about it.
Claiming everyone else who actually performs experiments is wrong... without getting off your backside to prove it with experiments of your own is, what? Nothing to crow about. You say a lot, and repeat it constantly, but haven't shown any of it to be true.
That's down to you people to prove stuff to yourselves.
Whether you do it and feel silly for admitting it on a forum, I'm not sure.
Any honest person can see what I'm getting at if they follow the instruction genuinely.
Sceptimatic, will you accept the results of any experiments regarding the horizon out at sea, using a surveyors instrument called a theodolite?
Not a bought one, but a homemade theodolite. What do you reckon?
Water always finds it's level! Right? Right? ;)
If you're willing to do the experiments then be willing to follow instructions if I pick at them and ask you to tweak them....all in fairness.
JJA could easily tweak his but backed out.
Are you willing to go the extra mile?
Yes, that's totally fine. But I need to know beforehand, we are on the same page regarding perspective, the horizon, and the principles behind how a theodolite works.
Otherwise, I'd just be wasting my time and your time.
Shall we go over perspective principles first?
-
Yes, that's totally fine. But I need to know beforehand, we are on the same page regarding perspective, the horizon, and the principles behind how a theodolite works.
Otherwise, I'd just be wasting my time and your time.
Shall we go over perspective principles first?
If you feel you need to cover a few things before you start, to clarify, then do so.
Remember, I see what I see by how I described.
If you think it's different and can prove it in any way and accepting that I will severely questioning anything yo do put out if I see any discrepancies from my side.
If you can get past that and then show me something legitimate, I'll be only too willing to take on that mantle.
Let's see what you've got.
-
If you think it's different and can prove it in any way and accepting that I will severely questioning anything yo do put out if I see any discrepancies from my side.
You mean like it not showing what you claim is correct?
i.e. if it shows you are wrong you will dismiss it as fake.
The only one refusing to provide anything legitimate is you.
You can't even answer a simple question.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Unless you can answer that, your claims are BS.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
:D
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
That's not an explanation, it's just a few words strung together that don't even make a point. How does a crosshair stop the blue line? How does the level part stop the blue line? Nothing you said has any effect on the blue line. The tube can be pointed in any direction, you can put as many crosshairs as you want on it and the blue line won't change one bit.
-
As I attempted to clarify dozens of pages ago, and scepti has now explicitly confirmed, the answer is the tubes themselves.
Blackjacks "diagram" is rubbish, because it does not depict the ground curving away from the observer (in fact, it doesn't have the ground depicted at all).
If you add the, supposed, curving ground you should understand why the tubes effectively crop the image you observe (even though, yes, the pressure wave of light expands spherically from/into the end of the tube, and includes details from below the tube (but only from farther and farther away, until ultimately, all you see is sky because the ground isn't physically there - which is what you and the other globe proponents believe as a result of conditioning through rote under the guise of education...)
Scepti's point, is your expectation based on belief does not match reality. The horizon is not the physical edge of anything but our vision. It is an optical illusion.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
So back to pretending we only see in 1D with no FOV?
Remember, we see a range of angles.
I'm not claiming the ground is seen at level, just that it can be seen.
If not, care to explain how central vision through a level tube stops it?
-
As I attempted to clarify dozens of pages ago, and scepti has now explicitly confirmed, the answer is the tubes themselves.
You mean you avoided saying you agree with what he is claiming due to just what it is he was claiming?
Blackjacks "diagram" is rubbish, because it does not depict the ground curving away from the observer (in fact, it doesn't have the ground depicted at all).
Because that curvature has nothing at all to do with his argument.
He is claiming that you cannot see the ground simply because it is below the level of the tube and that the tube magically makes you see parallel, as already shown by his quotes:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
He is claiming that there is no real FOV through a tube, that instead of having an angular FOV, your vision magically changes so when you look through a 1 inch tube all you see is 1 inch of any object.
And that is pure garbage.
So as the ground is entirely irrelevant, my diagram (this one anyone) just shows the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you think the blue line is magically stopped?
Or do you think it is able to reach the eye allowing you to see objects below the line?
We can clearly see that the orange line is stopped by the wall of the tube, but not the blue line.
The blue line should be able to go straight to the eye.
That means he is wrong and you can see below the tube.
If you add the, supposed, curving ground you should understand why the tubes effectively crop the image you observe
No, you don't.
This is a too-scale diagram of a 10 degree FOV for someone 2 m above the round surface of Earth (with a radius of 6371 km):
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Now, I know what you are thinking, that doesn't look curved. But the curvature at this scale is a tiny fraction of a pixel.
The curvature, at least over small distances, can be approximated by h=d^2/(2*R), and for 30 m (well beyond the point where the 10 degree FOV hits the ground), that equates to 0.00007 m, or 0.007 cm. Each pixel in that image is 2 cm. That means the drop over that distance is ~0.0035 px.
So no, the curvature of the ground doesn't magically hide it from view, due to just how small that curvature is.
and includes details from below the tube
And with that you admit he is wrong.
He is claiming you do not see the ground because it is below the tube, and that the blue line in my diagram is magically stopped.
but only from farther and farther away, until ultimately, all you see is sky because the ground isn't physically there
For the RE, with an observer elevation of 2 m, you need a FOV less than 5.4 arc minutes to achieve that.
You do not achieve that with a simple tube like he is suggesting, so that is clearly no the case.
Here is a diagram showing it in terms of angular position and distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
It just has a single line for Earth, as the curvature is insignificant at this point as I didn't add a separate one for the Flat Earth claim.
If you would like one which does show a difference, then here is one showing the physical and angular position, showing how until the horizon, perspective is more significant that the curvature and results in even a round Earth coming into view for all bar the tiniest of tubes/scopes, with the RE having a peak angular position of ~-0.05 degrees (-2.7 minutes of arc).
It doesn't magically instantly curve away and out of your FOV like FEers which to claim.
believe as a result of conditioning through rote under the guise of education
No, it is by actually thinking about it and testing things ourselves, rather than just accepting whatever nonsense a FEer claims.
Scepti's point, is your expectation based on belief does not match reality. The horizon is not the physical edge of anything but our vision. It is an optical illusion.
And he is entirely wrong.
Just what magic is there to stop our vision?
Again, if this was the case you would have a region of darkness, or a blur for things further than this magical limit.
The fact we can see a clear horizon shows that is not the case.
The fact objects appear to sink as they go over the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up shows that is not the case.
Perhaps you can try to defend his nonsense for him.
If you would like to go down the current path, you can start by either admitting that nothing stops the blue line, that he is wrong and that you can see objects below the tube, or you can try to defend his claim and explain just what magic stops the blue to prevent you from seeing objects below the level of the tube.
Alternatively, to go down the other path, you can either accept that RE does have a horizon, and explain just where it should be located visually (i.e. what angle, including a formula if required) and from that explain if it should be visible through a level tube/scope or not based upon the FOV of that tube, or you can explain what magic prevents it from having a horizon given that basically every other ball has a clearly visible edge (i.e. horizon).
And then maybe also address the photos from earlier in the thread showing the horizon below eye level, exactly as you would expect on a RE.
-
And if you would prefer a side on image like the one apparently not showing a curve, then you need to understand that it is not going to be representative of someone standing on Earth a mere 2 m above it. Instead it will be very high. If you wanted to show those 2 m as just 2 pixels, you would still need in image roughly 5000 px wide. To
If you also want to include the tube, a decent size to be able to show the paths of the light, so you have 1 px per mm, then you are looking at an image that is roughly 5 million pixels wide.
So to be able to show it reasonably you will have the observer much higher, and thus also need correspondingly larger FOVs
For example, this image here:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
This shows several FOVs.
But before noting any of them, note that the circle in the diagram used to represent Earth has a radius of around 5000 px.
So for a simple estimate, 1 px is 1 km.
That puts the top observation point roughly 100 km above Earth, and the lower observation point roughly 20 km above Earth.
At the top observation point, the direction to the horizon is shown in purple.
It also has a fairly large FOV of 90 degrees shown in brown.
This FOV includes the direction to the the horizon and thus the ground can be seen as can the horizon.
However at this altitude, the horizon is quite a bit below eye-level.
A much smaller FOV, shown in yellow, doesn't include the direction to the horizon, and thus all you see in that FOV is sky.
However if you move that smaller FOV down to the 20 km observation point, with the direction to the horizon shown in a golden colour, then this smaller FOV is large enough to see the horizon, and the horizon is much closer, and now the direction to the horizon is much closer to eye-level.
Continuing this down to lower and lower elevations, the horizon gets closer and closer to eye-level, and thus can be seen with smaller and smaller FOVs, and the horizon gets closer and closer to you.
The 2 limits are when you are on Earth, with a height of 0, where the horizon is 0 m away at an angle of 0 degrees and thus can be seen with any FOV; and when you are infinitely far away, where the horizon is 1/4 of the way around Earth, at an angle of -90 degrees and thus you need a FOV of 180 degrees to see it looking level.
When you are standing on Earth with an eye height of 2 m. The distance to the horizon is roughly 5 km, the drop is 2 m, and thus the total drop from your eye to the horizon is 4 m, or less than 0.001% of the distance, or at an angle of -2.7 arc minutes.
If you would like a comparison to see if it is level, go stand next to a wall and mark where your eye level is. Then go and make a mark 4 mm down.
Then go stand roughly 5 m away from it, and see if you can tell which is level.
It works better if you have someone other than you make these marks and also make several more marks at other heights, above and below the existing ones without telling you how many are above and how many are below, with them labelled.
That way you have multiple marks and you don't just pick the top one.
-
Sceptimatic, why can't you answer the question regarding the blue line in this picture?
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
I find it interesting you do not seem to think it is possible for it to reach the eye(s).
No. I said it's impossible for it to reach the eye when looking through a tube that is levelled.
I made it clear enough.
-
maybe you could answer this.
using the round earth theory, staying in the theory whether it be true or not, when seeing past the "edge" of the circle, what's left to see? - sky!
the sky is what you would expect to see.
is that a fair statement or not, strictly within the round earth theory.
Nope.
You're massively neglecting the very thing that creates the horizon, which is atmospheric convergence of light to the eye and has no bearing on any lines of any sort.
Your globe would offer nothing more than sky on a level and nothing more than ground on a downward angle.
Of course you can have a basketball on a table top and look at the diameter against a background but your globe would not offer you this because you would be on it, not looking at it as if it was separate from your view.
Your background would be sky if you were stood on a globe in the scenario you think you're in.
The globe is absolute utter nonsense.
-
So
What
Is
The
Point?
The point is, you cannot see down a curve by using a level tube without having angled lenses.
That's the point. The point I've been making all along.
That point.
You know the one that you fail to see and understand, every time?
By his diagram i assume he is in hopes that the ground angle is such that it dips at auch a hard angle the scope will block this by XX distance.
He even added an arbitrary 5ft to make sure his double tube has sufficient length to block the FIELD OF VIEW.
I assume this is his goal or point rhough he refuses to admit one.
That would mean though, if all lines extend straight, the viewer is on a fricking mountain that extends forever, not a ball earth.
I assume this to be his trick
Edit:
Ha i see jackB has beaten me to it
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Aaah we finally have an admission and restatmeent of the goal!!!
Only took a week.
Here it is sceppy.
Answer to your stupid tu-tube-vertical plumb test 9pg ago.
The earth is not curving away from you in a manner that the curve is beyond the field of view of a toilet tube.
And as youve self admitted and in reality, the higher elevation you go, the further to the horizon you can see - which matches the geometry of a ball.
This is pure geometry and has nothing to do with dupes or cgi or indoctrination.
Its fking circles and triangles.
Your 1inch was disproven long time ago so you pivot to this needless plumb level (horz AND vert for added difficulty) requirement.
Hopefully we can all deny you your 100pg unless you have some more thoughts and insight you feel kike adding.
Because last 15pg have been completr dodges on your part.
Here it is again.
JackBs diagram.
We re not standing on a mountain.
Its a giant ball.
-
Clearly, by applying cross hairs, Sceptimatic's experiment is all about focusing the eye on where the hairs cross, and disregarding peripheral vision.
But, let's keep talking about it, as though it doesn't, so the discussion is still all about the "magical" blue line when this thread hits page 200. Ofcourse, nobody be bothered to move the pupil down to the base of the level tube, to eliminate the blue line altogether. No, it's just too much fun to read post after post about the magical blue line.
Disregard the peripheral vision in the experiment, or move the pupil down or the level tube up. Simple.
-
All this FOV through a tube business could be cleared up once and for all so easily. As I suggested if we all made the same size tube using a simple piece of A4 card or paper and then positioned it so it was level and a certain measured distance off the ground we could then both calculate and then measure how far ahead the ground would first come into view.
There would be no question of anyone (by that I actually mean Sceptimatic) being 'duped' because we (including him) could all check the result for ourselves. The experiment would be repeatable and verifiable which is the basis for all scientific investigations.
Having two tubes each with a crosshair is pointless and proves nothing. Especially as you would have to make sure the two tubes are of absolutely identical diameter with the crosshairs both positioned in EXACTLY the same position. One tube positioned level and a measured distance above the ground is all you need for this as JBs diagram shows more than adequately. We all do the same experiment in the same way with the same equipment. Everyone can first calculate and then verify by measurement the result. Scepti can't argue or dispute the result (well he can try) because it can be checked by anyone quickly and simply.
The length of the tube will be either 210mm or 297mm depending on whether we roll along the short edge or the long edge. The angle the red line makes with the horizontal will be the tangent of the length of the tube and half the diameter of the tube.
-
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)
You mean you avoided saying you agree with what he is claiming due to just what it is he was claiming?
Not particularly. I have no aversion to agreeing with and/or claiming wild things. I am still evaluating the claim, but so far it does seem sound. There may well be other physical/optical limitations that exist that make the "proof" impractical in reality (as I think you are getting at, in a profoundly round about way).
However the logic/reason in scepti's original posit is sound. If the earth is actually a sphere, then by zooming and/or center cropping while observing parallel to the surface we stand on (that convexly curves away/below the observer) we should expect to (at some point/distance, and THIS is the potential hangup in my view) see nothing but sky.
Because the horizon does appear to drop with altitude, I think we have already confirmed (in potentia / thought experiment / imagination) that the observation scepti is claiming CAN'T be obtained (i.e. seeing no ground/only sky in the level view) might well be possible from a tall mountain or balloon. Another way to say this, is that by adjusting the observer height into the extreme - scepti's posit could possibly be refuted.
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
I think this is just an example of oversimplification, but could also involve some misunderstanding/alternate conception. Only further discussion with scepti will flesh that out. In my view, the sight from the tube should be conical, not parallel like a focused/columnated laser - but this is mostly a pedantic/anal criticism that doesn't have relevance to scepti's claim/posit (unless you go all the way with it, and claim/argue that that is in fact the crux of it)
Because that curvature has nothing at all to do with his argument.
You are getting bogged down in the details about the tube diagram. Scepti's posit is that on a sphere earth, because of the convex curve down away from the observer, a zoomed in or center cropped level view of the horizon ought to (at some point) show only sky and have the ground beneath the observer (out of sight / not visible) at that distance.
He is claiming that there is no real FOV through a tube, that instead of having an angular FOV, your vision magically changes so when you look through a 1 inch tube all you see is 1 inch of any object.
And that is pure garbage.
Agreed. I think this is more to do with adversarial posturing / approach and oversimplification than it does to genuine misunderstanding or misrepresentation. We'll wait for scepti on that. Perhaps they have an alternative understanding than either of ours - we'll never know if we don't ask! The goal should be communication, the exchange of knowledge. Adversarial approach is across purposes to that.
So as the ground is entirely irrelevant, my diagram (this one anyone) just shows the tube.
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
Do you think the blue line is magically stopped?
Or do you think it is able to reach the eye allowing you to see objects below the line?
I see how you have locked yourself into this reduction, avoiding the main/original posit. Do you?
Your point is valid, and you should ask scepti the direct question in an earnestly inquisitive manner! If you think that repeatedly "center cropping" through the use of multiple tubes (or zooming with lenses) will never be able to fully omit the light from the distant ground - it is on YOU to articulate how/why you think this is so.
That means he is wrong and you can see below the tube.
I wonder. It is easy to be mistaken, but it is also easy to oversimplify and end up in an apparently equivalent position. It is a tall order to claim that the tube would prevent all view of everything below it even at great distance, especially when one understands perspective or knows about what camera obscura / a pinhole camera is. Then again, this reasoning is based upon my (perhaps our) assumptions and understandings/conceptions, and scepti might have a completely different view! Best to ask.
So no, the curvature of the ground doesn't magically hide it from view, due to just how small that curvature is.
So you are saying we need more tubes, right? Not that what scepti is proposing wouldn't work, just that it doesn't work because you require too many tubes to accomplish no longer seeing any ground/surface?
And with that you admit he is wrong.
I admit that clarification is needed, and and repeat that an adversarial approach is hindering communication (that clarification, in this instance)
For the RE, with an observer elevation of 2 m, you need a FOV less than 5.4 arc minutes to achieve that.
You do not achieve that with a simple tube like he is suggesting, so that is clearly no the case.
I wonder if you could expound on your reasoning here. I do not see why a tube of specific size and shape could not be crafted to ensure that the observers fov was limited to any arbitrary extent. Right?
-
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)
It doesn't magically instantly curve away and out of your FOV like FEers which to claim.
Well, of course it does and it MUST for the earth to be spherical - but I appreciate the caveat that this "instant curve away" is supposed to begin at the horizon. In fact everyone does, because everyone is taught the same thing in this regard - through rote.
No, it is by actually thinking about it and testing things ourselves, rather than just accepting whatever nonsense a FEer claims.
And you think the conditioning by rote HELPED you to actually think and test? Rote is designed to avoid such inconveniences/hinderances to "learning". Critical testing, thinking, and education take too long and are too expensive.
And he is entirely wrong.
Perhaps, but the reasons they are wrong are much more valuable than the judgement itself. In the case of your "what stops the blue line", we'll see.
In the case of the original posit, it is on you to explain your reasoning for why scepti is wrong (as far as I can tell so far, they are not wrong) and why you can, in fact, zoom or crop beyond the horizon. So far as I know, this cannot be done and has never been done.
Just what magic is there to stop our vision?
The "magic" is a confluence of things, but primarily it is the shape of our lenses and the finite density of light receptors in the eye. This is what causes angular resolution limits, and the apparent sphericity of our individual/personal frame of reference. The horizon is an aggregation of light that our eyes cannot resolve into any clear object (because they are too distant, and/or only a small part of their light reaches us / excites a receptor)
Optics are tricky, and there is more than one principle at work in what we see. The other chief reasons are generally lights interaction with matter (refraction/diffraction/reflection/absorption/emission).
The highest density, most water vapor/particulate laden, air is near the surface of the water (typically) and typically it diminishes in density as you increase in altitude. This density gradient causes a downward convex curve on light traveling through it (from least dense to dense, as sunlight traverses it - or light from a distant tall object). The bottom of the ship disappears first, chiefly because this light is diverted into the water/shore at the feet of the observer and/or no longer reaches the observer at all due to absorption/reflection/diffraction etc.
Again, if this was the case you would have a region of darkness, or a blur for things further than this magical limit.
We do indeed have this blur. It is known in astronomy as the principle of angular resolution, but you see it every time you look at a point light source and defocus your eyes (either further or closer). The light spreads and blurs, unless you can resolve the disparate light back into an object once more.
The fact we can see a clear horizon shows that is not the case.
We don't see a clear horizon, we only think we do. Optical illusions are always at play, and the more air you look through the more pronounced the ones caused by physical interaction with matter will become.
The fact objects appear to sink as they go over the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up shows that is not the case.
This is commonly misunderstood. Have you given the wiki a once over yet? It is well worth it to familiarize yourself with some of the alternative conceptions floating around about that effect and its actual cause. The effect is real - the interpretation relies on unvalidated assumptions (as most all globe "proofs" do)
Perhaps you can try to defend his nonsense for him.
I can only explain the parts that I understand (or think I do, at least). I cannot speak for them or defend their position. I CAN defend their posit, which seems sound.
And then maybe also address the photos from earlier in the thread showing the horizon below eye level, exactly as you would expect on a RE.
I do not doubt the observations that the horizon changes in apparent height from elevation. The presumed cause for this is the density gradient in the air through which the light is traveling, which also enables you to see further from elevation. The believed spherical shape of the earth is not required for either phenomenon to be understood.
-
@smokemachine
Right. It's enough to make some wonder - why do that?
Had I read your succinct distillation of 100+ pages first, I may not have posted almost any of my further attempted explanation to blackjack.
-
Sceppy chose the premise snd size of tube.
His assertion is his alone and hes dug his heels in.
It was askes for specifics of the tube as a long narrow straw would better suit his intent, but he dismisses it insteas opting for two tubes 5ft appaet with a useles added bertical plumb line - proving it clear he just making up shit to over compkicate and allow him to later dismiss any others efforts to complete the experiemtn.
And if we are misunderstadning him it is his own doing as he refuses to elaborate or provide photographs of his "experiment" or use conventional english.
2nd.
I agreed the level-1d- viewing of his drawing.
As noted his drawing is not to scale and he was given a youtube link with a 3d simulation time stamp matching hus diagram.
He debunked himself.
He said altitude didnt matter and claimed rhebhorizon always rises to eye level regardless of persons altitrude.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
That's not an explanation, it's just a few words strung together that don't even make a point. How does a crosshair stop the blue line? How does the level part stop the blue line? Nothing you said has any effect on the blue line. The tube can be pointed in any direction, you can put as many crosshairs as you want on it and the blue line won't change one bit.
The crosshair doesn't The actual view from the centre of it to centre through a level tube will take away the angle you people are using.
Just look at the diagram instead of pretending you don't understand.
-
As I attempted to clarify dozens of pages ago, and scepti has now explicitly confirmed, the answer is the tubes themselves.
Blackjacks "diagram" is rubbish, because it does not depict the ground curving away from the observer (in fact, it doesn't have the ground depicted at all).
If you add the, supposed, curving ground you should understand why the tubes effectively crop the image you observe (even though, yes, the pressure wave of light expands spherically from/into the end of the tube, and includes details from below the tube (but only from farther and farther away, until ultimately, all you see is sky because the ground isn't physically there - which is what you and the other globe proponents believe as a result of conditioning through rote under the guise of education...)
Scepti's point, is your expectation based on belief does not match reality. The horizon is not the physical edge of anything but our vision. It is an optical illusion.
Bravo.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
So back to pretending we only see in 1D with no FOV?
Remember, we see a range of angles.
I'm not claiming the ground is seen at level, just that it can be seen.
If not, care to explain how central vision through a level tube stops it?
Do my experiment.
-
Sceppy chose the premise snd size of tube.
His assertion is his alone and hes dug his heels in.
It was askes for specifics of the tube as a long narrow straw would better suit his intent, but he dismisses it insteas opting for two tubes 5ft appaet with a useles added bertical plumb line - proving it clear he just making up shit to over compkicate and allow him to later dismiss any others efforts to complete the experiemtn.
And if we are misunderstadning him it is his own doing as he refuses to elaborate or provide photographs of his "experiment" or use conventional english.
2nd.
I agreed the level-1d- viewing of his drawing.
As noted his drawing is not to scale and he was given a youtube link with a 3d simulation time stamp matching hus diagram.
He debunked himself.
He said altitude didnt matter and claimed rhebhorizon always rises to eye level regardless of persons altitrude.
Horizon has to be at eye level. The horizon is your eye level.
It's not a physical thing, it's a convergence of light to darker and has to hit eye point. Focal point.
It doesn't rise to meet eye level, it is always at eye level.
-
Sceppy chose the premise snd size of tube.
His assertion is his alone and hes dug his heels in.
It was askes for specifics of the tube as a long narrow straw would better suit his intent, but he dismisses it insteas opting for two tubes 5ft appaet with a useles added bertical plumb line - proving it clear he just making up shit to over compkicate and allow him to later dismiss any others efforts to complete the experiemtn.
And if we are misunderstadning him it is his own doing as he refuses to elaborate or provide photographs of his "experiment" or use conventional english.
2nd.
I agreed the level-1d- viewing of his drawing.
As noted his drawing is not to scale and he was given a youtube link with a 3d simulation time stamp matching hus diagram.
He debunked himself.
He said altitude didnt matter and claimed rhebhorizon always rises to eye level regardless of persons altitrude.
Horizon has to be at eye level. The horizon is your eye level.
It's not a physical thing, it's a convergence of light to darker and has to hit eye point. Focal point.
It doesn't rise to meet eye level, it is always at eye level.
This is true if you are talking about the Astronomical Horizon, which is defined as the plane perpendicular to your up and down, and used in perspective drawing. You can use a plumb bob to work out your exact up and down if you feel fit. This horizon is always at your eye level. Perspective drawing in this sense, simplifies the world as being flat. It doesn't consider the implications of earth curvature, and at the ground level the difference is negligible anyway.
The True Horizon, however is defined as that horizontal line out at sea separating water from sky or land from sky on a particularly flattish plane.
At ground level, the Astronomical Horizon and True Horizon, appear to match up perfectly. At higher altitudes, not so.
In both instances, while the horizon is not a physical thing you can touch, and run your fingers along, it can be photographed, so it is real.
-
Sceppy chose the premise snd size of tube.
His assertion is his alone and hes dug his heels in.
It was askes for specifics of the tube as a long narrow straw would better suit his intent, but he dismisses it insteas opting for two tubes 5ft appaet with a useles added bertical plumb line - proving it clear he just making up shit to over compkicate and allow him to later dismiss any others efforts to complete the experiemtn.
And if we are misunderstadning him it is his own doing as he refuses to elaborate or provide photographs of his "experiment" or use conventional english.
2nd.
I agreed the level-1d- viewing of his drawing.
As noted his drawing is not to scale and he was given a youtube link with a 3d simulation time stamp matching hus diagram.
He debunked himself.
He said altitude didnt matter and claimed rhebhorizon always rises to eye level regardless of persons altitrude.
Horizon has to be at eye level. The horizon is your eye level.
It's not a physical thing, it's a convergence of light to darker and has to hit eye point. Focal point.
It doesn't rise to meet eye level, it is always at eye level.
This is true if you are talking about the Astronomical Horizon, which is defined as the plane perpendicular to your up and down, and used in perspective drawing. You can use a plumb bob to work out your exact up and down if you feel fit. This horizon is always at your eye level. Perspective drawing in this sense, simplifies the world as being flat. It doesn't consider the implications of earth curvature, and at the ground level the difference is negligible anyway.
The True Horizon, however is defined as that horizontal line out at sea separating water from sky or land from sky on a particularly flattish plane.
At ground level, the Astronomical Horizon and True Horizon, appear to match up perfectly. At higher altitudes, not so.
In both instances, while the horizon is not a physical thing you can touch, and run your fingers along, it can be photographed, so it is real.
The sky can be photographed. Anything can be photographed.
Clear water can be photographed...but how can clear water show up?
Shadows of light making backgrounds.
Our eyes distinguish all this as an area close up and as a converging dark to light/light to dark theoretical line.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
So back to pretending we only see in 1D with no FOV?
Remember, we see a range of angles.
I'm not claiming the ground is seen at level, just that it can be seen.
If not, care to explain how central vision through a level tube stops it?
Do my experiment.
We did. Now you need to do it. Why are you afraid to try your own experiment? How can you even know it works the way you think if you won't do it?
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
So back to pretending we only see in 1D with no FOV?
Remember, we see a range of angles.
I'm not claiming the ground is seen at level, just that it can be seen.
If not, care to explain how central vision through a level tube stops it?
Do my experiment.
We did. Now you need to do it. Why are you afraid to try your own experiment? How can you even know it works the way you think if you won't do it?
I know how it works.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Central (crosshair) vision through a level tube.
So back to pretending we only see in 1D with no FOV?
Remember, we see a range of angles.
I'm not claiming the ground is seen at level, just that it can be seen.
If not, care to explain how central vision through a level tube stops it?
Do my experiment.
We did. Now you need to do it. Why are you afraid to try your own experiment? How can you even know it works the way you think if you won't do it?
I know how it works.
No, you don't. If you did the experiment you would see that and we could have saved ourselves 100 pages of this. :-\
-
You mean you avoided saying you agree with what he is claiming due to just what it is he was claiming?
Not particularly. I have no aversion to agreeing with and/or claiming wild things. I am still evaluating the claim, but so far it does seem sound.
So you think the idea that you cannot see any object below the tube is sound?
You sure do seem to love agreeing to wild nonsense.
However the logic/reason in scepti's original posit is sound. If the earth is actually a sphere
No, to support his claim that you magically don't see anything below a tube.
As for the rest, he is saying the FOV doesn't matter, that no matter how large your FOV is, you still magically wont see a horizon on a RE, and instead will see nothing but sky.
Because the horizon does appear to drop with altitude, I think we have already confirmed (in potentia / thought experiment / imagination) that the observation scepti is claiming CAN'T be obtained (i.e. seeing no ground/only sky in the level view) might well be possible from a tall mountain or balloon. Another way to say this, is that by adjusting the observer height into the extreme - scepti's posit could possibly be refuted.
It doesn't really need to be extreme, and it already has been refuted. Quite early on in fact, with a picture clearly showing the horizon below eye level, which he simply dismissed as fake.
I think this is just an example of oversimplification
No, it is an example of exactly what he is claiming.
He is doing this because as soon as he admits there is an actual FOV, and accepts the implications for it, that means accepting you can see the ground and a downwards slope and thus you can also see the ground on a RE.
That then leads to exactly where the horizon would be on the RE, which leads you to conclude when close to sea level it will appear at roughly eye level.
That completely destroys his nonsense.
In my view, the sight from the tube should be conical, not parallel like a focused/columnated laser
That is the very thing he is rejecting, and the very thing which pages have been spent trying to get him to justify.
This is also the basis of his attack on the RE, claiming that as soon as Earth rotates a little bit you magically wont be able to see the sun.
So with that you are saying he is completely wrong.
I see how you have locked yourself into this reduction, avoiding the main/original posit. Do you?
It isn't to avoid the point. It is to try to get him to commit to then move back to the main point.
He is using it to try to pretend it doesn't matter if the RE has an edge or not and instead pretend you should never see the ground.
you should ask scepti the direct question in an earnestly inquisitive manner!
I have. He just plays dumb and uses whatever dishonest BS he can to get out of it.
It is a tall order to claim that the tube would prevent all view of everything below it even at great distance
Yet that is exactly what he claims.
For the RE, with an observer elevation of 2 m, you need a FOV less than 5.4 arc minutes to achieve that.
You do not achieve that with a simple tube like he is suggesting, so that is clearly no the case.
I wonder if you could expound on your reasoning here. I do not see why a tube of specific size and shape could not be crafted to ensure that the observers fov was limited to any arbitrary extent. Right?
Any particular tube has a diameter and a length. This determines its FOV. In order to get down to that 5.4 minutes of arc, you need the diameter of the tube to be less than ~0.16% of the length.
You could hypothetically craft such a tube, such as a tube that is 8 mm wide and 5 m long. But that is not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting just going to the kitchen and getting any old tube from their, like the tube from a roll of paper towel, or toilet paper. That tube does not fit the requirements.
And then to be able to not see the ground, you also need to make sure it is aligned to a level of accuracy depending on the FOV. With exactly that FOV you need it almost perfectly aligned. With a 0 degree FOV you need it aligned to within 2.7 arc minutes.
-
It doesn't magically instantly curve away and out of your FOV like FEers which to claim.
Well, of course it does and it MUST for the earth to be spherical - but I appreciate the caveat that this "instant curve away" is supposed to begin at the horizon.
And that caveat makes all the difference.
It means that just like a flat surface, perspective causes it to appear to rise higher in your vision. Eventually the curvature wins and it curves down in your vision and you get the horizon.
But as soon as you start admitting things like that, it raises questions of where this horizon is, and again, destroys his claims.
And you think the conditioning by rote HELPED you to actually think and test?
No, actual thinking, with lessons where things are explained not simply told.
Just because you learn by rote doesn't mean everyone does.
I find it quite difficult to just remember a bunch of things if I don't understand where it comes from.
In the case of the original posit, it is on you to explain your reasoning for why scepti is wrong
And I explained that quite early on, by explaining why the RE has a horizon which when viewed at sea level is imperceptibly (at least to the human eye) different from eye-level, and how if you go high enough you can easily determine that it is below eye level.
I have also explained why you wouldn't just see nothing but sky.
But that isn't how arguments/debates work.
He made the claim, the burden is on him to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
So far as I know, this cannot be done and has never been done.
This thread already has images showing the horizon clearly below eye level. It doesn't take much to crop it and show the absence of the horizon.
Unless I misunderstood and you mean bring objects hidden by the view? If so, that would be impossible as Earth is getting in the way. The only hope would be refraction.
The "magic" is a confluence of things, but primarily it is the shape of our lenses and the finite density of light receptors in the eye. This is what causes angular resolution limits
Which would then result in the distance to the horizon being dependent upon what optical system is used, and it would always be a blur at the limit of resolution.
You would always be able to get a better optical system and zoom in further.
It also wouldn't explain why objects appear to sink as they go beyond the horizon, which also clearly shows that the horizon is some finite distance away and you can still resolves objects well beyond the distance to the horizon.
So that clearly is not the case.
This density gradient causes a downward convex curve on light traveling through it (from least dense to dense, as sunlight traverses it - or light from a distant tall object). The bottom of the ship disappears first, chiefly because this light is diverted into the water/shore at the feet of the observer and/or no longer reaches the observer at all due to absorption/reflection/diffraction etc.
That is not how refraction works at all.
Light curving downwards makes distant objects appear higher, with the more distant an object is, the higher it will appear.
Assuming a hypothetical flat Earth, with this refraction, the light that would otherwise travel directly to your eyes will be deflected down and end up hitting the water.
However light that was going upwards at a slight angle would then bend down and end up hitting your eye from a higher angle, making the object appear higher.
What you need is the exact opposite, where the density gradient is inverted such that light bends upwards.
This would mean that the light needs to start travelling downwards to curve up and end up hitting your eye. But eventually it has go down so far that it hits the water and is stopped.
We do indeed have this blur.
No, we don't. We can clearly resolve the horizon with objects behind it. It is not the blur you need.
The fact objects appear to sink as they go over the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up shows that is not the case.
This is commonly misunderstood.
Yes, by FEers that claim all sorts of nonsense, which effectively boils down to light magically curves for no reason at all to make Earth appear round, which would then directly contradict the claimed evidence of a Flat Earth of being able to see so far over water, even when right next to the water.
the interpretation relies on unvalidated assumptions
The only "assumption" is that the universe is isotropic. It is using the simpler model rather than trying to throw in a bunch of complexities to save the FE.
Also note that that is why science never deals with "proofs".
I do not doubt the observations that the horizon changes in apparent height from elevation. The presumed cause for this is the density gradient in the air through which the light is traveling
Which would make it appear above eye level, not below.
-
The actual view from the centre of it to centre through a level tube will take away the angle you people are using.
No, it doesn't, because you don't just magically see the direct centre.
As you claim to know, people have a FOV.
That means they see an angular range.
That means that even when looking dead centre through a level tube, they still have an angular FOV and can thus still see things below the ground.
Just look at the diagram instead of pretending you don't understand.
Follow your own advice.
Here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
The thing on the left is an eye, looking dead centre through the tube. But like always, it has a FOV.
The blue is not stopped by the tube, and thus still reaches the eye which detects it and sees the light coming from there.
As such, the eye can still see things below the level of the tube.
Do my experiment.
Do it yourself.
I have no interest in going to all the trouble to do such a useless experiment, that you will still dismiss as fake if it shows you are wrong.
You already have experiment evidence you are wrong, and logic showing you are wrong.
There is no need for any experimental evidence unless it is you providing it to back up your claims.
Conversely, why don't you answer my question?
It is an extremely simple one and your continued avoidance just shows your dishonesty.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Unless you have something to stop it, the eye can see things below the level of the tube.
Horizon has to be at eye level.
Yet it can clearly be observed to be BELOW eye level. SO you are wrong again.
And again, we know the horizon is not caused by convergence.
Why are you afraid to try your own experiment?
I know how it works.
And you know it shows you are wrong. That is why you are afraid. Because if you do it and post your results, you can't call fake on yourself.
-
As for the rest, he is saying the FOV doesn't matter, that no matter how large your FOV is, you still magically wont see a horizon on a RE, and instead will see nothing but sky.
Why so dishonest?
-
The actual view from the centre of it to centre through a level tube will take away the angle you people are using.
No, it doesn't, because you don't just magically see the direct centre.
As you claim to know, people have a FOV.
That means they see an angular range.
You see what is in that diameter of tube.
The only time you'd see ground is if you angled your tube.
From a direct level sight through the tube we are talking about, you will only see whatever you see in that end tube diameter.
If you angle your sight from top of eye piece of the tube to the front bottom end of the tube, you will naturally gain a more angled vision, just as you would if you looked from bottom of the eye piece to the top of the front end piece.
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom, you would never see ground.
The only time you would, would be reflection through a lens or into the actual tube inside if it was reflective.
The tube roll takes this out of the equation.
-
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom, you would never see ground.
So trivially untrue. A circular photoreceptor of diameter D, centered on bottom edge of a leveled tube of length L, would have an observable downward viewing angle equal to: arcsin (D/2L). It would not be zero. With a sufficiently long viewing distance, the ground would be easily observable.
All this is just laughable. It is hard to think there have been more a hundred pages arguing over triangles. Enjoying it, but still hard to believe.
-
He cant prove his own photo.
He can discredit jja photo.
He cant discredit the two 3d simulations provided NOR provide his own drawing.
-
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom, you would never see ground.
So trivially untrue. A circular photoreceptor of diameter D, centered on bottom edge of a leveled tube of length L, would have an observable downward viewing angle equal to: arcsin (D/2L). It would not be zero. With a sufficiently long viewing distance, the ground would be easily observable.
All this is just laughable. It is hard to think there have been more a hundred pages arguing over triangles. Enjoying it, but still hard to believe.
Lets do math! :)
Assuming a 25 inch tube perfectly leveled with the bottom exactly six feet above the ground... a line drawn forward from the bottom edge of the front of the tube will intersect the Earth's curve at 15,837ft away, or a fraction under three miles. That point will be almost exactly 12 feet below the bottom of the tube.
The angle of that line is 0.043418 degrees. Very close to zero but as sobchak said, it's not zero.
Lets project that back 25 inches, and you get a value of 0.018945 inches above the back edge of the tube. Or in more human terms, about 1/50th of an inch.
That is how high from the bottom of the tube you have to get to see the ground from a 25 inch level tube.
For comparison, the human pupil is about 1/10th of an inch. So even if you put your eye LITERALLY level with the bottom of the tube, you could still see the horizon as your pupil is higher than the point where it will appear.
So that's that. You can see the ground even from the bottom of the tube, so that excuse is out the window too. :)
-
Why so dishonest?
Good question. Why are you so dishonest?
Why not just admit you are wrong?
You see what is in that diameter of tube.
The only time you'd see ground is if you angled your tube.
From a direct level sight through the tube we are talking about, you will only see whatever you see in that end tube diameter.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Because unless something stops that, even when looking through the tube centred, you still see things below the tube and that means you CAN see the ground below it.
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom
You wouldn't be looking from the centre.
That is the point.
In order to get what you need and to not see the bottom, you need to look along the bottom of the tube. That changes the FOV, now the lower limit would be a line travelling parallel to the bottom of the tube. Any angle lower would need to pass through the tube to reach your eye.
But again, that isn't what you were telling people to do. If your eye is at the centre you can still see things below the tube. In fact as soon as you raise your eye up at all, you can now see downwards at some angle. You don't need to lift your eye right to the top, even just a tiny bit above the bottom of the tube will allow you to see down.
And for bonus points, you are still wrong, because you can still see objects above the tube when your eye is at the bottom. You are never limited to just the size of the tube. That would require a lens.
The only way for you to be correct is for you to tell us what magic stops the blue line. Unless you can, any time you say we can't see the ground you are just lying.
-
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom, you would never see ground.
So trivially untrue. A circular photoreceptor of diameter D, centered on bottom edge of a leveled tube of length L, would have an observable downward viewing angle equal to: arcsin (D/2L). It would not be zero. With a sufficiently long viewing distance, the ground would be easily observable.
All this is just laughable. It is hard to think there have been more a hundred pages arguing over triangles. Enjoying it, but still hard to believe.
Lets do math! :)
Assuming a 25 inch tube perfectly leveled with the bottom exactly six feet above the ground... a line drawn forward from the bottom edge of the front of the tube will intersect the Earth's curve at 15,837ft away, or a fraction under three miles. That point will be almost exactly 12 feet below the bottom of the tube.
The angle of that line is 0.043418 degrees. Very close to zero but as sobchak said, it's not zero.
Lets project that back 25 inches, and you get a value of 0.018945 inches above the back edge of the tube. Or in more human terms, about 1/50th of an inch.
That is how high from the bottom of the tube you have to get to see the ground from a 25 inch level tube.
For comparison, the human pupil is about 1/10th of an inch. So even if you put your eye LITERALLY level with the bottom of the tube, you could still see the horizon as your pupil is higher than the point where it will appear.
So that's that. You can see the ground even from the bottom of the tube, so that excuse is out the window too. :)
Twisting things does you no favours.
-
Why so dishonest?
Good question. Why are you so dishonest?
Why not just admit you are wrong?
You see what is in that diameter of tube.
The only time you'd see ground is if you angled your tube.
From a direct level sight through the tube we are talking about, you will only see whatever you see in that end tube diameter.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Because unless something stops that, even when looking through the tube centred, you still see things below the tube and that means you CAN see the ground below it.
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom
You wouldn't be looking from the centre.
That is the point.
In order to get what you need and to not see the bottom, you need to look along the bottom of the tube. That changes the FOV, now the lower limit would be a line travelling parallel to the bottom of the tube. Any angle lower would need to pass through the tube to reach your eye.
But again, that isn't what you were telling people to do. If your eye is at the centre you can still see things below the tube. In fact as soon as you raise your eye up at all, you can now see downwards at some angle. You don't need to lift your eye right to the top, even just a tiny bit above the bottom of the tube will allow you to see down.
And for bonus points, you are still wrong, because you can still see objects above the tube when your eye is at the bottom. You are never limited to just the size of the tube. That would require a lens.
The only way for you to be correct is for you to tell us what magic stops the blue line. Unless you can, any time you say we can't see the ground you are just lying.
Are you two working in tandem?
-
Twisting things does you no favours.
So why do you keep on doing it rather than answer a simple question?
Again, we aren't talking about looking through a tube with your eye level with the bottom of the tube.
We are talking about looking through a level tube, with the eye at the centre of one end of the tube.
You claim that you accept we have a FOV. That means we don't just see along a single line directly in front of us and instead see a range of angles.
So again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
This is not a difficult question. The sole reason you have for avoiding it is that answering will cause your entire house of nonsense to come crashing down.
-
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom, you would never see ground.
So trivially untrue. A circular photoreceptor of diameter D, centered on bottom edge of a leveled tube of length L, would have an observable downward viewing angle equal to: arcsin (D/2L). It would not be zero. With a sufficiently long viewing distance, the ground would be easily observable.
All this is just laughable. It is hard to think there have been more a hundred pages arguing over triangles. Enjoying it, but still hard to believe.
Lets do math! :)
Assuming a 25 inch tube perfectly leveled with the bottom exactly six feet above the ground... a line drawn forward from the bottom edge of the front of the tube will intersect the Earth's curve at 15,837ft away, or a fraction under three miles. That point will be almost exactly 12 feet below the bottom of the tube.
The angle of that line is 0.043418 degrees. Very close to zero but as sobchak said, it's not zero.
Lets project that back 25 inches, and you get a value of 0.018945 inches above the back edge of the tube. Or in more human terms, about 1/50th of an inch.
That is how high from the bottom of the tube you have to get to see the ground from a 25 inch level tube.
For comparison, the human pupil is about 1/10th of an inch. So even if you put your eye LITERALLY level with the bottom of the tube, you could still see the horizon as your pupil is higher than the point where it will appear.
So that's that. You can see the ground even from the bottom of the tube, so that excuse is out the window too. :)
Twisting things does you no favours.
Those darn twisty triangles!
Dont worry Sceptimatic. I know triangles are hard, they have lengths and angles after all! But if you really, really, really try, I'm sure one day you might be able to understand them.
Keep trying!
-
Twisting things does you no favours.
So why do you keep on doing it rather than answer a simple question?
Again, we aren't talking about looking through a tube with your eye level with the bottom of the tube.
We are talking about looking through a level tube, with the eye at the centre of one end of the tube.
You claim that you accept we have a FOV. That means we don't just see along a single line directly in front of us and instead see a range of angles.
So again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
This is not a difficult question. The sole reason you have for avoiding it is that answering will cause your entire house of nonsense to come crashing down.
There is no blue line in reality from my set up.
The blue line is what you made up by using naked eye sight or a scope.
I'm using tunnel vision of the tube and a crosshair as a central focal point.
There is no blue line with my set up.
That's in your mind.
-
conceptual doesn't work with this guy.
add a giant tree so that light from the foot of it "compresses" as it goes to the eye.
like this, but with an ever "compressing" man.
https://therealweeklyshow.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/walking-men-size-illusion.jpg?w=576
-
Twisting things does you no favours.
So why do you keep on doing it rather than answer a simple question?
Again, we aren't talking about looking through a tube with your eye level with the bottom of the tube.
We are talking about looking through a level tube, with the eye at the centre of one end of the tube.
You claim that you accept we have a FOV. That means we don't just see along a single line directly in front of us and instead see a range of angles.
So again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
This is not a difficult question. The sole reason you have for avoiding it is that answering will cause your entire house of nonsense to come crashing down.
There is no blue line in reality from my set up.
There is. That is the point of asking.
Unless you have an explanation for what magic stops it, IT IS THERE AND IT SHOWS YOU ARE WRONG!
So again:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
The blue line is what you made up by using naked eye sight or a scope.
No it isn't. The diagram is of a tube, a plain and simple tube.
Not a magical tube which magically changes your FOV into a single line.
-
As smokemachine said: If you looked through the tube on a level and looked along the bottom, you would never see ground.
So trivially untrue. A circular photoreceptor of diameter D, centered on bottom edge of a leveled tube of length L, would have an observable downward viewing angle equal to: arcsin (D/2L). It would not be zero. With a sufficiently long viewing distance, the ground would be easily observable.
All this is just laughable. It is hard to think there have been more a hundred pages arguing over triangles. Enjoying it, but still hard to believe.
Lets do math! :)
Assuming a 25 inch tube perfectly leveled with the bottom exactly six feet above the ground... a line drawn forward from the bottom edge of the front of the tube will intersect the Earth's curve at 15,837ft away, or a fraction under three miles. That point will be almost exactly 12 feet below the bottom of the tube.
The angle of that line is 0.043418 degrees. Very close to zero but as sobchak said, it's not zero.
Lets project that back 25 inches, and you get a value of 0.018945 inches above the back edge of the tube. Or in more human terms, about 1/50th of an inch.
That is how high from the bottom of the tube you have to get to see the ground from a 25 inch level tube.
For comparison, the human pupil is about 1/10th of an inch. So even if you put your eye LITERALLY level with the bottom of the tube, you could still see the horizon as your pupil is higher than the point where it will appear.
So that's that. You can see the ground even from the bottom of the tube, so that excuse is out the window too. :)
Twisting things does you no favours.
What did I twist? Provide details please. Use your words. Is my math wrong? Show the error.
-
Are you two working in tandem?
Only two possibilities here. Either everyone in the world is plotting against you, or maybe you are just simply wrong?
-
Sceppy chose the premise snd size of tube.
His assertion is his alone and hes dug his heels in.
It was askes for specifics of the tube as a long narrow straw would better suit his intent, but he dismisses it insteas opting for two tubes 5ft appaet with a useles added bertical plumb line - proving it clear he just making up shit to over compkicate and allow him to later dismiss any others efforts to complete the experiemtn.
And if we are misunderstadning him it is his own doing as he refuses to elaborate or provide photographs of his "experiment" or use conventional english.
2nd.
I agreed the level-1d- viewing of his drawing.
As noted his drawing is not to scale and he was given a youtube link with a 3d simulation time stamp matching hus diagram.
He debunked himself.
He said altitude didnt matter and claimed rhebhorizon always rises to eye level regardless of persons altitrude.
Horizon has to be at eye level. The horizon is your eye level.
It's not a physical thing, it's a convergence of light to darker and has to hit eye point. Focal point.
It doesn't rise to meet eye level, it is always at eye level.
This is true if you are talking about the Astronomical Horizon, which is defined as the plane perpendicular to your up and down, and used in perspective drawing. You can use a plumb bob to work out your exact up and down if you feel fit. This horizon is always at your eye level. Perspective drawing in this sense, simplifies the world as being flat. It doesn't consider the implications of earth curvature, and at the ground level the difference is negligible anyway.
The True Horizon, however is defined as that horizontal line out at sea separating water from sky or land from sky on a particularly flattish plane.
At ground level, the Astronomical Horizon and True Horizon, appear to match up perfectly. At higher altitudes, not so.
In both instances, while the horizon is not a physical thing you can touch, and run your fingers along, it can be photographed, so it is real.
The sky can be photographed. Anything can be photographed.
Clear water can be photographed...but how can clear water show up?
Shadows of light making backgrounds.
Our eyes distinguish all this as an area close up and as a converging dark to light/light to dark theoretical line.
How theoretical is the line? There are no lines on your face aside from your wrinkles, yet, if you stand side on, your side profile can create a distinct line around a silhouette against a background, can't it? So can your front profile.
Is the line created by your profile theoretical? No. There is no theory. Light and shadow create lines of varying thicknesses and shapes which can be photographed. That's tangible evidence. It's real. Every photo is an image comprised of light and shadow, be it in black and white or color, capturing an actual real scene. It's the fundamental of photography.
Why would the surface of the earth be any different to the surface of your face or any other physical object?
"If Earth is flat, the horizon and eyeline will always be the same, unless the flat earth is finite, and you reach an elevation where you can see that finite edge." Do you agree with this statement?
-
Are you two working in tandem?
Only two possibilities here. Either everyone in the world is plotting against you, or maybe you are just simply wrong?
Your internet mates are not everyone in the world. This is why you'll learn very little of reality.
-
How theoretical is the line?
The answer is in, theoretical.
There are no lines on your face aside from your wrinkles, yet, if you stand side on, your side profile can create a distinct line around a silhouette against a background, can't it?
There are no lines around it. It's shadow/light differences or shades of light...whichever you want to go with.
So can your front profile.
Same thing.
Is the line created by your profile theoretical?
There is no line created, so yes, it is theoretical.
No. There is no theory. Light and shadow create lines of varying thicknesses and shapes which can be photographed.
Shades of light and wavelength of colour. No real lines.
That's tangible evidence. It's real.
Yes, shades of light are real and yes they converge to make theoretical lines.
Every photo is an image comprised of light and shadow, be it in black and white or color, capturing an actual real scene. It's the fundamental of photography.
You're answering your own query.
Why would the surface of the earth be any different to the surface of your face or any other physical object?
It's only different in composition.
"If Earth is flat, the horizon and eyeline will always be the same, unless the flat earth is finite, and you reach an elevation where you can see that finite edge." Do you agree with this statement?
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
-
Are you two working in tandem?
Only two possibilities here. Either everyone in the world is plotting against you, or maybe you are just simply wrong?
Your internet mates are not everyone in the world. This is why you'll learn very little of reality.
And how many people in the real world have you shown your experiment to and convinced? If you are unwilling to even try your own experiment, you know nothing of reality. The things you imagine in your head are not real, go take pictures through a tube just like you ask us to and show us the results, then you can talk about reality.
-
"If Earth is flat, the horizon and eyeline will always be the same, unless the flat earth is finite, and you reach an elevation where you can see that finite edge." Do you agree with this statement?
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
Maybe you need to elaborate on what part of that confuses you. We can't help you if you don't explain yourself. What don't you understand?
-
He alrwasy conceded that altitude allows you to see farther, but attributed it to less atmosphere blocking the light.
Maybe a diagram would help.
Sceppy?
-
He alrwasy conceded that altitude allows you to see farther, but attributed it to less atmosphere blocking the light.
Maybe a diagram would help.
Sceppy?
I tried the diagrams and you all went into frenzy mode.
-
Aah your great diagram that showed your understanding of the globe model.
that same drawing that was not to scale yet you treated it as if it were to scale.
That one?
If you mean that one i actually found a video that matches your sketch and shows yes, if at that altitude you would be hard pressed to see the ground without having to tilt your head down.
Only frenzy is over your refusal to admit anything or say anything of meaning or substance.
-
How theoretical is the line?
The answer is in, theoretical.
Again, semantic BS.
There is a clearly visible edge to any round object, including the round Earth.
This is the horizon.
You have provided no justification for what should cause a magic blend for the RE in contrast to all other round objects.
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Until you can answer that, that means we can see below the level of the tube and thus we can still see the RE.
-
Sceptimatic, perhaps you need to elaborate on your definition of the term, "theoretical line"?
To me, a theoretical line, is an imaginary line, based in a theory. None of the lines discussed here are either based in theory, or imaginary, because they can all be photographed.
If I take a photo through your tube set-up, and the photo shows ground, then JJA's theoretical line is no longer theoretical or imaginary. If I take a photo of your profile, the edge of your face and head, creates a visual line separating you from the background. Same with the surface of the sea water and the sky with the horizon out to sea. These are lines of sight or lines of light between objects and the eye. Yes, light and dark.
How are these lines either imaginary or theoretical? If theoretical, which theory are you referring to?
-
Sceptimatic, perhaps you need to elaborate on your definition of the term, "theoretical line"?
To me, a theoretical line, is an imaginary line, based in a theory. None of the lines discussed here are either based in theory, or imaginary, because they can all be photographed.
He is using theoretical to indicate it isn't physical.
When you take a photo of something, there isn't a physical line.
But the problem with that is no line is physical, so saying it is a theoretical line is pretty much meaningless.
-
Sceptimatic, perhaps you need to elaborate on your definition of the term, "theoretical line"?
To me, a theoretical line, is an imaginary line, based in a theory. None of the lines discussed here are either based in theory, or imaginary, because they can all be photographed.
He is using theoretical to indicate it isn't physical.
When you take a photo of something, there isn't a physical line.
But the problem with that is no line is physical, so saying it is a theoretical line is pretty much meaningless.
But it is physical. Everything physical is made up of surfaces, and surfaces create edges. On a 2d plane, like a photo, or viewing through a pane of glass, those edges can be called lines.
Theoretical line, then, is not what he should be using. He should be saying, intangible line.
But tell me this: When was the last time you were walking along and picked up a "line" off the footpath? I've used a few pickup lines in the past, but that's a line of dialogue. No line is tangible, except maybe a fishing line, if you want to be a smart ass.
Otherwise, there is no such thing as a tangible line. There are edges caused by light landing on surfaces.
-
Sceptimatic, perhaps you need to elaborate on your definition of the term, "theoretical line"?
To me, a theoretical line, is an imaginary line, based in a theory. None of the lines discussed here are either based in theory, or imaginary, because they can all be photographed.
If I take a photo through your tube set-up, and the photo shows ground, then JJA's theoretical line is no longer theoretical or imaginary. If I take a photo of your profile, the edge of your face and head, creates a visual line separating you from the background. Same with the surface of the sea water and the sky with the horizon out to sea. These are lines of sight or lines of light between objects and the eye. Yes, light and dark.
How are these lines either imaginary or theoretical? If theoretical, which theory are you referring to?
The horizon you see is not a real line. It's what I just explained earlier on.
-
Sceptimatic, perhaps you need to elaborate on your definition of the term, "theoretical line"?
To me, a theoretical line, is an imaginary line, based in a theory. None of the lines discussed here are either based in theory, or imaginary, because they can all be photographed.
If I take a photo through your tube set-up, and the photo shows ground, then JJA's theoretical line is no longer theoretical or imaginary. If I take a photo of your profile, the edge of your face and head, creates a visual line separating you from the background. Same with the surface of the sea water and the sky with the horizon out to sea. These are lines of sight or lines of light between objects and the eye. Yes, light and dark.
How are these lines either imaginary or theoretical? If theoretical, which theory are you referring to?
The horizon you see is not a real line. It's what I just explained earlier on.
I can only assume you are referring to the eyeline being the astronomical horizon, as in the principle of perspective drawing?
As I have explained, and my previous diagrams have been casually dismissed, on a flat earth, the eyeline will always be exactly in line with the true horizon out at sea. If however, the earth curves into a ball, then it stands to reason, the true horizon must always be lower than the astronomical horizon. Are you following what I'm saying?
-
But it is physical. Everything physical is made up of surfaces, and surfaces create edges. On a 2d plane, like a photo, or viewing through a pane of glass, those edges can be called lines.
Theoretical line, then, is not what he should be using. He should be saying, intangible line.
I should clarify, he means it isn't a physical object. He is using whatever dishonest BS he can to avoid reality.
Otherwise, there is no such thing as a tangible line. There are edges caused by light landing on surfaces.
Exactly. According to him a a physical line will never exist.
-
The horizon you see is not a real line. It's what I just explained earlier on.
It is a very real line, based upon the definition of a line.
Like I have told you before, it doesn't need to be a physical object that you can walk up to and pick up to be real.
And yet again an extremely simple question which shows your claims to be pure BS.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Unless you can explain that, then even through your level tube, you can still see things below the tube.
So the ground being below it is not enough to preclude seeing it.
This means it can be possible to see the ground, even downwards sloping and curved surfaces.
This means it can be possible to see the horizon on a RE through such a tube.
-
I can only assume you are referring to the eyeline being the astronomical horizon, as in the principle of perspective drawing?
As I have explained, and my previous diagrams have been casually dismissed, on a flat earth, the eyeline will always be exactly in line with the true horizon out at sea. If however, the earth curves into a ball, then it stands to reason, the true horizon must always be lower than the astronomical horizon. Are you following what I'm saying?
Nope. I'm not talking about any eye line nor astronomical horizon.
Also what diagram have you put forward?
-
It is a very real line, based upon the definition of a line.
No, it's not.
-
It is a very real line, based upon the definition of a line.
No, it's not.
Again, REAL is not the same as PHYSICAL OBJECT.
If you brothered reading what was said rather than just cutting it all out to pedal your BS you would know this.
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
And again, stop with the pathetic distractions. Either admit your claim is pure BS and you can see things below the height of a tube, or explain what magic stops the blue line.
-
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
It's a theoretical line due to convergence of lightwaves or shades to make it simpler.
-
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
It's a theoretical
I didn't ask about it being theoretical. I asked it about it being imaginary, in contrast to real.
Can you answer the question asked, or just continue with pathetic deflection?
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Either admit your claims are pure BS or explain what stops the blue line.
-
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
It's a theoretical
I didn't ask about it being theoretical. I asked it about it being imaginary, in contrast to real.
Can you answer the question asked, or just continue with pathetic deflection?
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Either admit your claims are pure BS or explain what stops the blue line.
The line is theoretical. What about it don't you get?
-
The horizon you see is not a real line. It's what I just explained earlier on.
Correct. The horizon is a not a physical line. It is simply an apparent borderline. In this case the borderline between the sky and and surface. In just the same way as when you approach a bend in a car you see the nearside and the offsides of the road converge to a point. A point which represents the furthest point along the road ahead of you that you have a direct view of. We know it isn't a real point. In the same way the horizon represents the furthest point of the Earth surface that you have a direct view of.
As you approach the bend the convergence point or limit point will do one of three things. It will either start to get nearer if the bend tightens up in which case you need to be slowing down, or it will move away from you at the same rate as your approach, or it will start to recede from you if the bend starts to open up. The aim is to 'match' the limit point so a corresponding amount of road comes into view as you drive towards the bend.
Anyway driving lesson over. This is exactly what happens with the horizon. If you move towards the horizon in any particular direction the apparent 'line' of the horizon will move with you. Thus the distance of the horizon will always remain the same as long as your elevation does not change. Anything beyond the horizon will come into view. You will always see the tops of ships, tall buildings, mountains or whatever first. This shows that the surface over which you are travelling is curved. Furthermore since this will happen regardless of which direction you travel in and regardless of how far you continue to go it also tells you the curve is the same in all directions. Thus providing observational evidence that we live on a sphere.
The distance of the horizon will increase as you increase altitude.
https://quaintplanet.com/how-far-is-horizon/
-
The distance of the horizon will increase as you increase altitude.
You need to know why.
-
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
It's a theoretical
I didn't ask about it being theoretical. I asked it about it being imaginary, in contrast to real.
Can you answer the question asked, or just continue with pathetic deflection?
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Either admit your claims are pure BS or explain what stops the blue line.
The line is theoretical. What about it don't you get?
What I don't get is how you claim it is not real when you can clearly see it in REALITY!
This shows that it is a real line.
Again, I don't give a damn if you think it is a physical object or not. That has no bearing on if it is real or not.
Do you understand the difference?
Again, we clearly see a line, in what way is it not real?
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
You know, that key thing your entire argument relies upon, with your continued refusal to justify it showing just how little you care about the truth?
The distance of the horizon will increase as you increase altitude.
You need to know why.
And we do.
I even gave you a diagram showing it:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnehJ6M.png)
The yellow-orange/golden line is a line to the horizon for a relative low observer. The purple line is for a relatively high observer.
Notice how it is further away for the higher observer?
This is just simple geometry.
-
What I don't get is how you claim it is not real when you can clearly see it in REALITY!
This shows that it is a real line.
There is no real line. There is a theoretical line.
You cannot see any line, you can see a convergence of shadow/light waves.
-
You need to know why.
What makes you think I don't know?
-
You need to know why.
What makes you think I don't know?
That's pretty obvious.
-
That's not a reason, that's just your opinion. I have my explanation for why and you no doubt have yours. Now why should I accept your explanation over mine?
As you increase your elevation the horizon distance increases. How does that evidence that the Earth is anything other than a sphere? Especially when the horizon is the same distance away whichever way you look and from whatever point on the surface you stand.
There is one thing which is pretty obvious I will agree with that. The others have been trying to point that out to you for ages.
-
That's not a reason, that's just your opinion. I have my explanation for why and you no doubt have yours. Now why should I accept your explanation over mine?
You are not obliged to accept anything from me. It makes no difference what you accept. It's your choice and it should be for your own mindset.
If you want to think what you think, be my guest.
As you increase your elevation the horizon distance increases. How does that evidence that the Earth is anything other than a sphere?
Downward curve against level sight.
It's been pointed out enough.
Especially when the horizon is the same distance away whichever way you look and from whatever point on the surface you stand.
Maybe but maybe not quite. It would depend on the atmospheric changes in the areas you are looking from a level point of view all around you, assuming sea.
There is one thing which is pretty obvious I will agree with that. The others have been trying to point that out to you for ages.
Yes...and failing to point anything out, correctly. Including you.
-
What I find most intriguing is that the shape of the Earth has been known for many centuries. Not just from the measurement and calculation of a few select people but many people over many centuries. Today we have calculated the precise shape of the Earth to a high level of accuracy.
Then you Sceptimatic come along, totally dismiss all that as complete rubbish and self-handedly declare that you and you alone know better than all of that effort by all those people combined. Wow that must make you the most successful and remarkable human being that ever lived. That deserves official recognition. Sceptimatic - the man who took on the whole of science and won! All that coming from someone who claims the Sun and Moon are some kind of reflected holograms. Yet you cannot produce (other than to yourself of course) any evidence to the rest of world that there is a grain of truth in anything you claim. That must leave the rest of the world a bit - well sceptical of what you claim.
But hey, what would the rest of the world know compared to you eh?!? You know the real truth afterall! It's just a shame that the rest of the world still don't know what you know.
-
What I don't get is how you claim it is not real when you can clearly see it in REALITY!
This shows that it is a real line.
There is no real line. There is a theoretical line.
You cannot see any line, you can see a convergence of shadow/light waves.
You two are talking different things
And to no surprise it only took 60some pg for sceppy to say enough to reveal this
-
What I find most intriguing is that the shape of the Earth has been known for many centuries.
I very much doubt that...and if so it certainly hasn't been known as a spinning globe.
Stories of it being a globe have been told...but...well, stories of all kinds of stuff have been told where masses believe, without requiring proof, as long as the storyteller is looked upon as a person of truth.
Not just from the measurement and calculation of a few select people but many people over many centuries.
Many that simply followed on the story, because many have not proven anything about a globe. Not a jot.
Today we have calculated the precise shape of the Earth to a high level of accuracy.
No you have not. You see, you follow the story. That's it. You have absolutely no clue as to the reality.
Then you Sceptic come along, totally dismiss all that as complete rubbish and self-handedly declare that you and you alone know better than all of that effort by all those people combined.
I certainly dismiss the spinning globe we supposedly live on top of. Absolutely 100% I dismiss it.
Wow that must make you the most successful and remarkable human being that ever lived.
No. I'm basically just a layperson. It makes me a man who questions idiocies...and a spinning globe certainly comes into this category.
All that coming from someone who claims the Sun and Moon are some kind of reflected holograms.
All what?
Yet you cannot produce (other than to yourself of course) any evidence to the rest of world that there is a grain of truth in anything you claim.
I believe what I claim. Whether that ends up as a full truth, may never be known.
However, one thing I am in comfort with...and that is.....Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
That must leave the rest of the world a bit - well sceptical of what you claim.
The world or a certain mass of people?
I would imagine masses will believe I'm absolutely nuts. And that's absolutely fine. I'd be shocked if people woke up to question. After all, most just follow the party line.
But hey, what would the rest of the world know compared to you eh?!?
The rest of the world of individual people.
You know the real truth afterall!
No. I know certain lies that's been told to me and you. I know people like you take the bait from the casting of those lies.
Then you help to pass them on.
As for me knowing the truth of a lot of this stuff. the reality. No...but I'm working on it.
-
You can very much doubt what you like. You think that you on your own have come up with a better account of the history, shape and nature of the Earth and the Universe than the whole of science has managed to come up with so far. That is no mean feat and as I said if you can actually prove to anyone other than yourself that you are right then that will make you into the most remarkable human being that ever lived.
You naturally believe everything you claim. Of course you do. Unfortunately no one else believes anything you claim because you cannot show any of it to be true. The question is why would anyone lie about how far away or how big the Sun is, what the nature of the stars are, what gravity is or indeed any of the other things that science is based on. Why? What do they stand to gain by lying about any of it?
You seem to be obsessed by denial, by the belief that science as we know it is one big lie and everyone in the world is trying to deceive you and you alone. Why?
-
You can very much doubt what you like. You think that you on your own have come up with a better account of the history, shape and nature of the Earth and the Universe than the whole of science has managed to come up with so far. That is no mean feat and as I said if you can actually prove to anyone other than yourself that you are right then that will make you into the most remarkable human being that ever lived.
You naturally believe everything you claim. Of course you do. Unfortunately no one else believes anything you claim because you cannot show any of it to be true. The question is why would anyone lie about how far away or how big the Sun is, what the nature of the stars are, what gravity is or indeed any of the other things that science is based on. Why? What do they stand to gain by lying about any of it?
You seem to be obsessed by denial, by the belief that science as we know it is one big lie and everyone in the world is trying to deceive you and you alone. Why?
Whatever I'm obsessed with or believe or question, is down to me.
You have absolutely no need to enter into any portion of any of it.
You believe your globe and all the trimmings and that's absolutely fine by me.
I don't believe it.
You think there's no reasons to perpetrate stuff like this and I say, fair enough.
I think differently and have my thoughts and reasons on it.
Telling you anything against what you believe is pointless from my side and that's why I never play directly with you or people like you. I play through you or around you...around your digs and questioning and pushing of your global mindset and all the other stuff.
I believe people out there will have their minds opened a little. Those people may never want to openly show that for fear of ridicule by people like yourself and your forum mates on here....etc.
I don't blame them.... but I have no issue with any of that which means I can say what I think and stick to what I say amid all of the thrown mainstream readouts you lot use.
-
It is not unusual for people to dismiss or disbelief things they cannot fully understand or 'get their head around' so to speak. The numbers involved in astronomy and physics (esp particle physics) are both extremely large and extremely small compared to those we are used to dealing with in everyday life.
So if the notion that we live on a globe which is 8000 mile across and 93 million miles from the Sun and is orbiting that Sun at 66,000 mph is too much for the minds of some people to cope with then naturally they will dismiss it as fabrication. The absence of any direct sensation that the Earth is moving at all will only feed that disbelief and so you will dismiss it as rubbish.
I have asked questions all my life about everything. That's how we learn. But by the time you reach a certain age the human brain develops a natural ability or intuition that detects when it is being lied to or deceived. We have a built in BS detector if you like. Science (and astronomy in particular) however has never triggered my own BS detector because I have the ability to understand it. I started at a very young age and continue to love it to this day.
My experience tells me that people who dismiss science are those who find it difficult or impossible to comprehend. So naturally they try to create their own version which doesn't require as much brain power (or intellect if you like) to make sense of.
So yes if you prefer to live in total denial of everything that lies beyond your comprehension then that is, as you say entirely up to you.
-
It is not unusual for people to dismiss or disbelief things they cannot fully understand or 'get their head around' so to speak. The numbers involved in astronomy and physics (esp particle physics) are both extremely large and extremely small compared to those we are used to dealing with in everyday life.
The numbers involved serve no purpose and you do not understand them, as much as you think you do.
What you do understand is the nonsense that was created by so called astrophysicists....etc.
They offer you lightyear stars and such and you swallow it because you are hungry for it but have absolutely no clue what the hell it all is, other than the picture that's been painted for you. A fantasy one.
That's the truth.
So if the notion that we live on a globe which is 8000 mile across and 93 million miles from the Sun and is orbiting that Sun at 66,000 mph is too much for the minds of some people to cope with then naturally they will dismiss it as fabrication.
It's not a case of being too much, it's a case of actually questioning it all against what we actually see and feel in real life, not in a story book fiction theatre.
The absence of any direct sensation that the Earth is moving at all will only feed that disbelief and so you will dismiss it as rubbish.
Yeah, it's bound to for anyone who isn't tranced into the spinning global nonsense.
I have asked questions all my life about everything. That's how we learn. But by the time you reach a certain age the human brain develops a natural ability or intuition that detects when it is being lied to or deceived.
Asking questions is fine. And you're right, it is how we learn.
The issue is in some of what we learn that has no actual real meaning.
We have a built in BS detector if you like.
We actually don't. We have to learn to distinguish what is fact or fiction. You have to earn your sceptical mind. You're born with an inbuilt sheep like following mind and the comfort of conformity.
Science (and astronomy in particular) however has never triggered my own BS detector because I have the ability to understand it.
Of course it hasn't. Why would it?
What you see in that sky is what you believe you see because you were told what it all was and there's the mapping system to prove it.
I certainly have nothing against you for this.
I started at a very young age and continue to love it to this day.
And good for you, seriously.
Maybe you shouldn't be talking to someone like me and just enjoy what you believe is in that sky and what you live on.
I simply believe it's all hogwash but that's not a direct hit on you. You didn't make it all up...you just followed it.
My experience tells me that people who dismiss science are those who find it difficult or impossible to comprehend.
That depends. I suppose it can be right for some and wrong for others.
I could massively argue that same thing with you in the opposite way.
Those who like the complicated and can follow it, will, because it gives them a kind of air of superiority in their minds.
So naturally they try to create their own version which doesn't require as much brain power (or intellect if you like) to make sense of.
Or they try to understand reality against the complex utter clap trap that's been spewed by mainstream so called scientists for which people follow, almost unconditionally.
So yes if you prefer to live in total denial of everything that lies beyond your comprehension then that is, as you say entirely up to you.
I'll say that right back to you.
-
The absence of any direct sensation that the Earth is moving at all will only feed that disbelief and so you will dismiss it as rubbish.
Yeah, it's bound to for anyone who isn't tranced into the spinning global nonsense.
Hi sceptimatic. I'm sure as a fellow man of science you would know about Foucault's pendulum, a 19th-century device that proves the rotation of the Earth. Unfortunately, there are no pendulums that prove the Earth is a stationary planar disc.
-
Quote me back as much as you like Sceptimatic, it doesn't change anything. You are obviously a person who likes to think that being an 'alternative thinker' or however you like to describe yourself as means that gives you the edge over those who choose to follow the more traditional routes of science. That's fine but I could ask you many questions about your own version or model and I guarantee that your answers in each case would be 'Don't know' or 'haven't a clue'.
So when it comes down to the details you can't tell us any of the even basic information about your Earth. Yet you choose to deny everything you read about the true and real Earth. For example can you tell me exactly what the shape of your Earth is, what diameter it is, what the mass of your Earth is, how old it is, how it was created and how life came into being. Can you offer information on any of those? If you can then what leads you to your conclusions.
As I've repeatedly told you. I do question things. All the time. I always have done. That's what science is all about. As I've also told you I can also sense when the things I am 'told' don't quite add up and when that happens I look into the reasons why. I don't just accept things and move on as appears to be what you think. When you say 'I question this or that' what you actually mean is 'I refuse to believe it'. Whereas when I say 'I question things' that's exactly what I mean. I don't dismiss anything until I have seen reasonable cause to dismiss one or another theory.
Flat Earthers have their own claims about the diameter and distance of the Sun and Moon. Ask ten flat Earthers and you will most likely get ten different answers for ten different reasons. Anything from 32 miles across and 3000 miles away to (in your case) reflected holograms. Ask ten round Earthers and you will get the same answer from them all. Why? Because the size and distance of the Sun and Moon have been measured using a variety of different methods and by many different people. In order to eliminate margins for error. Yet you go on about us having 'no clue'. Is that so?
I don't live life in total denial as you obviously do.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Without that, all your other nonsense comes crashing down.
There is no real line. There is a theoretical line.
You cannot see any line, you can see a convergence of shadow/light waves.
Again, semantic BS with you pretending that any "line" must be a physical object.
We clearly see a line.
So it is clearly a real line.
As you increase your elevation the horizon distance increases. How does that evidence that the Earth is anything other than a sphere?
Downward curve against level sight.
It's been pointed out enough.
i.e. it shows it is a sphere?
You have absolutely no clue as to the reality.
Just because you choose to wilfully reject reality doesn't mean everyone does.
Plenty of us know a lot about reality.
I certainly dismiss the spinning globe we supposedly live on top of. Absolutely 100% I dismiss it.
And the problem is that you just dismiss it. You have no refutation of it, nor any evidence against it.
Instead to pretend your position is justified you just keep repeating the same lies and making up pathetic strawmen like pretending we don't have a FOV, all while ignoring extremely simple and refutations of your garbage.
It's not a case of being too much, it's a case of actually questioning it all against what we actually see and feel in real life
No, it is a case of dismissing it all and using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend your dismissal is justified.
You are not questioning anything.
Especially considering you just dismiss/ignore all the "answers" to those questions.
If you were just questioning, you would have accepted that your initial claim is pure garbage, that due to the sheer size of Earth, when you are close to sea level the horizon will appear at roughly eye level; you would not magically see nothing but sky.
You would have also realised the massive contradictions in your claims.
Or they try to understand reality against the complex utter clap trap that's been spewed
We do understand reality (or at least try our best), against the complex utter clap trap you have been spewing and repeatedly failing to justify.
-
Maybe you shouldn't be talking to someone like me and just enjoy what you believe is in that sky and what you live on.
I simply believe it's all hogwash but that's not a direct hit on you. You didn't make it all up...you just followed it.
I will always enjoy what I see in the sky. It provides a personal escape from the stresses of the world that we live in right now. I don't need to just believe it because I can gather real data from the stars which tallies up with what I am 'told'. It's a shame that you simply dismiss it all as 'hogwash' without making any apparent effort to try to understand it.
Your mind and mine clearly work in very different ways. You and I look up into the sky and we see the same things. Our explanations for what we see though are very different. And whilst I see a very clear and obvious ball of rock with craters and mountains when I look at the Moon through my telescopes, you have the opinion that it is nothing more than some sort of reflected hologram. Fair enough. But why would you think that? That is what I can't fathom. If you believe that the Sun and Moon are somehow reflections of the same light source then why does the Moon never change its appearance and yet the Sun is constantly changing. I can see those changes through my telescopes which allow me to view the Sun in a specific wavelength.
What makes one person so dismissive of science and feel the need to re-invent it to suit their own beliefs without being able to prove any of it while others are simply fascinated by it?
-
What I don't get is how you claim it is not real when you can clearly see it in REALITY!
This shows that it is a real line.
There is no real line. There is a theoretical line.
You cannot see any line, you can see a convergence of shadow/light waves.
You two are talking different things
And to no surprise it only took 60some pg for sceppy to say enough to reveal this
Focus on this
New info
Wtf is he saying?
-
The absence of any direct sensation that the Earth is moving at all will only feed that disbelief and so you will dismiss it as rubbish.
Yeah, it's bound to for anyone who isn't tranced into the spinning global nonsense.
Hi sceptimatic. I'm sure as a fellow man of science you would know about Foucault's pendulum, a 19th-century device that proves the rotation of the Earth. Unfortunately, there are no pendulums that prove the Earth is a stationary planar disc.
Foucault's pendulum proves absolutely nothing for a spinning globe.
-
Quote me back as much as you like Sceptimatic, it doesn't change anything. You are obviously a person who likes to think that being an 'alternative thinker' or however you like to describe yourself as means that gives you the edge over those who choose to follow the more traditional routes of science.
I don't have any edge. I don't feel I need any edge. I have my reasons for my thoughts. I have my reasons why I'm against the global mindset that people like you adhere to, unconditionally, it seems.
That's fine but I could ask you many questions about your own version or model and I guarantee that your answers in each case would be 'Don't know' or 'haven't a clue'.
If I wanted to I could make up a load of clap trap about size and give a load of hogwash calculations out. What would be the point? I'd be lying.
I could spend the time in pretence of knowing what Earth is in its entirety but I'd be lying if I did.
This is why I put out my stuff as my hypothesis or thought process based on what I believe Earth to be and I think I'm on the right track....................................I think. I don't ask anyone to follow that. I simply put it out as my thoughts. Get that into your head and you won't need to worry about it.
So when it comes down to the details you can't tell us any of the even basic information about your Earth.
I can tell you all kinds of stuff of what I think earth is.
I can't physically prove much of anything for what I believe but it makes absolute sense to me and a globe that has absolutely no proof, does not.
It's that simple.
Yet you choose to deny everything you read about the true and real Earth.
No I don't. I choose to question and refuse to just believe what I'm told about what the Earth supposedly is. It's not the real Earth. It's only the real Earth because you, like me, swallowed it hook line and sinker from an early age.
I managed to step outside of the box to see it for the idiocy it really is.
For example can you tell me exactly what the shape of your Earth is, what diameter it is, what the mass of your Earth is, how old it is, how it was created and how life came into being.
Can you offer information on any of those? If you can then what leads you to your conclusions.
No.
I can give you all kinds of best guess scenarios, none of which may be the truth. How can I?
As I've repeatedly told you. I do question things. All the time. I always have done. That's what science is all about.
You may question things but you choose to believe in nonsense as far as I'm concerned. You choose to believe in something that even you must see as, illogical.
Just the basics is enough. But you follow a pattern set out and fair enough.
As I've also told you I can also sense when the things I am 'told' don't quite add up and when that happens I look into the reasons why. I don't just accept things and move on as appears to be what you think.
It appears that you do.
When you say 'I question this or that' what you actually mean is 'I refuse to believe it'.
My way of life is simply, believe nothing and question everything.
As I've said for long enough, there's lots of stuff I simply accept without question because I don't have the time nor inclination to go that far. But I don't just believe it all unless it has logical reasoning and potential.
Whereas when I say 'I question things' that's exactly what I mean. I don't dismiss anything until I have seen reasonable cause to dismiss one or another theory.
That's fine. But you also accept many things based on total illogical reasoning, as far as I'm concerned.
Flat Earthers have their own claims about the diameter and distance of the Sun and Moon. Ask ten flat Earthers and you will most likely get ten different answers for ten different reasons. Anything from 32 miles across and 3000 miles away to (in your case) reflected holograms.
It's called, alternative theories to the one many people know is not the truth, which is the global nonsense.
Ask ten round Earthers and you will get the same answer from them all. Why?
Massive INDOCTRINATION.
Because the size and distance of the Sun and Moon have been measured using a variety of different methods and by many different people.
In order to eliminate margins for error. Yet you go on about us having 'no clue'. Is that so?
They haven't been measured to show reality. They've been measured in gobbledygook terms.
I don't live life in total denial as you obviously do.
I think you do.
You live a life of mainstream acceptance by official authority and a total belief in what is postulated. Your massive denial is the denial of what is smack bang in your physical face, which is the fact that the Earth is not a spinning globe...just by the simple basics, which you deny because it's just too simple and logical and it frightens you.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
There is no blue line in how you depict it.
-
Maybe you shouldn't be talking to someone like me and just enjoy what you believe is in that sky and what you live on.
I simply believe it's all hogwash but that's not a direct hit on you. You didn't make it all up...you just followed it.
I will always enjoy what I see in the sky. It provides a personal escape from the stresses of the world that we live in right now.
I enjoy what I see in the sky. It's fantastic.
I don't need to just believe it because I can gather real data from the stars which tallies up with what I am 'told'.
It tallies up with what you are told because you followed that set up.
It's a shame that you simply dismiss it all as 'hogwash' without making any apparent effort to try to understand it.
I do make an effort to understand it. It just doesn't tally with what you think you understand.
Your mind and mine clearly work in very different ways.
Massively.
You and I look up into the sky and we see the same things.
Absolutely.
Our explanations for what we see though are very different.
Absolutely.
And whilst I see a very clear and obvious ball of rock with craters and mountains when I look at the Moon through my telescopes, you have the opinion that it is nothing more than some sort of reflected hologram.
There has to be a reason for the hologram. It doesn't just appear in the sky.
And just like the so called planetariums, think how they work.
Fair enough. But why would you think that? That is what I can't fathom.
Think of a central point giving out the show we see in the sky, just like so called planetariums.
Obviously you dismiss this but you did ask.
If you believe that the Sun and Moon are somehow reflections of the same light source then why does the Moon never change its appearance and yet the Sun is constantly changing.
I tried to explain this.
Think of a security light. If you look directly into that light, it's blinding. If you walked under it you would see what is reflecting that light.
You ma see changes to a carbon arc with goggles on or a filter but you will still see a reflection of it if you look from another angle.
It applies to the rest of the stuff on show, except they're finer points of light .
Just see how a so called planetarium works and it may give you a small clue.
I can see those changes through my telescopes which allow me to view the Sun in a specific wavelength.
Something arcing in the centre of Earth will likely have changes, so it's no surprising.
What makes one person so dismissive of science and feel the need to re-invent it to suit their own beliefs without being able to prove any of it while others are simply fascinated by it?
Basically seeing a whole host of utter bull crap, like so called moon landings and space rockets...etc....etc.
Each day, almost, there's silly nonsense that comes out and people just swallow it.
Silly things like the probe from the 70's just merrily on its way with a lifespan that suddenly goes way beyond it whilst travelling billions and billions of miles yet still sending back transmissions.
You know, crap like that.
I expect kids to swallow this but not adults...unless they're star wars fans who actually live star wars like it was a reality.
-
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
There is no blue line in how you depict it.
Unless you can explain what magic stops it, THERE IS!
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS IT?
Repeatedly ignoring it rather than actually addressing the issue shows you have no case at all.
Foucault's pendulum proves absolutely nothing for a spinning globe.
It indicates Earth is rotating, as otherwise the plane of oscillation would remain stationary relative to Earth.
And additionally, the apparent motion of the plane of oscillation varies with latitude. This variation shows the surface is inclined relative to the axis of rotation for the vast majority of locations. And this inclination varies as a if the cross section of Earth is a circle.
More accurate devices which can measure the rotation at any angle confirm it.
I have my reasons for my thoughts. I have my reasons why I'm against the global mindset
So far that just seems to be either "I don't like it" or "I don't understand it".
You are yet to provide a single thing which actually seriously challenges the globe. Instead all you have are strawmen and dismissal.
you adhere to, unconditionally, it seems.
No, our adherence to it is conditional on it being supported by evidence and not refuted.
This is because we care about the truth.
Why should we discard an idea supported by mountains of evidence which you are unable to show fault with?
Why should we accept your alternative when you outright refuse to provide any evidence to support it, and which has been refuted countless times.
Especially when you admit you have no idea about so many things it isn't funny.
I'd be lying.
So you would be doing what you do basically all the time.
Just look at this thread where you have repeated the same pathetic lies without any ability to justify them, dismissing all evidence that shows you are wrong as fake and ignoring/avoiding all questions/logical proofs that you are wrong.
Yet you choose to deny everything you read about the true and real Earth.
No I don't. I choose to question and refuse to just believe what I'm told about what the Earth supposedly is.
No, you don't.
You are not merely questioning nor is anyone expecting you to just believe what you are told.
You are rejecting reality and dismissing evidence of reality as fake, and ignoring logical arguments which show your claims and "objections" to the RE to be pure garbage.
That is not questioning the RE. That is just outright rejection of reality.
You choose to believe in something that even you must see as, illogical.
No, we don't.
You are yet to provide a single thing that is illogical.
You not liking something does not make it nonsense or illogical.
Meanwhile, you believe things which literally directly contradict other things you believe.
It can't get more illogical than that.
My way of life is simply, believe nothing and question everything.
Then why believe Earth is flat?
Why believe all the pure nonsense you spout?
you also accept many things based on total illogical reasoning
Yet you are unable to provide a single example.
Again, you not liking something doesn't make it illogical.
Massive INDOCTRINATION.
Accepting the truth based upon evidence and logic is not indoctrination.
They haven't been measured to show reality.
You mean they haven't been measured in a way which supports your nonsense. That has no bearing on reality.
They have been measured in reality to show reality.
That reality not matching your nonsense means your nonsense is not reality.
Your massive denial is the denial of what is smack bang in your physical face
You mean the fact that Earth is round?
Because there is nothing smack bang in your physical face to indicate otherwise, nor to indicate it is stationary.
You are the one in massive denial of what is smack bang in your face.
I tried to explain this.
Think of a security light. If you look directly into that light, it's blinding. If you walked under it you would see what is reflecting that light.
You ma see changes to a carbon arc with goggles on or a filter but you will still see a reflection of it if you look from another angle.
You claim both are reflections.
Something arcing in the centre of Earth will likely have changes, so it's no surprising.
It is when it appears as a circle to the vision, regardless of where you look at it from, rather than an arc.
Each day, almost, there's silly nonsense that comes out and people just swallow it.
Silly things like the probe from the 70's just merrily on its way with a lifespan that suddenly goes way beyond it whilst travelling billions and billions of miles yet still sending back transmissions.
You know, crap like that.
i.e. things you don't like, or don't understand.
Devices are built with a particular lifespan in mind. This means all the components will last at least that long.
After this time, the only thing that is certain, at least with this type of probe, is that the available electrical power will be significantly reduced.
It doesn't mean the device will just blow up or magically stop working at this point.
So just what about that is crap?
Can you actually explain any problem with it, or is it simply a case of things you don't like or things you don't understand?
-
Why should we accept your alternative when you outright refuse to provide any evidence to support it, and which has been refuted countless times.
Nobody's asking you to accept anything.
-
Why should we accept your alternative when you outright refuse to provide any evidence to support it, and which has been refuted countless times.
Nobody's asking you to accept anything.
No, you just continually insult those who show you are wrong.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
-
So beyond all the bravado, Sceptimatic is just your classic, stereotypical conspiracy theorist who likes to make out that he is right about everything he believes by ignoring all the evidence that actually shows quite obviously that he isn't.
Fair enough. If you need to take on those views to add a bit of spice or purpose to your life then I'm fine with that. But I will keep enjoying astronomy as I have for the last few decades and let those people like Sceptimatic carry on believing whatever they choose to if it makes them happy.
-
No, you just continually insult those who show you are wrong.
Don't be a hypocrite.
I think I've been pretty pleasant to be honest.
-
So beyond all the bravado, Sceptimatic is just your classic, stereotypical conspiracy theorist who likes to make out that he is right about everything he believes by ignoring all the evidence that actually shows quite obviously that he isn't.
Fair enough. If you need to take on those views to add a bit of spice or purpose to your life then I'm fine with that. But I will keep enjoying astronomy as I have for the last few decades and let those people like Sceptimatic carry on believing whatever they choose to if it makes them happy.
Yep, you carry on with that mindset. I'm ok with it.
-
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
It's a theoretical
I didn't ask about it being theoretical. I asked it about it being imaginary, in contrast to real.
Can you answer the question asked, or just continue with pathetic deflection?
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Either admit your claims are pure BS or explain what stops the blue line.
The line is theoretical. What about it don't you get?
Guy!!!
JackB is saying light travels in a straight line (*for the most part).
If you see it, it came from somewhere
If you saw a tree - light came from it.
Say this.
Looking through your tube, you walk backwards until you see the wjole tree.
Yiur FIELD OF VIEW is able to see the top and bottom.
Light from the top of the tree goes into the tube at an angle that reaches your eye.
Same as bottom.
Walking forwards the tree appears larger and the tube limits your FIELD OF VIEW so that loght from the top ans bottom starts to be obstructed by the tube.
At the point where this happens, is jackBs blue line.
-
Just what makes you think it is imaginary.
It's a theoretical
I didn't ask about it being theoretical. I asked it about it being imaginary, in contrast to real.
Can you answer the question asked, or just continue with pathetic deflection?
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Either admit your claims are pure BS or explain what stops the blue line.
The line is theoretical. What about it don't you get?
You guys are talking about two different things.
Not the blue horizon line.
JackB is talking ablut his field of view diagram
-
That's fine but I could ask you many questions about your own version or model and I guarantee that your answers in each case would be 'Don't know' or 'haven't a clue'.
If I wanted to I could make up a load of clap trap about size and give a load of hogwash calculations out. What would be the point? I'd be lying.
I could spend the time in pretence of knowing what Earth is in its entirety but I'd be lying if I did.
This is why I put out my stuff as my hypothesis or thought process based on what I believe Earth to be and I think I'm on the right track....................................I think. I don't ask anyone to follow that. I simply put it out as my thoughts. Get that into your head and you won't need to worry about it.
So when it comes down to the details you can't tell us any of the even basic information about your Earth.
I can tell you all kinds of stuff of what I think earth is.
I can't physically prove much of anything for what I believe but it makes absolute sense to me and a globe that has absolutely no proof, does not.
It's that simple.
Incoreect
As seen your invention of alternate physics contradicts itself in so many ways.
To create a whole math system on top of that, that works and have millions of people verify it, that would be an increidble feat of lies and duping.
-
Looking through your tube, you walk backwards until you see the wjole tree.
Yiur FIELD OF VIEW is able to see the top and bottom.
Light from the top of the tree goes into the tube at an angle that reaches your eye.
Same as bottom.
Your'e backing away with the sight of the tube so your FOV is compressing. It's like a perceivement of a funnel view as if you were looking down a clear funnel from the large end first to a point.
-
Ok
Regardless of your wackadookie words, light is entering the tube.
One of those light rays is depicted by the blue line in jackB diagram.
You now must admit it exists.
-
Ok
Regardless of your wackadookie words, light is entering the tube.
One of those light rays is depicted by the blue line in jackB diagram.
You now must admit it exists.
This has spiralled on from the tube on a gradient. Twisted to all hell.
The argument still stands.
Jacky is using the blue line as if he's looking naked eye or scope. Not a tunnel vision through a tube.
So, no...I'm not agreeing to anything you people try to twist.
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
-
Ok
Regardless of your wackadookie words, light is entering the tube.
One of those light rays is depicted by the blue line in jackB diagram.
You now must admit it exists.
This has spiralled on from the tube on a gradient. Twisted to all hell.
The argument still stands.
Jacky is using the blue line as if he's looking naked eye or scope. Not a tunnel vision through a tube.
So, no...I'm not agreeing to anything you people try to twist.
Are you literally complaining that people are derailing a thread that you derailed into tubes in the first place? ::)
If you look back to the first post, this thread has nothing to do with tubes. :)
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
-
Ok
Regardless of your wackadookie words, light is entering the tube.
One of those light rays is depicted by the blue line in jackB diagram.
You now must admit it exists.
This has spiralled on from the tube on a gradient. Twisted to all hell.
The argument still stands.
Jacky is using the blue line as if he's looking naked eye or scope. Not a tunnel vision through a tube.
So, no...I'm not agreeing to anything you people try to twist.
Are you literally complaining that people are derailing a thread that you derailed into tubes in the first place? ::)
If you look back to the first post, this thread has nothing to do with tubes. :)
No, I said it's twisting like you are also trying to do, once again.
You backed out so you don't need to worry yourself.
-
Ok
Regardless of your wackadookie words, light is entering the tube.
One of those light rays is depicted by the blue line in jackB diagram.
You now must admit it exists.
This has spiralled on from the tube on a gradient. Twisted to all hell.
The argument still stands.
Jacky is using the blue line as if he's looking naked eye or scope. Not a tunnel vision through a tube.
So, no...I'm not agreeing to anything you people try to twist.
Are you literally complaining that people are derailing a thread that you derailed into tubes in the first place? ::)
If you look back to the first post, this thread has nothing to do with tubes. :)
Ahahaha
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
-
As for the horizon being a theoretical line, I think there have been many cases, especially during the world wars, that ships being on the horizon have been destroyed by torpedo or missile, because a ship on the horizon from a known height of the viewer, has a specific distance from the viewer. The line therefore isn't imaginary, or a theory.
There's an old saying. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. How well do you know your enemy, sceptimatic? Do you own a globe of the earth?
-
As for the horizon being a theoretical line, I think there have been many cases, especially during the world wars, that ships being on the horizon have been destroyed by torpedo or missile, because a ship on the horizon from a known height of the viewer, has a specific distance from the viewer. The line therefore isn't imaginary, or a theory.
There's an old saying. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. How well do you know your enemy, sceptimatic? Do you own a globe of the earth?
Are you making some kind of threat?
-
Ok
Regardless of your wackadookie words, light is entering the tube.
One of those light rays is depicted by the blue line in jackB diagram.
You now must admit it exists.
This has spiralled on from the tube on a gradient. Twisted to all hell.
The argument still stands.
Jacky is using the blue line as if he's looking naked eye or scope. Not a tunnel vision through a tube.
So, no...I'm not agreeing to anything you people try to twist.
Are you literally complaining that people are derailing a thread that you derailed into tubes in the first place? ::)
If you look back to the first post, this thread has nothing to do with tubes. :)
No, I said it's twisting like you are also trying to do, once again.
You backed out so you don't need to worry yourself.
No? Read the first post, it had nothing to do with tubes. You twisted this thread into it's current deformed, grotesque shape. Hideous. :)
I performed the experiment as requested, it showed you to be wrong. If you want more elaborate experiments, perform them yourself and prove me wrong in return.
Or just admit you're wrong.
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
-
As usual, please correct me if I am wrong but :
1. Scepti brought up the tube in the context of "what would change your mind".
2. If not explicitly stated, it was heavily implied (based on context in this thread) that THIS was the proof that would change scepti's mind.
If scepti could zoom/center-crop a level view (yes, the crosshairs are a center crop of sorts) to see only sky - THEN the posit that the world was spherical would become plausible enough to potentially change their mind.
Obviously the interpretation of this observation differs, however I think we can all agree that unless there are abnormal weather conditions or the height of the observer is pushed to the extreme - no matter how much we zoom in, or crop, we will not see only sky the way the globe model predicts/expects and scepti has described.
The disagreement (if there is any), is now about the interpretation of the observation.
-
No
The very observation itself.
Which is why he refuses to acknowledge, address, or perform and show us the intended observation himself.
-
My way of life is simply, believe nothing and question everything.
OK here's a couple of questions for you then:
How did your Earth form and when?
What is the mass of your Earth?
What causes the motion of all the celestial bodies?
-
Obviously the interpretation of this observation differs, however I think we can all agree that unless there are abnormal weather conditions or the height of the observer is pushed to the extreme - no matter how much we zoom in, or crop, we will not see only sky the way the globe model predicts/expects and scepti has described.
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
With a camera at 6 feet above the ground, looking out level, the horizon is 15,837 feet away. The edge of the Earth you will be looking at is 12 feet below the camera.
So to see only sky, you need a zoom lens capable of zooming fully onto a rectangle 12 feet high at a distance of 3 miles.
By my calculations you need a DSLR with a 20,000mm zoom lens. The worlds biggest zoom lens is a 5,200mm Cannon lens that costs $45,000. Most camera lenses are around 50mm for reference. No 20km zoom lens exists.
So no, nobody is going to ever see just the sky by zooming in because the world is BIG and you just can't do that on your cell phone camera.
I'm also ignoring weather and refraction, which at that distance would make any observation impossible anyway.
So scepti is describing an experiment that is impossible to perform. Like asking for proof that the moon is really 250,000 miles way by demanding you make a 250,000 mile rope ladder and climb up to it with a measuring tape.
Then we got onto his claim that you can't see the ground from a level tube, which I disproved multiple times, so far. And here we are, 100 pages later.
-
No, you just continually insult those who show you are wrong.
Don't be a hypocrite.
And there you go proving my point yet again.
You still refuse to address the massive flaw in your claim, and instead you just insult me.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Unless you have something to stop it, then there is no reason for it to not continue travelling as if the tube wasn't there and end up in the viewers eye, meaning they can see it.
As it doesn't intersect the tube there is no reason for the tube to stop it.
This is in direct contrast to the orange line, which intersects the wall of the tube and thus the light would need to travel through the wall of the tube to reach the eye. That means if the tube is opaque, the orange line is stopped.
But not the blue line. The blue line just enters the end of the tube, not having to intersect any of the wall. So it should continue and hit the eye.
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Jacky is using the blue line as if he's looking naked eye or scope. Not a tunnel vision through a tube.
So, no...I'm not agreeing to anything you people try to twist.
We aren't the ones trying to twist anything, that would be you.
I have repeatedly made it abundantly clear that this diagram involving the blue line is not for the naked eye or a scope. There is no lens at all in my diagram so there is no scope.
It is a plain and simple tube.
The fact that tubes do not produce your magic tunnel vision does not change the fact that it is a diagram of what you actually expect from looking through a tube.
Now stop trying to twist it into something it is not, stop repeating the pathetic lies and either tell us what stops the blue line to produce your magic tunnel vision or admit you are wrong and that looking through a tube doesn't remove your entire FOV (instead it just makes it smaller) and still lets you see things below the level of the tube.
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
And so is he.
Remember, we have a FOV, we don't just magically see a line.
This also relates to the other question I asked and you repeatedly avoided.
But I will change it to a tree now.
Lets say you are standing on flat ground, and look towards a tree through a level tube with a 1 inch diameter.
Can you see the entire tree through the tube, or can you only see 1 inch? (If you want to claim you can see somewhere in between, then can you stand far enough back such that you see the entire tree)?
-
As usual, please correct me if I am wrong but :
1. Scepti brought up the tube in the context of "what would change your mind".
2. If not explicitly stated, it was heavily implied (based on context in this thread) that THIS was the proof that would change scepti's mind.
If scepti could zoom/center-crop a level view (yes, the crosshairs are a center crop of sorts) to see only sky - THEN the posit that the world was spherical would become plausible enough to potentially change their mind.
Obviously the interpretation of this observation differs, however I think we can all agree that unless there are abnormal weather conditions or the height of the observer is pushed to the extreme - no matter how much we zoom in, or crop, we will not see only sky the way the globe model predicts/expects and scepti has described.
The disagreement (if there is any), is now about the interpretation of the observation.
No. He initially claimed that merely because Earth curves downwards you shouldn't see the horizon at all through a level sight.
And he claimed that this is proof that Earth is not round.
But for it to be that simple, he needs a FOV of 0, which is impossible.
And he then changed that to the horizon shouldn't exist at all on a RE, that you should see nothing but sky, again ignoring the fact that we have a FOV. And that was in response to photos clearly showing the horizon below level.
He then tried bringing in tubes, claiming magical tunnel vision where you can't see above or below the tube, to pretend that FOV doesn't matter after he admitted that if you look down you see ground, and didn't have any way out of admitting that the horizon does exist on the RE.
-
As for the horizon being a theoretical line, I think there have been many cases, especially during the world wars, that ships being on the horizon have been destroyed by torpedo or missile, because a ship on the horizon from a known height of the viewer, has a specific distance from the viewer. The line therefore isn't imaginary, or a theory.
There's an old saying. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. How well do you know your enemy, sceptimatic? Do you own a globe of the earth?
Are you making some kind of threat?
Do you mean, am I threatening to post you a globe earth model, if you say you don't have one? Umm, no. I don't have your postal address.
The concept of the earth being a globe, could reasonably be an enemy to your flat earth belief. I was wondering if you have a globe earth model in your home, and if so, how well you have studied it? Ergo, the saying, keep your enemy closer?
If you don't have a globe earth model in your home, is that because you find such a model, too threatening? Too intimidating? Or does the idea just turn your stomach?
I do find it interesting you ignored my example of ships on the horizon being easy prey in wartime, and focused on the possibility I could have been making some kind of threat. What the hell?????
I mean, I could purchase a globe earth model from half a dozen different stores, within less than a kilometer from my home.
-
My way of life is simply, believe nothing and question everything.
OK here's a couple of questions for you then:
How did your Earth form and when?
A potential cell growth from whatever set up it is part of, of which I'd be lying if I told you what that is.
As for when...I have no clue.
A counter question and pay attention.
Question: How did your Earth form and when? What you know, not what you are told.
What is the mass of your Earth?
I have absolutely no idea.
Counter question.
Question: What is the mass of yours and how do you know this for sure.
What causes the motion of all the celestial bodies?
What celestial bodies?
-
Obviously the interpretation of this observation differs, however I think we can all agree that unless there are abnormal weather conditions or the height of the observer is pushed to the extreme - no matter how much we zoom in, or crop, we will not see only sky the way the globe model predicts/expects and scepti has described.
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
With a camera at 6 feet above the ground, looking out level, the horizon is 15,837 feet away. The edge of the Earth you will be looking at is 12 feet below the camera.
So to see only sky, you need a zoom lens capable of zooming fully onto a rectangle 12 feet high at a distance of 3 miles.
By my calculations you need a DSLR with a 20,000mm zoom lens. The worlds biggest zoom lens is a 5,200mm Cannon lens that costs $45,000. Most camera lenses are around 50mm for reference. No 20km zoom lens exists.
So no, nobody is going to ever see just the sky by zooming in because the world is BIG and you just can't do that on your cell phone camera.
I'm also ignoring weather and refraction, which at that distance would make any observation impossible anyway.
So scepti is describing an experiment that is impossible to perform. Like asking for proof that the moon is really 250,000 miles way by demanding you make a 250,000 mile rope ladder and climb up to it with a measuring tape.
Then we got onto his claim that you can't see the ground from a level tube, which I disproved multiple times, so far. And here we are, 100 pages later.
Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere. You even tried to put basket balls on tables to show me edges, as if you were proving something about you standing on a sphere, as opposed to looking at one as if you were deep into your so called space.
The whole thing is dishonest.
-
Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere.
And you were completely incapable of showing any thing wrong with that.
So instead you pretended that we magically only see a single line, rather than having an actual FOV.
And that means we don't just see dead centre/level, but also around it, and when standing on Earth, that is plenty to see the horizon, unless you have a very powerful scope with a tiny FOV.
Again, if you wish to disagree, either tell us what magic causes this blend from light to dark rather than the clearly observed edge, and/or what magic stops the blue line.
The whole thing is dishonest.
Everything you have done in this thread is dishonest.
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.
-
Obviously the interpretation of this observation differs, however I think we can all agree that unless there are abnormal weather conditions or the height of the observer is pushed to the extreme - no matter how much we zoom in, or crop, we will not see only sky the way the globe model predicts/expects and scepti has described.
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
With a camera at 6 feet above the ground, looking out level, the horizon is 15,837 feet away. The edge of the Earth you will be looking at is 12 feet below the camera.
So to see only sky, you need a zoom lens capable of zooming fully onto a rectangle 12 feet high at a distance of 3 miles.
By my calculations you need a DSLR with a 20,000mm zoom lens. The worlds biggest zoom lens is a 5,200mm Cannon lens that costs $45,000. Most camera lenses are around 50mm for reference. No 20km zoom lens exists.
So no, nobody is going to ever see just the sky by zooming in because the world is BIG and you just can't do that on your cell phone camera.
I'm also ignoring weather and refraction, which at that distance would make any observation impossible anyway.
So scepti is describing an experiment that is impossible to perform. Like asking for proof that the moon is really 250,000 miles way by demanding you make a 250,000 mile rope ladder and climb up to it with a measuring tape.
Then we got onto his claim that you can't see the ground from a level tube, which I disproved multiple times, so far. And here we are, 100 pages later.
Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere. You even tried to put basket balls on tables to show me edges, as if you were proving something about you standing on a sphere, as opposed to looking at one as if you were deep into your so called space.
The whole thing is dishonest.
If you're going to reply to a message, please read it until you understand it. You are talking about someone else, I never took pictures of basketballs.
Please take time to read and comprehend a reply, it's clear you didn't even bother to try and understand what I wrote above if you think it somehow contradicts anything else I've said.
Come on, put some effort into this.
-
How do we know anything? Science has never claimed to know anything. But we can gather evidence that leads us to a conclusion based on real data which has been measured.
I ask you what the mass of your Earth is and all you can say is 'I have absolutely no idea'.
I ask you how life formed on your Earth and all you can say is 'A potential cell growth from whatever set up up it is part of'.
What use is any of that to school kids? Your 'knowledge' is based purely on wild speculation at best. You refuse to believe anything else that mainstream science tell you yet you have no clue about anything it seems to do with 'your' version of Earth.
-
Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere.
And you were completely incapable of showing any thing wrong with that.
So instead you pretended that we magically only see a single line, rather than having an actual FOV.
And that means we don't just see dead centre/level, but also around it, and when standing on Earth, that is plenty to see the horizon, unless you have a very powerful scope with a tiny FOV.
Again, if you wish to disagree, either tell us what magic causes this blend from light to dark rather than the clearly observed edge, and/or what magic stops the blue line.
The whole thing is dishonest.
Everything you have done in this thread is dishonest.
I've never denied you have a FOV but the FOV you make up is not based on what I've set out.
Yours is based upon a scope or naked eye through a scope, not a simple small diameter tube.
You simply twist it.
I know for a fact you do not see the ground looking level over a gradient like the one JJA showed.
I know this because it took me 5 minutes to prove it with only the simple tube and a level view through it.
-
Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.
You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.
-
How do we knowanything? Science has never claimed to know anything.
What do you mean by that?
Science? Or scientists?
If it's scientists then why are you arguing for facts?
But we can gather evidence that leads us to a conclusion based on real data which has been measured.
Real data for what?
I ask you what the mass of your Earth is and all you can say is 'I have absolutely no idea'.
Because I'm being honest. I have absolutely no idea.
How can I measure something like that if I have no bearings in which to do so?
I ask you how life formed on your Earth and all you can say is 'A potential cell growth from whatever set up up it is part of'.
What would you like me to say?
What use is any of that to school kids?
What use is the nonsense of a global Earth to school kids?
Your 'knowledge' is based purely on wild speculation at best.
And your knowledge is based on acceptance, without proof of those story tellers that wildly speculate or downright lie.
You refuse to believe anything else that mainstream science tell you yet you have no clue about anything it seems to do with 'your' version of Earth.
Until I get real proof...yes.
You are the opposite. You choose to believe just because it's mass peer pressure to accept and much easier to feel part of the entourage of the pied pipers of stories.
-
Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere.
And you were completely incapable of showing any thing wrong with that.
So instead you pretended that we magically only see a single line, rather than having an actual FOV.
And that means we don't just see dead centre/level, but also around it, and when standing on Earth, that is plenty to see the horizon, unless you have a very powerful scope with a tiny FOV.
Again, if you wish to disagree, either tell us what magic causes this blend from light to dark rather than the clearly observed edge, and/or what magic stops the blue line.
The whole thing is dishonest.
Everything you have done in this thread is dishonest.
I've never denied you have a FOV but the FOV you make up is not based on what I've set out.
Yours is based upon a scope or naked eye through a scope, not a simple small diameter tube.
You simply twist it.
I know for a fact you do not see the ground looking level over a gradient like the one JJA showed.
I know this because it took me 5 minutes to prove it with only the simple tube and a level view through it.
Why won't you show us the pictures from your experiment? Make sure to show how you leveled it just like you describe. If you actually performed your experiment, show us the evidence. Otherwise I find it hard to believe you.
-
Why won't you show us the pictures from your experiment? Make sure to show how you leveled it just like you describe. If you actually performed your experiment, show us the evidence. Otherwise I find it hard to believe you.
I don't care one bit whether you believe me or not.
You performed your own experiment and cheated...but.... you're not cheating me, you're cheating yourself.
-
Why won't you show us the pictures from your experiment? Make sure to show how you leveled it just like you describe. If you actually performed your experiment, show us the evidence. Otherwise I find it hard to believe you.
I don't care one bit whether you believe me or not.
You performed your own experiment and cheated...but.... you're not cheating me, you're cheating yourself.
Funny, I was going to say the same of you. I showed my results, and you have failed to respond other than calling me a cheater without even being able to explain how you decided that. All you can do is say it contradicts you and therefore must be wrong.
You know deep down the reason you won't share your images is because you know they won't show what you claim. You spent 100 pages and months arguing. All that effort... yet you won't put any effort at all into posting any images of your experiment. Pretty suspicious.
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.
-
What use is any of that to school kids?
What use is the nonsense of a global Earth to school kids?
Hey sceptimatic. Teaching kids about the Earth in school is beneficial for 2 reasons:
1) Helps with History classes, science classes, and other classes
2) Making sure they know how our round planet works at a young age so they don't get influenced by baseless conspiracies
-
Until I get real proof...yes.
Real proof? What is that exactly? At what point can you say something has been proved? You can pick and choose what you define as proof to suit what you believe. Hence as far as you are concerned no one can prove to you that you are wrong. Neither for that matter can you prove (other than to yourself perhaps) that the Earth is not a globe. What we believe is based on evidence. But since all the evidence available to us is the same, how and why do we come to different conclusions about what that evidence tells us? To you it tells you that the Earth is not a globe but to me it tells me that it is.
I have read that the 'zetetic' approach to evidence is based around relying on ones senses in order to come to a conclusion about what is true and real. Hence some flat Earthers use the evidence that the Earth looks flat as evidence that Earth is not a globe and they insist that the Sun and Moon are are same size just because they look the same size in the sky. But if that were really the case then there would be no such thing as optical illusions. So it seems that we cannot or should not rely on our senses to provide accurate information. There is a need for closer and deeper investigation beyond what we can see directly.
You are the opposite. You choose to believe just because it's mass peer pressure to accept and much easier to feel part of the entourage of the pied pipers of stories.
No my belief is based on all the mountains of evidence presented to everyone in terms of the detailed experiments and theories which have been done over many centuries. During my physics A level I was 'told' about several different experiments and the results I would get from them. I was then given the equipment to do those experiments and so I was able to verify them for myself. I could describe any one of those experiments to you. Yet asked to describe any of the 'experiments' that you say you have done which prove to you your beliefs are correct and the results you have got and you have always refused. Why is that? Your belief is based on... well what exactly is your belief based on apart from a personal denial of everything other than what you 'believe'?
What for example do you think the education of school kids should be based on? Only stuff that they can personally 'prove' themselves? In which case it is pointless them going to school in the first place? Because according to your mindset they are just being fed a stream of lies. I don't think that would be very a popular view among parents do you?
You think the whole of school science should be based around flat Earth belief instead do you? In other words based on the real TRUTH. Well the real TRUTH according to what you believe at least. Yet asked about any of the details about your Earth system and you basically haven't got a clue. What basis is that for an education system?
Obviously I don't know if you have kids yourself, but if you do I'd love to know what their education has been like. Whether you have allowed them to follow their own path and make their own judgements about what is real and true or not. Or whether you have told them not to believe any of the crap they have been 'indoctrinated' with at school and tried to educate them according to your beliefs instead. The trouble is that kids by nature tend to ask questions about the world and so far you don't seem to know the first thing about 'your' Earth.
-
I've never denied you have a FOV
You repeatedly acting like we only see in a line straight out from the tube such that for a 1 inch tube we only see 1 inch, and you continually denying that the blue line is there and reaches the eye is denying we have a FOV.
I know for a fact you do not see the ground looking level over a gradient like the one JJA showed.
I know this because it took me 5 minutes to prove it with only the simple tube and a level view through it.
No, you don't, because you just keep repeating the same pathetic lie without providing anything to substantiate it, nor answering simple questions which show you are completely wrong.
I know you are wrong because it takes me all of 5 seconds to look through a tube and see an object larger than the tube.
This shows we don't have magic 1D vision without a FOV like you claim.
The fact you need to continually avoid extremely simple questions shows that you most likely know you are spouting pure BS.
Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Unless you can provide an explanation, then that blue line exists as a viable path for light to follow, meaning you can see things at a height below the tube, and thus have the potential to see a downwards slope, depending on the gradient and FOV.
Likewise, again, when you are standing far away from a tree or a building or anything like that, looking through your 1 inch diameter level tube, do you just see 1 inch of it? Or can you stand far enough back from it such that you can see ALL of it?
If the latter, then YOU ARE WRONG! That even means you can see the ground.
And guess what? That is what is observed in JJA's photo, where we can see entire objects, from the ground to the top, even though they are much larger than the tube.
This shows you are wrong.
Just like his photos of a ruler through the tube show you are wrong.
You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.
You mean you will answer if and only if you figure out a way to do so without admitting you are completely wrong?
-
Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.
You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.
I have a couple of somethings to say. :D I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.
I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.
So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.
Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? :D
You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.
-
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.
Let's deal with a scope at level in the diagram I drew.
You tell me how it's possible to see the ground of that downward gradient (not the upward gradient after it) by using a level tube on that gradient.
Let me tell you something. You do not see what JJA showed.
I ask any genuine person who is not bound by the global peer pressured adherence, to do this for themselves and show that I am correct or wrong.
Now here's the key. I have done it. It's so simple as to not even require anything more than a simple level and a look through the tube standing on a gradient that slopes down and away from you whilst your tube is level.
You do not even need a tripod, Just go outside, find a gradient that looks similar to what JJA posted and tell me if you can see any of that downward slope.
I guarantee, if you are honest, you won't.
Now why would I say this if I haven't checked it out?
The standard answer from the usual suspects is, I'm lying, just like I send back the cheat message to them.....sooooo, you free thinkers...go and try it.
-
What use is any of that to school kids?
What use is the nonsense of a global Earth to school kids?
Hey sceptimatic. Teaching kids about the Earth in school is beneficial for 2 reasons:
1) Helps with History classes, science classes, and other classes
It definitely helps if there's truth in it, otherwise it's just another story among many that are told then placed back on the fact shelf, without proof of the facts.
Children reading an Enid Blyton book will learn alot about reading and spelling and thinking. It can be very beneficial. Bit is it real?
The answer is...yes, the story is a real story and no, the story does not depict a reality in that scenario......but, it can depict a potential truth among fiction for some of the things that may happen in that story.
2) Making sure they know how our round planet works at a young age so they don't get influenced by baseless conspiracies
Or making sure they follow a curriculum and to accept it as a truth even if it's fiction or potential fiction.
Also training the young mind to think of anyone who goes against what is being taught, as nutters or odd...etc.
Teaching a person how to go about in life is one thing. Teaching a person that it's not ok to question stuff outside of the stories told.... is another.
-
Teaching a person how to go about in life is one thing. Teaching a person that it's not ok to question stuff outside of the stories told.... is another.
Well certainly no one has ever told me that it is not OK to question anything. Has anyone said that to you?
My experience of science has always been that we should question everything. What exactly do you mean by 'question'? Do you mean literally questions like 'why is the sky blue?', 'why do the stars above us rotate?' 'How did life come into being?' 'How did the Earth form?' etc etc or do you mean question things as in 'I don't believe that?'
Whenever I have done any courses at any level, the teacher, instructor, lecturer or whatever you want to call them have always said, 'Any questions about anything I have said?'.
You go on about 'proof' but what exactly IS proof? All that I have been 'told' can be backed up by evidence which is completely and openly documented and explained with references to published material. How much evidence is there out there that backs up what you claim? You are simply asking us to accept what you tell us.
-
Until I get real proof...yes.
Real proof? What is that exactly? At what point can you say something has been proved?
When you actually see that proof and physically know it to be. Otherwise is becomes a mixture of best guesses based on potentials or wild guesses based on faith or a mix of thought processes...or, lies/misinfo.
You can pick and choose what you define as proof to suit what you believe. Hence as far as you are concerned no one can prove to you that you are wrong.
No, they can't, just as I can't prove that I'm right...just as you cannot prove your global Earth but think you can based on accepted guesswork and/or, misinfo. Imo.
Neither for that matter can you prove (other than to yourself perhaps) that the Earth is not a globe.
I absolutely can. It's the easiest thing for me. Water level alone is absolute proof, among other stuff.
What we believe is based on evidence.
No it's not. It's based on what you believe to be evidence, by what you are told, which cannot be proved to be so.
But since all the evidence available to us is the same, how and why do we come to different conclusions about what that evidence tells us? To you it tells you that the Earth is not a globe but to me it tells me that it is.
Yep...and this is where we will always differ until you actually realise it's not. One thing for absolute sure is...I will never believe it to be a globe, ever again.
I was battered with it for many many years. I will not accept it anymore.
You can obviously spend the rest of your life with a global belief and I'm ok with that. I just know it's not a globe we walk upon and I'm 100% sure of that.
If someone gave me irrefutable proof that it was, I'd accept it. Nobody can do it, as of yet.
I have read that the 'zetetic' approach to evidence is based around relying on ones senses in order to come to a conclusion about what is true and real. Hence some flat Earthers use the evidence that the Earth looks flat as evidence that Earth is not a globe and they insist that the Sun and Moon are are same size just because they look the same size in the sky.
Do they look the same size in the sky?
But if that were really the case then there would be no such thing as optical illusions. So it seems that we cannot or should not rely on our senses to provide accurate information. There is a need for closer and deeper investigation beyond what we can see directly.
We do see optical illusions. We see bigger suns and bigger moons. Smaller suns and smaller moons.
Atmospheric lensing and magnification are evident.
No my belief is based on all the mountains of evidence presented to everyone in terms of the detailed experiments and theories which have been done over many centuries.
Why use many centuries when the technology of today should supposedly suffice. So why hark back?
During my physics A level I was 'told' about several different experiments and the results I would get from them. I was then given the equipment to do those experiments and so I was able to verify them for myself. I could describe any one of those experiments to you.
Such as?
Yet asked to describe any of the 'experiments' that you say you have done which prove to you your beliefs are correct and the results you have got and you have always refused.
I've described many experiments that prove a lot of stuff. All denied by people like yourself, to no surprise from me.
Why is that? Your belief is based on... well what exactly is your belief based on apart from a personal denial of everything other than what you 'believe'?
My belief is definitely that the Earth is not a globe we walk upon. My belief about what Earth is, in its entirety has not been formed.What has been formed is my mindset on what it potentially could be in many aspects.
I don't put any of it out as factual.
What for example do you think the education of school kids should be based on?
Truth and to be told the truth of the stories told. If the story is fiction, let them know. If it's a mix of potentials based on best guesses....let them know. If it's 100% true...show them the reality, not hide it behind all kinds of cloaks.
Only stuff that they can personally 'prove' themselves? In which case it is pointless them going to school in the first place? Because according to your mindset they are just being fed a stream of lies. I don't think that would be very a popular view among parents do you?
Don't get mixed up with everything being a stream of lies and me questioning many things set out as truth's.
You think the whole of school science should be based around flat Earth belief instead do you?
Not at all.
I think the whole school of science based learning should be about realities and potentials, not nonsensical lies.
In other words based on the real TRUTH. Well the real TRUTH according to what you believe at least. Yet asked about any of the details about your Earth system and you basically haven't got a clue. What basis is that for an education system?
It wouldn't be taught as an education system. It would be taught as a potential among a host of many potentials about life and history and what maybe ahead.
Obviously I don't know if you have kids yourself, but if you do I'd love to know what their education has been like.
Normal education like most other children. They are all well grown and in their own jobs just like most other people.
Whether you have allowed them to follow their own path and make their own judgements about what is real and true or not.
I put no barriers in front of anyone. Each person is entitled to choose their own path of thought and in life.
You'd be surprised at how many people question the stuff they were coaxed into.
Or whether you have told them not to believe any of the crap they have been 'indoctrinated' with at school and tried to educate them according to your beliefs instead.
The only thing I've ever had to say was, make sure nobody takes you for a mug and try your best to ensure you use your own judgement before you simply go with any flow.
The trouble is that kids by nature tend to ask questions about the world and so far you don't seem to know the first thing about 'your' Earth.
By nature we are mimics. We are parrots.
We are sheep like.
That's the basic nature of the herd that are humans.
Asking questions is fine if the questions are the one's that are allowed.
Ask the wrong one and you are ridiculed.
Don't bother arguing this because I've seen enough of it, first hand...and not just by me asking those questions, either.
Getting a pat on the back by following the pied piper is all well and good and a safe enough choice...but it gains you nothing more than tunnelled thought processes with no way to veer off.
You are welcome to that.
-
You repeatedly acting like we only see in a line straight out from the tube such that for a 1 inch tube we only see 1 inch, and you continually denying that the blue line is there and reaches the eye is denying we have a FOV.
Your FOV would be 1 inch in a 1 inch diameter tube. What you see outside of that tube, is compressed images all a within that 1 inch diameter.
Nothing spans out unless you have refraction/reflection.
-
Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.
You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.
I have a couple of somethings to say. :D I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.
I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.
So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.
Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? :D
You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.
You have no clue whatsoever.
-
By nature we are mimics. We are parrots.
We are sheep like.
Sorry... I disagree. And I know disagreeing with you is absolutely pointless as your mind is made up no matter what. You don't care what anyone else says.
Science has constantly re-invented itself as new evidence comes to light. A large part of modern physics is based on quantum theory. Now that is not something I can 'prove' as correct myself but then no man is an island are they.
Go back just a century and cosmology was a very new branch of physics. We didn't know other galaxies existed. But that is all lost with you because you don't even accept that stars exist let alone other galaxies. There was a big debate about the nature of the 'nebulae' back in 1920 based on two very different schools of thought. So clearly that is evidence of how scientists of the past have 'questioned' the nature of what we see in the night sky.
So what you think those points of light circling overhead on a clear night are I haven't a clue. I have my theories but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you know they are. Because afterall you seem to think you know everything. Think being the key word there.
-
You go on about 'proof' but what exactly IS proof? All that I have been 'told' can be backed up by evidence which is completely and openly documented and explained with references to published material.
Feel free to nail this, if you can.
-
By nature we are mimics. We are parrots.
We are sheep like.
Sorry... I disagree. And I know disagreeing with you is absolutely pointless as your mind is made up no matter what. You don't care what anyone else says.
I absolutely care what people say. I just don't care for people trying to push nonsense whilst pretending they're some kind of intellectual scientist.
Science has constantly re-invented itself as new evidence comes to light.
And that should tell you something.
A large part of modern physics is based on quantum theory. Now that is not something I can 'prove' as correct myself but then no man is an island are they.
What about quantum theory makes any sense. Any ideas?
In a nutshell, what does it mean?
Go back just a century and cosmology was a very new branch of physics.
We didn't know other galaxies existed. But that is all lost with you because you don't even accept that stars exist let alone other galaxies.
I certainly don't believe any of what we're told as it is.
That doesn't mean there's not an amazing set up to Earth and the exterior to this cell.
But first we must know what we are before we can know what the rest is.
My guess is cells just like this one. But that's all I can do.
I can't pass it off as reality like the so called astrophysicists push out about galaxies and such.
There was a big debate about the nature of the 'nebulae' back in 1920 based on two very different schools of thought. So clearly that is evidence of how scientists of the past have 'questioned' the nature of what we see in the night sky.
Just two. Was there any room for any more?
I mean, if there was two then one is right and one is wrong...or they're both wrong and it's open to a third or fourth, or fifth......right?
So what you think those points of light circling overhead on a clear night are I haven't a clue.
Points of light. Not big millions of miles in diameter burning balls of fire in a so called vacuum.
I have my theories but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you know they are.
Points of light back to our eyes is my guess. Reflective light.
You don't have your theories. Your stuff is handed to you on a plate and you parrot that...nothing more.
Because afterall you seem to think you know everything. Think being the key word there.
Are you getting angry?
I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.
Somehow the actual question seems to have been deleted and changed into some other nonsense.
Somehow.
So ive reposted.
See above in large font
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.
Somehow the actual question seems to have been deleted and changed into some other nonsense.
Somehow.
So ive reposted.
See above in large font
Try something better. I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say.
-
Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.
You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.
I have a couple of somethings to say. :D I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.
I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.
So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.
Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? :D
You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.
You have no clue whatsoever.
Lol! ;D I'm the clueless one! I've used vhf hand held radios, during searches for missing persons in rough terrain, which guess what? They are line of sight limited also. Limited to guess what? :D Yep. The distance to the horizon - about 5 km. So much for the horizon being theoretical, huh? :D
Try to separate your astronomical horizon from the true horizon, sceptimatic, if you can. I'll try to help you on this leg of your journey.
Oh, by the way, I've got a spare earth globe in my living room. Would you like me to send it to you for your birthday? :D
-
Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.
You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.
I have a couple of somethings to say. :D I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.
I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.
So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.
Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? :D
You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.
You have no clue whatsoever.
Lol! ;D I'm the clueless one! I've used vhf hand held radios, during searches for missing persons in rough terrain, which guess what? They are line of sight limited also. Limited to guess what? :D Yep. The distance to the horizon - about 5 km. So much for the horizon being theoretical, huh? :D
Try to separate your astronomical horizon from the true horizon, sceptimatic, if you can. I'll try to help you on this leg of your journey.
Oh, by the way, I've got a spare earth globe in my living room. Would you like me to send it to you for your birthday? :D
Like I said, you have no clue.
-
Are you getting angry?
I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.
Angry? Not in the least. But if what you see through a simple tube is more convincing as evidence to you that you are right and that all the scientific experiments that are carried out today are just spoon-feeding lies to the rest then fair enough.
Why would you think that the stars are some sort of reflection? What leads you to that conclusion? How much have you studied or attempted to investigate those points of light in the sky?
-
Like I said, you have no clue.
Here's a clue. If you haven't performed any experiments and others have, then you probably don't know what you're talking about.
-
Like I said, you have no clue.
That's rich coming from someone who preaches about being an 'alternative thinker', dismisses the whole of science yet doesn't seem to be able to tell us anything about his 'alternative' Earth. Who is it that has 'no clue'?
I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.
Why would so many people tell the same lies? And for so long? You seem to think that the whole of science as we know it is based around lies. Why? One person cannot possibly prove everything that is true and real for themselves. We simply don't live that long. So at various stages in our lives we have to trust and respect the word of others.
For example I cannot personally prove that climate change exists. So should I refuse to accept all the evidence that I hear about on TV and on the internet as fabrication and lies? Until I can prove it is real for myself? And if so how shall I go about doing that?
I have never seen a live polar bear with my own eyes. So should I refuse to accept that polar bears exist until I have seen one with my own eyes?
When it comes to proof you will happily accept anything that seems to you to 'prove' your beliefs. Including what you see through a toilet roll or whatever. But outside of that you dismiss everything as an apparently deliberate attempt to 'dupe' you. Why are you so obsessed about people lying to you?
When I look through my handheld spectroscope (identical to the one below)
https://amzn.to/2MAmWIJ
At the sky I see a spectrum with absorption lines identical to the know lines in the Suns spectrum. That is not surprisingly because the sky during the day is illuminated by sunlight.
Then at night I aim my telescope fitted with a diffraction grating filter at different stars. In each case I see the same bright spectrum sequence of colours as I do in the Sun and I also see dark lines just like I do in the Suns spectrum. But for each star I see a different pattern of lines.
What do you conclude from that?
-
If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.
Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?
Im also saying level tube.
Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.
This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?
Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.
Somehow the actual question seems to have been deleted and changed into some other nonsense.
Somehow.
So ive reposted.
See above in large font
Try something better. I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say.
Dodge away.
It was understood when you thought you could use the "level" excuse.
But ive taken that out of the equation.
-
Your FOV would be 1 inch
A FOV is measured in degrees or another angular measurement. It is not a linear measurement.
So saying it would be 1 inch is basically the same as saying you have no FOV.
What you see outside of that tube, is compressed images all a within that 1 inch diameter.
i.e. The light goes into the tube due to perspective.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/z3LszeO.png)
The line on the right is "visually compressed" to fit in the same angular region as that on the left. And then it gets compressed even smaller than that as it goes into your eye.
That "compression" is merely travelling upwards (and downwards) at an angle, such that it always subtends the same angle and thus has a smaller linear size.
That is simply light travelling in straight lines, with an angular FOV.
That is the blue line coming up to see.
There is no need to invoke nonsense like magical compression with linear FOVs, rather than just accepting reality, with angular FOV.
But regardless of if you want to invoke compression, or if you are just going to admit that light travels in a straight line and the blue line gets in; you CAN see things below the level of the tube.
And that means you can see a downwards gradient from a level tube.
With an angular measurement you simply use the angles directly, rather than pretending 1 length is actually a different length.
With a linear measurement and your nonsense compression, then if the tube is 6 inches, and is 1 inch, then at 6 inches you have your reference 1 inch, at 1 foot that 1 inch corresponds to a "compressed" 2 inches, i.e. a 2 inch object will be "visually compressed" to fit into the 1 inch at the end of the tube. At 2 feet, you compress 4 inches into that 1 inch, and so on. At 100 feet, your 1 inch will now fit 200 inches (with it "compressing" to 1 inch at the end of the tube). That means an object 99.5 inches below the tube will be seen. And that is more than 8 feet. So if you were standing 6 feet above flat, level ground on a hypothetical FE, you would see the ground through the tube. If instead of level, if it was sloping down such that over 100 feet sideways it dropped no more ~2.3 feet then you would still see the ground.
For a sharper gradient, you would need further. For example, if for every 20 feet it dropped 1 foot, and you were standing 6 feet above it, you would need 180 feet, as in those 180 feet, the ground would have dropped by 9 feet, and the "visual compression" would compress 15 feet into that 1 inch at the end of the tube, so you would just see the ground.
Again, the simple questions you have been asked shows that to be the case.
What magic stops the blue line? The answer is NOTHING! It will travel to the eye and you will see things below the tube.
Likewise, if you are standing on a level surface (or even with a small downwards gradient), you can stand far enough back from a tree to see the tree from top to bottom through a level tube. That means you can see the ground through a level tube, depending on the FOV and the gradient.
Try something better. I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say.
Stop playing dumb. It is incredibly simple. If you are standing far enough back from a tree and look at it through a level tube you can see the entire tree from top to bottom. This shows that light is coming from the base of the tree and up into the tube and reaching your eye. Exactly what you claim should never happen.
You tell me how it's possible to see the ground of that downward gradient (not the upward gradient after it) by using a level tube on that gradient.
You have already been told.
We have a FOV. We don't magically see in 1D like your diagram pretends.
Remember this diagram (the one you are yet to show a problem for it):
(https://i.imgur.com/I08Mnv5.png)
While it is for a tube, a similar principle applies unless you have a scope that gives no FOV (i.e. a FOV of 0)
Light can come up from below that magical line you appeal to.
As light comes up from below, this allows you to see things below eye level, including a downwards gradient, depending on the gradient and FOV.
It doesn't take a genius to realise this, and these questions you keep avoiding show it quite simply and your repeated avoidance shows you likely know you are wrong and are just refusing to admit it.
I ask any genuine person who is not bound by the global peer pressured adherence, to do this for themselves and show that I am correct or wrong.
And if they show you are wrong, you will thus dismiss them as "bound by the global peer pressured adherence" rather than just admit you are wrong.
Now here's the key. I have done it.
Yet you refuse to provide any evidence of that.
Now why would I say this if I haven't checked it out?
To continue propagating your pathetic lie that the RE and so much of science is wrong, and because you need to double down to refuse admitting you are wrong.
It definitely helps if there's truth in it
Glad you can admit it helps. As there is plenty of truth in it.
Teaching a person how to go about in life is one thing. Teaching a person that it's not ok to question stuff outside of the stories told.... is another.
Then you misunderstand entirely.
The point is so they understand how the RE works so they can see all the nonsense spouted by people like you.
For example, without education, they might foolishly think that a simple tube magically makes it so you can only ever see 1 inch of any distant object.
With a proper education which includes understanding, they will realise that light can come up at an angle from the bottom of the tube to the eye.
Likewise, without education, they might be caught off guard by all the nonsense that pretends Earth is a tiny ball, rather than realise that on this massive ball the horizon, when viewed from close to sea level will be so close to eye level it isn't funny.
Likewise, without education, they might foolishly think that you should be able to feel velocity and think that everything should be thrown off the spinning Earth, rather than realise that you don't feel velocity, instead you feel acceleration (or velocity relative to another object), and that the acceleration at the surface of Earth due to Earth's massive size is insignificant for most everyday activities.
-
Why would you think that the stars are some sort of reflection? What leads you to that conclusion? How much have you studied or attempted to investigate those points of light in the sky?
Just by seeing what we are capable of producing on Earth.
We can make holograms and reflect all kinds of light...etc. We can do this because the Earth does this.
A self sustaining cell.
You just have to look around you, to see what's what.
-
Like I said, you have no clue.
That's rich coming from someone who preaches about being an 'alternative thinker', dismisses the whole of science yet doesn't seem to be able to tell us anything about his 'alternative' Earth. Who is it that has 'no clue'?
I don't dismiss the whole of science, so why say it?
I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.
Why would so many people tell the same lies? And for so long?
Why do many need to tell lies?
What lies are people telling?
I don't believe for one minute that many people are telling lies. I believe many people are parroting what they were coaxed into parroting. As simple as that.
You seem to think that the whole of science as we know it is based around lies.
Why?
I don't, so why bother saying it.
One person cannot possibly prove everything that is true and real for themselves.
I never implied they could.
We simply don't live that long. So at various stages in our lives we have to trust and respect the word of others.
I trust plenty of people and things to an extent.
You're getting yourself wound up because of how you interpret me on a forum, in type.
Calm down, for your own sanity.
For example I cannot personally prove that climate change exists.
I believe it does exist but not in the way we are told.
So should I refuse to accept all the evidence that I hear about on TV and on the internet as fabrication and lies?
Until I can prove it is real for myself? And if so how shall I go about doing that?
Nobody is asking you to accept anything as lies. You accptt whatever you like as lies or your truth. It's entirely up to you.
I have never seen a live polar bear with my own eyes. So should I refuse to accept that polar bears exist until I have seen one with my own eyes?
I accept they're real. I have no reason to question them. I have seen one at a zoo...but...if I hadn't seen one at the zoo I'd still be quite happy to accept they exist, as I would many things.
You're trying to use things to make out I dismiss everything when you can't get me to accept a silly globe.
When it comes to proof you will happily accept anything that seems to you to 'prove' your beliefs. Including what you see through a toilet roll or whatever. But outside of that you dismiss everything as an apparently deliberate attempt to 'dupe' you. Why are you so obsessed about people lying to you?
I'm not obsessed about people lying to me. If I think someone is, I'll say it. Otherwise I just go my own way.
When I look through my handheld spectroscope (identical to the one below)
https://amzn.to/2MAmWIJ
At the sky I see a spectrum with absorption lines identical to the know lines in the Suns spectrum. That is not surprisingly because the sky during the day is illuminated by sunlight.
So you see a spectrum. So what?
Then at night I aim my telescope fitted with a diffraction grating filter at different stars. In each case I see the same bright spectrum sequence of colours as I do in the Sun and I also see dark lines just like I do in the Suns spectrum. But for each star I see a different pattern of lines.
What do you conclude from that?
Depending on the angle and distance to a point of light, I assume you will.
What's the issue?
-
Dodge away.
It was understood when you thought you could use the "level" excuse.
But ive taken that out of the equation.
I'm not dodging...you aren't being clear.
Try taking your time, typing.
-
Your FOV would be 1 inch
A FOV is measured in degrees or another angular measurement. It is not a linear measurement.
So saying it would be 1 inch is basically the same as saying you have no FOV.
In your mind it may be. In mine it's pretty simple, as I said it.
Your field of vision is from centre point out to one inch diameter of the tube end and what's within that vision.
You have a fluted vision from a one inch tube and it's wrong, unless you have a scope or your naked eye.
Back to JJA's experiment down the gradient with his tube.
That's wrong and you know it.
-
We can make holograms and reflect all kinds of light...etc.
The collective 'We' that you use, does that include you that can't even make a photograph through a tube?
How do you know holograms are real? Have you ever made a hologram?
Yes.
-
Your FOV would be 1 inch
A FOV is measured in degrees or another angular measurement. It is not a linear measurement.
So saying it would be 1 inch is basically the same as saying you have no FOV.
In your mind it may be.
Because in reality we see based upon ANGLES!
But like I said, it doesn't matter if you want to accept those angles, or instead try to appeal to "visual compression" making it appear 1 inch, the blue line still goes up from below the tube and still reaches your eye.
Your field of vision is from centre point out to one inch diameter of the tube end and what's within that vision.
And that is exactly what I have.
Did you not notice those 2 red lines?
They start at the centre point, i.e. the eye, and they go out to the diameter of the tube.
Notice how that naturally makes an angled FOV?
You have a fluted vision from a one inch tube and it's wrong, unless you have a scope or your naked eye.
Again, the simple tube lies between those 2, so if you have it with a scope and with your naked eye, you must have it with the tube.
The only way to not have this angled FOV is if you have a lens with an infinite magnification, but that is not a simple tube.
Again, the simple questions you continue to doge shows this to be the case beyond any doubt.
The fact that you can see an object that is larger than the tube shows light does not magically come in parallel and instead comes in from a cone of angles.
Now again, What magic stops the blue line?
And can you see a tree, from top to bottom, through a level tube if you stand far enough back?
Back to JJA's experiment down the gradient with his tube.
That's wrong and you know it.
No, it is perfectly fine, and you know it.
If you knew it was fake you would have provided your own evidence.
I'm not dodging...you aren't being clear.
You are dodging, because it is all you can do to pretend you aren't wrong; as any answer to the question will show you to be either so full of BS it isn't funny, or to admit that you are wrong.
-
as any answer to the question will show you to be either so full of BS it isn't funny ...
I think it would be funny.
-
Your FOV would be 1 inch
A FOV is measured in degrees or another angular measurement. It is not a linear measurement.
So saying it would be 1 inch is basically the same as saying you have no FOV.
In your mind it may be.
Because in reality we see based upon ANGLES!
But like I said, it doesn't matter if you want to accept those angles, or instead try to appeal to "visual compression" making it appear 1 inch, the blue line still goes up from below the tube and still reaches your eye.
Only if your inner tube wall is capable of reflecting light.
-
You're trying to use things to make out I dismiss everything when you can't get me to accept a silly globe.
If anything were to make me angry it is equally silly comments like this. However I don't care enough to allow such comments to make me angry. Obviously people have their own beliefs and they have their reasons for having them.
OK so we are 'silly' to say the Earth is a globe in your opinion. What shape do you think it is then and why? Why do you think it is the shape that you insist it is? Any solid object beyond a certain mass naturally forms to be the most efficient shape. That means smallest surface area for a given volume. Equals sphere.
Obviously you are not the first and only person to have your 'altenative' beliefs. But until you can match your alternative beliefs with alternative evidence to support it on the scale that there is evidence to support the global Earth model then you are on your own.
-
You're trying to use things to make out I dismiss everything when you can't get me to accept a silly globe.
If anything were to make me angry it is equally silly comments like this. However I don't care enough to allow such comments to make me angry.
I have to just laugh. He calls it "silly". This is coming from someone who believes the sun and moon are holographic reflections inside a magic ice dome, projected by a Power Crystal and magic light source hidden at the North Pole.
:D :D :D
-
Like I said, you have no clue.
That's rich coming from someone who preaches about being an 'alternative thinker', dismisses the whole of science yet doesn't seem to be able to tell us anything about his 'alternative' Earth. Who is it that has 'no clue'?
I don't dismiss the whole of science, so why say it?
You literally dismiss everything that shows the Earth is round, and everything that follows, which pretty much covers everything.
Can you state a scientific theory you don't dismiss?
-
Back to JJA's experiment down the gradient with his tube.
That's wrong and you know it.
You saying it's wrong over and over doesn't make it true. You have yet to give ANY reason for your claims it's wrong.
Why won't you do it for yourself? You just assume it's wrong because you THINK it shouldn't work, but clearly have never tried.
-
I have to just laugh. He calls it "silly". This is coming from someone who believes the sun and moon are holographic reflections inside a magic ice dome, projected by a Power Crystal and magic light source hidden at the North Pole.
Well you know maybe (just maybe) he might find a way to prove he is right.. In which case we will all be proved wrong and shown to be the silly ones. How long it will take Sceptimatic to do that I haven't a clue but I suspect longer than the human race will exist.
But until he can show us (not just tell us but show us) that he is right then I will happily stick to what I believe (sorry.. to what I have been told) thank you very much. I'm sure in his own mind he has already proved to himself that he is right.
-
Sceptimatic is a Newcastle United fan. You have to cut some slack, as it is a handicap.
-
Because in reality we see based upon ANGLES!
But like I said, it doesn't matter if you want to accept those angles, or instead try to appeal to "visual compression" making it appear 1 inch, the blue line still goes up from below the tube and still reaches your eye.
Only if your inner tube wall is capable of reflecting light.
Not in the slightest.
Just where in my diagram does the blue line reflect off the wall of the tube?
NO WHERE!
That would be akin to the purple line in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONWxn61.png)
Again, the blue line just goes straight in the end of the tube and to your eyes.
It doesn't hit any part of the tube, and thus there is no way for the tube to stop it.
That means you can see below the tube.
Again, if you wish to disagree (and pretend your disagree is justified) you need to tell us what magic stop the blue line.
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
But again, I even explained it with your idea of visual compression, where the distance between the level of the tube and the ground is "visually compressed", where eventually you reach a far enough distance to see ground below you (with the ability depending on the length and diameter of the tube and the slope of the gradient).
Again, the simple fact that you can see an object larger than the tube through the tube shows that you can see things above and below the tube. As shown by yet another question you refuse to answer because you know it will show you are wrong and spouting pure BS.
Again, do you accept you can stand on flat ground far enough away from a tree to see the entire tree from top to bottom through a level tube?
The simple reality is that you WILL see things below the tube, regardless of if you want to accept the fact we have a FOV based upon angles (you know, reality which actually makes sense, where a FOV of 5 degrees is a FOV of 5 degrees, without any extra qualification) and directly use that or use your nonsense with a linear FOV (where a FOV of 1 inch is entirely meaningless as you don't know if it is 1 inch, 1 inch away from you, or if it is 1 inch, 1 km away from you) and appeal to visual compression.
-
Because in reality we see based upon ANGLES!
But like I said, it doesn't matter if you want to accept those angles, or instead try to appeal to "visual compression" making it appear 1 inch, the blue line still goes up from below the tube and still reaches your eye.
Only if your inner tube wall is capable of reflecting light.
Not in the slightest.
Just where in my diagram does the blue line reflect off the wall of the tube?
NO WHERE!
That would be akin to the purple line in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONWxn61.png)
Again, the blue line just goes straight in the end of the tube and to your eyes.
It doesn't hit any part of the tube, and thus there is no way for the tube to stop it.
That means you can see below the tube.
Again, if you wish to disagree (and pretend your disagree is justified) you need to tell us what magic stop the blue line.
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Like I told you before. The blue line is in your head. This doesn't happen in the scenario I gave.
In a dark tube looking central from back to front, you do not see down a gradient with the tube on a level.
If you want to play around with angles then you need to argue for a scope or naked eye, not a tunnel vision through a tube.
The only thing you get in a moving distance from a tube is compression as you move away from any object. This is because you bring more light into the equation in the area ytou look into from that diameter of tube.
Remember your focus is from central point. The crosshair point.
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
-
Honestly, I've heard less talk about red lines and blue lines when looking at a pregnancy test.
Sceptimatic, could you at least try with your replies to my well thought out posts, or don't reply at all because you're well and truly beaten. "Like I said, you're clueless" is lowest of low content posting, and I'd hate someone to report you.
As I post this, I'm about to finish a toilet roll, and I live on a hill, and own a level. How about I spend two minutes of my time, and photograph how much of the downward slope i can see through my level toilet roll, while I try not to get arrested and thrown in a looney bin.
-
But anyone, including you, can prove this is wrong for themselves. Try it.
Dark tube , no lens , you are still wrong. Try it.
I have, you obviously haven't.
-
Honestly, I've heard less talk about red lines and blue lines when looking at a pregnancy test.
Sceptimatic, could you at least try with your replies to my well thought out posts, or don't reply at all because you're well and truly beaten. "Like I said, you're clueless" is lowest of low content posting, and I'd hate someone to report you.
Carry on and do what you need to do. Your baiting is weak and laughable.
As I post this, I'm about to finish a toilet roll, and I live on a hill, and own a level. How about I spend two minutes of my time, and photograph how much of the downward slope i can see through my level toilet roll, while I try not to get arrested and thrown in a looney bin.
You apparently have everything and then nothing to show for the everything. Do what you feel is best for your own mind.
-
Because in reality we see based upon ANGLES!
But like I said, it doesn't matter if you want to accept those angles, or instead try to appeal to "visual compression" making it appear 1 inch, the blue line still goes up from below the tube and still reaches your eye.
Only if your inner tube wall is capable of reflecting light.
Not in the slightest.
Just where in my diagram does the blue line reflect off the wall of the tube?
NO WHERE!
That would be akin to the purple line in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONWxn61.png)
Again, the blue line just goes straight in the end of the tube and to your eyes.
It doesn't hit any part of the tube, and thus there is no way for the tube to stop it.
That means you can see below the tube.
Again, if you wish to disagree (and pretend your disagree is justified) you need to tell us what magic stop the blue line.
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Like I told you before
That is the big problem with you. All you ever do is "tell" you never justify or explain.
Stop just telling us the same lies and actually address the problem.
The blue line is in your head. This doesn't happen in the scenario I gave.
Like I have explained to you repeatedly, unless you can explain what magic stops it, it is in reality. It DOES occur in the scenario you gave.
The only thing you get in a moving distance from a tube is compression as you move away from any object.
I.E. What you get is the light coming in from angles and subtending a particular angle of your FOV, just like my diagrams have shown.
Remember your focus is from central point. The crosshair point.
Yes, the eye in my diagram, which can clearly see with an angular FOV.
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
And that means that there is no compression, that if you were to look at a distant object through a 1 inch tube, all you would see is 1 inch of it. You would never be able to see any more.
How about this, take that diagram and draw in a tree, showing how you can see it all, from top to bottom.
-
But anyone, including you, can prove this is wrong for themselves. Try it.
Dark tube , no lens , you are still wrong. Try it.
I have, you obviously haven't.
Anyone, including you, can prove this is wrong for themselves. Try it.
I have.
-
How about this, take that diagram and draw in a tree, showing how you can see it all, from top to bottom.
What do you mean? What is that going to prove?
-
But anyone, including you, can prove this is wrong for themselves. Try it.
Dark tube , no lens , you are still wrong. Try it.
I have, you obviously haven't.
Anyone, including you, can prove this is wrong for themselves. Try it.
I have.
Everyone, excluding you, can prove this is wrong for themselves.
And yet none are doing it.
-
Honestly, I've heard less talk about red lines and blue lines when looking at a pregnancy test.
Sceptimatic, could you at least try with your replies to my well thought out posts, or don't reply at all because you're well and truly beaten. "Like I said, you're clueless" is lowest of low content posting, and I'd hate someone to report you.
Carry on and do what you need to do. Your baiting is weak and laughable.
As I post this, I'm about to finish a toilet roll, and I live on a hill, and own a level. How about I spend two minutes of my time, and photograph how much of the downward slope i can see through my level toilet roll, while I try not to get arrested and thrown in a looney bin.
You apparently have everything and then nothing to show for the everything. Do what you feel is best for your own mind.
Sceptimatic, you're struggling again. My arguments are like titanium steel compared to your cotton candy. Don't blame me for the shape of this world not meeting your cell membrane expectations. I'll do what I feel is best, for your mind. I already know how the dunny roll experiment pans out.
-
Anyone, including you, can prove this is wrong for themselves. Try it.
I have.
Then you know you are wrong. So why keep repeating the same lies?
How about this, take that diagram and draw in a tree, showing how you can see it all, from top to bottom.
What do you mean? What is that going to prove?
Well if you do it honestly, it will show that your claim is pure garbage.
Drawing in the tree to scale will show that you only see 1 inch of the tree if your lies were true, directly contradicting your claims of contraction and contradicting extremely simple experiments.
If instead you draw in the actual lines the light takes, you will see that the blue line you want to pretend doesn't exist, does actually exist and you do have light come into the tube from an angle, showing you to be wrong.
So as it shows you are wrong, you obviously wont be doing it.
And yet none are doing it.
They have, you just dismissed it as fake because you don't give a damn about the truth.
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
-
Honestly, I've heard less talk about red lines and blue lines when looking at a pregnancy test.
Sceptimatic, could you at least try with your replies to my well thought out posts, or don't reply at all because you're well and truly beaten. "Like I said, you're clueless" is lowest of low content posting, and I'd hate someone to report you.
Carry on and do what you need to do. Your baiting is weak and laughable.
As I post this, I'm about to finish a toilet roll, and I live on a hill, and own a level. How about I spend two minutes of my time, and photograph how much of the downward slope i can see through my level toilet roll, while I try not to get arrested and thrown in a looney bin.
You apparently have everything and then nothing to show for the everything. Do what you feel is best for your own mind.
Sceptimatic, you're struggling again. My arguments are like titanium steel compared to your cotton candy. Don't blame me for the shape of this world not meeting your cell membrane expectations. I'll do what I feel is best, for your mind. I already know how the dunny roll experiment pans out.
What arguments?
You don't have any arguments.
-
Do you think I am lying. Anyone can prove for themselves you are wrong.
So go and prove it.
Take over JJA's mantle where he left off and follow my instructions. Do what he backed out of.
-
you don't give a damn about the truth.
Then why are you bothering with me?
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?
-
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Visually compressed into that one inch tube? How much you see depends on your distance?
Like this? -
(https://i.imgur.com/G3Efa6V.png)
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?
Your eye sight wouldn't allow it. Too compressed.
-
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Visually compressed into that one inch tube? How much you see depends on your distance?
Like this? -
(https://i.imgur.com/G3Efa6V.png)
There's no fluted vision.
-
you don't give a damn about the truth.
Then why are you bothering with me?
Because unlike you, I do care about the truth, so I will continue to object to your garbage.
Again, until you can explain what magic stops the blue line, the diagram I provided clearly demonstrates that you are completely wrong.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The problem for you is that IS what you are saying and you are contradicting yourself.
The diagram you agreed to shows a FOV which is always 1 physical inch, i.e. the same physical diameter of the tube, which means after any distance you only see 1 physical inch of any object.
Otherwise, you end up with 2 equivalent options:
1 - You see a cone of vision, not the magic vision you claim, meaning you see based upon angles and thus can see the ground.
2 - Instead of plotting based upon physical height, you plot based upon angle (or as you would call it, compressed height).
This means the ground is not a straight line. Instead it looks more like this (pretend the left axis is labelled "compressed height" or something like that):
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
The same "compression" that allows you to see more than 1 physical inch of the tree also allows you to see the ground.
There's no fluted vision.
Without that "fluted vision" you only get to see 1 inch of the tree.
And this is why I suggested you draw a diagram. Because there is simply no way out for you with you drawing a diagram.
It means you either show that you magically only see 1 inch of the tree, or that your claim is pure BS.
If you like, consider the "fluted vision" as just showing the compression.
-
but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Just what is being compressed? Without any lenses in the tube how is the size of the image of the tree (regardless of how much of the tree you see through the tube) on the eye being changed when you look through the tube compared to when you are not looking through the tube?
What do you understand the word compressed to mean?
-
Honestly, I've heard less talk about red lines and blue lines when looking at a pregnancy test.
Sceptimatic, could you at least try with your replies to my well thought out posts, or don't reply at all because you're well and truly beaten. "Like I said, you're clueless" is lowest of low content posting, and I'd hate someone to report you.
Carry on and do what you need to do. Your baiting is weak and laughable.
As I post this, I'm about to finish a toilet roll, and I live on a hill, and own a level. How about I spend two minutes of my time, and photograph how much of the downward slope i can see through my level toilet roll, while I try not to get arrested and thrown in a looney bin.
You apparently have everything and then nothing to show for the everything. Do what you feel is best for your own mind.
Sceptimatic, you're struggling again. My arguments are like titanium steel compared to your cotton candy. Don't blame me for the shape of this world not meeting your cell membrane expectations. I'll do what I feel is best, for your mind. I already know how the dunny roll experiment pans out.
What arguments?
You don't have any arguments.
Don't I? :D
(https://i.ibb.co/NrCv236/Tripod.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PLQYwr/roll.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxcNrZQ/wide-view.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xjv64SV/tube-view.jpg)
See those cars in the final photo, looking through the level tube? That red car is way down the hill. That area of grass in the same photo in front of the red car, is waaay down the hill. You can see from the level on the side of the tripod, the tube was level. There's the blue line, folks.
-
Because unlike you, I do care about the truth, so I will continue to object to your garbage.
Feel free.
-
but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Just what is being compressed? Without any lenses in the tube how is the size of the image of the tree (regardless of how much of the tree you see through the tube) on the eye being changed when you look through the tube compared to when you are not looking through the tube?
What do you understand the word compressed to mean?
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
I'll be patient and give you time to think.
-
Honestly, I've heard less talk about red lines and blue lines when looking at a pregnancy test.
Sceptimatic, could you at least try with your replies to my well thought out posts, or don't reply at all because you're well and truly beaten. "Like I said, you're clueless" is lowest of low content posting, and I'd hate someone to report you.
Carry on and do what you need to do. Your baiting is weak and laughable.
As I post this, I'm about to finish a toilet roll, and I live on a hill, and own a level. How about I spend two minutes of my time, and photograph how much of the downward slope i can see through my level toilet roll, while I try not to get arrested and thrown in a looney bin.
You apparently have everything and then nothing to show for the everything. Do what you feel is best for your own mind.
Sceptimatic, you're struggling again. My arguments are like titanium steel compared to your cotton candy. Don't blame me for the shape of this world not meeting your cell membrane expectations. I'll do what I feel is best, for your mind. I already know how the dunny roll experiment pans out.
What arguments?
You don't have any arguments.
Don't I? :D
(https://i.ibb.co/NrCv236/Tripod.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PLQYwr/roll.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxcNrZQ/wide-view.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xjv64SV/tube-view.jpg)
See those cars in the final photo, looking through the level tube? That red car is way down the hill. That area of grass in the same photo in front of the red car, is waaay down the hill. You can see from the level on the side of the tripod, the tube was level. There's the blue line, folks.
You people just can't help yourselves.
Seeing how you've set this up, go and do the one I set out.
Let's see what you have.
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
I'll be patient and give you time to think.
Oh you are kind... thank you.
In the meantime compressed means to make smaller. So perhaps you could explain how the apparent size of the tree or any part of it to the eye is any smaller when looking through the tube? Are you not confusing compressed with cropped or masked?
If I see the whole of a jumbo jet passing over at 30,000ft when looking at it through a one inch diameter tube that doesn't mean the tube has somehow compressed the jumbo jet so it is just one in long does it.
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
I'll be patient and give you time to think.
Oh you are kind... thank you.
In the meantime compressed means to make smaller. So perhaps you could explain how the apparent size of the tree or any part of it to the eye is any smaller when looking through the tube? Are you not confusing compressed with cropped or masked?
If I see the whole of a jumbo jet passing over at 30,000ft when looking at it through a one inch diameter tube that doesn't mean the tube has somehow compressed the jumbo jet so it is just one in long does it.
Let's make this easier.
Do you agree that a tree may look bigger the closer you are to it?
I think you'll agree.
So you'll agree that the same tree will look smaller the further you are from it.
Obvious, right?
Now then...ask yourself why the tree is smaller the farther away you are from it?
-
Do you agree that a tree may look bigger the closer you are to it?
I would say that the size that anything appears to the eye depends on your distance from it. So if I'm looking at a tree which is say 100ft from me it will look a certain size. That is true regardless of whether I'm looking at it through a tube or not. If I move closer it will look bigger, if I move further away it will look smaller. Does looking at it through a simple tube make it look any bigger or smaller if all else remains the same? Well you tell me.
Looking through the tube I may not be able to see all of the tree any more but does that make the size of the image of the tree (or part thereof) on my retina appear any different compared to looking at it without the tube?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZypQLLQ/scope.png)[/url]
You really want me to do this experiment as per your specifications, knowing I'm going to get the same result? I still have one more photo from the last experiment of yours I conducted. It's the most exciting photo of them all.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZypQLLQ/scope.png)[/url]
You really want me to do this experiment as per your specifications, knowing I'm going to get the same result? I still have one more photo from the last experiment of yours I conducted. It's the most exciting photo of them all.
You won't get the same result and also, why did you use such a small tube and a decent diameter as well?
But, let's see your most exciting one then, before you go onto the experiment I gave out. Unless this one nails it.
Let's see.
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
I'll be patient and give you time to think.
Oh you are kind... thank you.
In the meantime compressed means to make smaller. So perhaps you could explain how the apparent size of the tree or any part of it to the eye is any smaller when looking through the tube? Are you not confusing compressed with cropped or masked?
If I see the whole of a jumbo jet passing over at 30,000ft when looking at it through a one inch diameter tube that doesn't mean the tube has somehow compressed the jumbo jet so it is just one in long does it.
Let's make this easier.
Do you agree that a tree may look bigger the closer you are to it?
I think you'll agree.
So you'll agree that the same tree will look smaller the further you are from it.
Obvious, right?
Now then...ask yourself why the tree is smaller the farther away you are from it?
RAAAAARHHRHARARRAR!!
https://kaiserscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/eye-focusing-rays-of-light-figure_10_24_labeled.jpg
here's how eyes work and why things look bigger the closer you are.
ANGLES.
when you walk closer, the pinhole angle gets bigger and the image that hits the back of your eyeball hits more of the back of the eyeball.
get with it.
are you saying angles don't exist?
yes
yes you are
becuase you said so unless you want to recant it.
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
wow... really wow...
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?
Your eye sight wouldn't allow it. Too compressed.
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
Again, all that compression is, is the lines travelling at an angle and thus getting closer together.
For example:
A 4 m tall tree at 50 m, has a height of 50 m, regardless of how far away it is.
And that corresponds to an angle of (at least assuming you are at the centre of the height) roughly 4.6 degrees.
The "visual compression" is merely light travelling along at that angle to keep it the same angular size.
This means at 25 m distance it will have been "compressed" to what you say is 2 m high.
At 12.5 m, it will have "compressed" to 1 m high.
At 5 m it will be 0.4 m, at 0.5 m it will be 0.04 m, at 0.25 m (25 cm) it will be 0.02 m (2 cm, or less than an inch).
Again, this compression is merely it following the angular lines you say don't exist.
As others said, THIS IS THE BLUE LINE!
This is why I asked you to draw the diagram.
Show the lines the light follows to have a tree visible through a level tube.
You simply cannot do it in a way where you can't see flat, level ground (on a hypothetical FE), but can see more than 1 inch of a tree (through a 1 inch tube).
Again, this is because the distance from the ground to the eye-line gets "compressed" as well.
At those 50 m, the physical distance is 2 m. But with this "visual compression", that corresponds to 1 cm at 25 cm, and thus fits the tube.
Again, your position is self-contradictory. Now draw the diagram, explain what magic stops the blue line, or admit you are wrong.
Do you agree that a tree may look bigger the closer you are to it?
Yes, because it subtends a larger angle. But you claim these angles aren't real.
Now then...ask yourself why the tree is smaller the farther away you are from it?
Because light travels in straight lines, and thus subtends a smaller angle the further away it is.
Do you need a diagram to see this?
(https://i.imgur.com/zeftVOY.png)
I even labelled it small and big so you can really see.
The further away the tree is, the smaller the angle it subtends.
Remember, your vision works based upon angles, not linear dimensions like you want to pretend.
Also seen is that the near tree subtends a larger angle than the end of the tube. The light travelling from the top and bottom of the tree would thus need to go through the wall of the tube and thus it would get blocked. So you only see a small portion of the tree. It's angular size is larger than your FOV through the tube.
But further away the angular size of the tree is smaller. Now it does fit in the FOV of the tube.
Again, there is no need for any of your nonsense "compression", but even with that nonsense you can still see the ground.
Seeing how you've set this up, go and do the one I set out.
Why?
As has been explained to you repeatedly, this alone is enough to show you are wrong.
The tube is larger than the car.
This means the light must be coming in from an angle, and you don't get your magic 1 inch view.
Again, all your garbage does is add in needless complexities and shrink the FOV.
why did you use such a small tube and a decent diameter as well?
If your pure BS is true, it would not matter how wide the tube is nor how long it is.
Bringing it up shows you know you are spouting BS.
So is the aim of your needless complications merely to make the FOV tiny?
How about this, would a setup where you have 10 inch diameter tubes, with the tubes being 2 feet long each, with the total distance from the cross hair to the end of the far tube being 11 feet (in accordance with your diagram) suffice?
Or are you really relying upon a smaller and smaller FOV to pretend there is no FOV?
Again, if you want to appeal to compression and have a diagram like that, then what you need is this:
(https://i.imgur.com/L7Lgzvc.png)
Notice how here, your FOV is just 2 straight parallel lines. You can see anything inside there.
But notice how after 25 feet the distance between your eye and the ground has been "compressed" to less than 0.5 inches and thus it fits within the FOV?
Again, either way YOU ARE WRONG!
The only way to salvage your claim that you absolutely cannot see the ground through a level tube is if you claim you will only ever see 1 physical of any object when looking through a level tube; that if you were to look at a tree in the distance through a 1 inch tube, you would only see 1 inch of that tree.
A claim which is trivial to show is pure BS as has been done repeatedly in this thread.
Saying you can see more of the tree, but still magically can't see the ground is directly contradicting yourself.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZypQLLQ/scope.png)[/url]
You really want me to do this experiment as per your specifications, knowing I'm going to get the same result? I still have one more photo from the last experiment of yours I conducted. It's the most exciting photo of them all.
You won't get the same result and also, why did you use such a small tube and a decent diameter as well?
But, let's see your most exciting one then, before you go onto the experiment I gave out. Unless this one nails it.
Let's see.
That tube is the size toilet rolls come in, here in Australia. Would you mind specifying the diameter and length of the tubes you'd like me to use?
The other photo, is from the lens at the bottom of the tube looking through, level. All sky on the other side, baby. That's the magic that stops the blue line.
I really want to get this next one right, I dont want to have to repeat the experiment, because I received a lot of concerned looks from drivers and neighbors performing your first experiment. Does it matter if I dont wear my chicken little costume next time?
-
Do you think I am lying. Anyone can prove for themselves you are wrong.
So go and prove it.
Take over JJA's mantle where he left off and follow my instructions. Do what he backed out of.
Posted pictures of your experiment yet? I haven't see them. I have evidence to back up my claims, you have, nothing. Quit being so scared.
-
You people just can't help yourselves.
Seeing how you've set this up, go and do the one I set out.
Let's see what you have.
Do your own experiment. Nobody is going to follow your crazy demands anymore until you show us your own setup. It's childish to keep insisting everyone do things your way when you won't even show anyone what that is supposed to look like.
-
Don't I? :D
(https://i.ibb.co/NrCv236/Tripod.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PLQYwr/roll.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxcNrZQ/wide-view.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xjv64SV/tube-view.jpg)
See those cars in the final photo, looking through the level tube? That red car is way down the hill. That area of grass in the same photo in front of the red car, is waaay down the hill. You can see from the level on the side of the tripod, the tube was level. There's the blue line, folks.
Looks like seeing the ground from a level tube to me. Nice pictures.
But... why would anyone be surprised? ::)
-
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
It doesn't. It all gets compressed over distance. Not physically but vision compression by changing light over distance.
Rather than a fluted vision it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance.
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
Again, all that compression is, is the lines travelling at an angle and thus getting closer together.
A theoretical angle. A convergence of vision.
This is why a scope is not to be used, or naked eye in the scenario I gave.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZypQLLQ/scope.png)[/url]
You really want me to do this experiment as per your specifications, knowing I'm going to get the same result? I still have one more photo from the last experiment of yours I conducted. It's the most exciting photo of them all.
You won't get the same result and also, why did you use such a small tube and a decent diameter as well?
But, let's see your most exciting one then, before you go onto the experiment I gave out. Unless this one nails it.
Let's see.
That tube is the size toilet rolls come in, here in Australia. Would you mind specifying the diameter and length of the tubes you'd like me to use?
The other photo, is from the lens at the bottom of the tube looking through, level. All sky on the other side, baby. That's the magic that stops the blue line.
I really want to get this next one right, I dont want to have to repeat the experiment, because I received a lot of concerned looks from drivers and neighbors performing your first experiment. Does it matter if I dont wear my chicken little costume next time?
It's imperative that you wear the exact costume I put in the picture. If you don't look like the person in my picture then you should pass off as some kind of civil engineer.
The tube needs to be a foot long at least.....but....feel free to use those one's you have if you set them up like my diagram.
-
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
It doesn't. It all gets compressed over distance. Not physically but vision compression by changing light over distance.
Rather than a fluted vision it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance.
I have no idea what this jumble of words means, "...it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance"...
Whatever. The point is, you say you can see the tree, a great portion of it, right? If not the whole thing at distance. What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
-
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
It doesn't. It all gets compressed over distance. Not physically but vision compression by changing light over distance.
Rather than a fluted vision it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance.
I have no idea what this jumble of words means, "...it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance"...
Whatever. The point is, you say you can see the tree, a great portion of it, right? If not the whole thing at distance. What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
You can see it....over distance but not in the way you people are making out.
-
What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
You can see it.
Only 121 pages to get Sceptimatic to finally realize that you can see the ground through a level toilet paper tube!!!
Wow, huge effort on everyones part to get there, and he still thinks everyone is totally wrong.
Was it worth it?
-
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
It doesn't. It all gets compressed over distance. Not physically but vision compression by changing light over distance.
Rather than a fluted vision it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance.
I have no idea what this jumble of words means, "...it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance"...
Whatever. The point is, you say you can see the tree, a great portion of it, right? If not the whole thing at distance. What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
You can see it....over distance but not in the way you people are making out.
How do I "see it" yet not be able to "see it" the way I'm "seeing it"?
-
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
It doesn't. It all gets compressed over distance. Not physically but vision compression by changing light over distance.
Rather than a fluted vision it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance.
I have no idea what this jumble of words means, "...it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance"...
Whatever. The point is, you say you can see the tree, a great portion of it, right? If not the whole thing at distance. What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
You can see it....over distance but not in the way you people are making out.
How do I "see it" yet not be able to "see it" the way I'm "seeing it"?
Angled. Fluted. You think you're looking through naked eye or scope rather than the tunnel vision.
You think the tunnel vision allows you to see to the end of the tube and then it all angles out.
It doesn't.
It compresses into that tube end by your own vision over distance and this is the only way you bring more light into that as you move away.
The more you move away the more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere.
-
Wait, so this compression you speak of somehow knows to only reveal the tree into your vision and sentiently blocks out the ground? How does it do that?
It doesn't. It all gets compressed over distance. Not physically but vision compression by changing light over distance.
Rather than a fluted vision it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance.
I have no idea what this jumble of words means, "...it creates a theoretical converged vision spread over distance and movement over that distance"...
Whatever. The point is, you say you can see the tree, a great portion of it, right? If not the whole thing at distance. What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
You can see it....over distance but not in the way you people are making out.
How do I "see it" yet not be able to "see it" the way I'm "seeing it"?
Angled. Fluted. You think you're looking through naked eye or scope rather than the tunnel vision.
You think the tunnel vision allows you to see to the end of the tube and then it all angles out.
It doesn't.
It compresses into that tube end by your own vision over distance and this is the only way you bring more light into that as you move away.
The more you move away the more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere.
You seriously think this sentence means something: "The more you move away the more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere."? Wow. No wonder why no one buys into your stuff.
The more I move away from what? How does light "filter in from the sides" if it's not coming in from the sides? That's the whole point. The farther you move away from the "subject" the more FOV you're gonna have of that subject, i.e., the more stuff you're gonna see from the sides, top, and bottom, all around the subject. It's so blatantly simple and you have to go and wrap a word salad around it to explain it. It's not rocket science. It's just looking through a tube and you make up this whole paradigm around it like the most basic study of optics doesn't exist. I mean seriously, c'mon. Just get over it, you look through a level tube, you see the tree at distance, if far enough away, you'll see the whole tree and even the ground before it and the sky above it and whatever is to it's near left and right. We're talking child's play here. And you're still like, "...that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere."? Just unbelievable tripe. Get it together.
-
What is it about the ground right in front of the tree that makes it so you can't see it? If you're far enough away you will see the whole tree, the sky above it, the ground just before it and stuff to either side, right?
You can see it.
Only 121 pages to get Sceptimatic to finally realize that you can see the ground through a level toilet paper tube!!!
Wow, huge effort on everyones part to get there, and he still thinks everyone is totally wrong.
Was it worth it?
Hahaha
My favorite was the recent tree picutre.
Truly amazing
-
You seriously think this sentence means something: "The more you move away the more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere."? Wow. No wonder why no one buys into your stuff.
The more I move away from what? How does light "filter in from the sides" if it's not coming in from the sides? That's the whole point. The farther you move away from the "subject" the more FOV you're gonna have of that subject, i.e., the more stuff you're gonna see from the sides, top, and bottom, all around the subject. It's so blatantly simple and you have to go and wrap a word salad around it to explain it. It's not rocket science. It's just looking through a tube and you make up this whole paradigm around it like the most basic study of optics doesn't exist. I mean seriously, c'mon. Just get over it, you look through a level tube, you see the tree at distance, if far enough away, you'll see the whole tree and even the ground before it and the sky above it and whatever is to it's near left and right. We're talking child's play here. And you're still like, "...that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere."? Just unbelievable tripe. Get it together.
It is together. You not understanding it from my side is fair enough.
You're merely trying to make out you know what's what because it fits the narrative.
You act like vision is like a torch beam that just flutes outward when looking through a dark simple tube of small diameter.
It doesn't flute out unless you use a convex/concave curve to grab a wider spectrum.
I know I know, you're an expert on vision.
-
You seriously think this sentence means something: "The more you move away the more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere."? Wow. No wonder why no one buys into your stuff.
The more I move away from what? How does light "filter in from the sides" if it's not coming in from the sides? That's the whole point. The farther you move away from the "subject" the more FOV you're gonna have of that subject, i.e., the more stuff you're gonna see from the sides, top, and bottom, all around the subject. It's so blatantly simple and you have to go and wrap a word salad around it to explain it. It's not rocket science. It's just looking through a tube and you make up this whole paradigm around it like the most basic study of optics doesn't exist. I mean seriously, c'mon. Just get over it, you look through a level tube, you see the tree at distance, if far enough away, you'll see the whole tree and even the ground before it and the sky above it and whatever is to it's near left and right. We're talking child's play here. And you're still like, "...that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere."? Just unbelievable tripe. Get it together.
It is together. You not understanding it from my side is fair enough.
You're merely trying to make out you know what's what because it fits the narrative.
You act like vision is like a torch beam that just flutes outward when looking through a dark simple tube of small diameter.
It doesn't flute out unless you use a convex/concave curve to grab a wider spectrum.
I know I know, you're an expert on vision.
There is no "narrative", it's just common sense and reality. And I am by no means an expert on vision nor optics. It's not a "fluting" it's just a simple field of view. Nothing more, nothing less. Commonly understood and witnessed by every human being with a couple of working eyes. Yet you're here telling everyone, "No, you're not seeing the way you should see." WTF is that level of narcissism? 1000? You just don't get it.
You're just looking through a tube. The farther away from the subject, the more FOV you can see. It's not complex. If I move away from the subject, through the tube, I can see more of it, which means stuff around it. How is that lost on you? There's no need for "...that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere" stuff. It's just what you can see. Period. Why so obtuse and ridiculously complex?
You already admitted, "You can see it....over distance but not in the way you people are making out." There's no, "not in the way you people are making out." You just see it. There's no contrivance. The more you back away, the more you can see. Why is that so hard to understand? 10 feet, through the tube you see the mid-trunk of the tree. 20 feet away you see a wider FOV, down to the lower stump and to the upper branches. 100 feet away, you'll see the foreground, the entire tree and the sky above and equally out to the sides. I mean it's really just that simple. There's no need for compression of view through the atmosphere magnification via rods and cones reversed and condensed, flipped right-side up to appear the way it appears though it really isn't appearing that way... insanity. It just is. Jesus man, just pull it together and look through a tube. Then take a picture of what you see through the tube and show us all the hoops someone needs to go through to see a bloody tree where it stands on the turf.
-
There is no "narrative", it's just common sense and reality. And I am by no means an expert on vision nor optics. It's not a "fluting" it's just a simple field of view. Nothing more, nothing less. Commonly understood and witnessed by every human being with a couple of working eyes. Yet you're here telling everyone, "No, you're not seeing the way you should see." WTF is that level of narcissism? 1000? You just don't get it.
You're just looking through a tube. The farther away from the subject, the more FOV you can see. It's not complex.
That bit isn't complex by just looking.
The bit that needs addressing is why your field of view is there.
If I move away from the subject, through the tube, I can see more of it, which means stuff around it. How is that lost on you?
It's not lost on me. I have no issue with that in itself, just as in, why it's like that.
There's no need for "...that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere" stuff. It's just what you can see. Period. Why so obtuse and ridiculously complex?
That depends. You see, If I use compression you just say " what do you mean; compression?"
You already admitted, "You can see it....over distance but not in the way you people are making out." There's no, "not in the way you people are making out." You just see it. There's no contrivance. The more you back away, the more you can see. Why is that so hard to understand?
I never denied seeing it. I just told you it's compressed into the diameter of the tube back to your sight.
10 feet, through the tube you see the mid-trunk of the tree. 20 feet away you see a wider FOV, down to the lower stump and to the upper branches. 100 feet away, you'll see the foreground, the entire tree and the sky above and equally out to the sides. I mean it's really just that simple.
Yep, it's simple to say but it aint happening like you think with a big angled FOV like Jacky keeps pushing. He thinks he's shining a fluted torch.
There's no need for compression of view through the atmosphere magnification via rods and cones reversed and condensed, flipped right-side up to appear the way it appears though it really isn't appearing that way... insanity. It just is. Jesus man, just pull it together and look through a tube. Then take a picture of what you see through the tube and show us all the hoops someone needs to go through to see a bloody tree where it stands on the turf.
Compression of view is what it is.
If you see a tree from 2 feet you see a small part of it in decent visual. Move back 10 feet and you see more of it with a bit less visual magnification as more light floods into that space.
Farther away...say...100 feet and you can see a tree that is much smaller than when you first looked but you see even more light flooding in and what's reflected from it all around.
Each time you move back the view in front becomes more compressed to fit the area you view from. In this case it's the diameter of the tube with no light reflecting inside due to the tube absorbing the light and potential reflection.
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
Again, all that compression is, is the lines travelling at an angle and thus getting closer together.
A theoretical angle. A convergence of vision.
That angle is not theoretical. It is a very physical angle, just like shown in my diagrams.
The angle you want to dismiss as not real and now say is theoretical is the angle shown in my diagrams.
Again, regardless of if you want to appeal to "compression" or if you just accept the angles, you can potentially see the ground.
This is why a scope is not to be used, or naked eye in the scenario I gave.
As I have explained to you repeatedly, I am using a tube.
There is a tube which blocks part of your FOV, restricting it, so it isn't just the naked eye; and there is no lens so it isn't a scope.
The tube needs to be a foot long at least
Why?
Again, if your nonsense was true, the length of the tube should not matter.
It seems like you are just doing whatever you can to reduce the FOV to as small as possible so you can then pretend you were correct while ignoring the fact that that is entirely due to the significantly smaller FOV.
If what you are claiming is true, it shouldn't matter if the tube is 1 mm long, 1 foot long or 1 mile long.
Specifying a minimum length means it depends on the FOV of the tube.
You think the tunnel vision allows you to see to the end of the tube and then it all angles out.
No, it goes from your eye to the end of the tube and then continues in a straight line.
more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere.
There is no reflection. It is simply light travelling in straight lines.
Again, to say we are wrong there are a few things for you to do, such as drawing a diagram, showing how the light goes from the tree to the eye. This will show you that it follows those angles you want to say don't exist. Another option would be explaining what stops the blue line.
But now we have finally reached the point where you have effectively admitted you are wrong. We can see the ground through a level tube.
So why shouldn't we see the RE and the horizon at basically eye level?
-
Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
Again, all that compression is, is the lines travelling at an angle and thus getting closer together.
A theoretical angle. A convergence of vision.
That angle is not theoretical. It is a very physical angle, just like shown in my diagrams.
The angle you want to dismiss as not real and now say is theoretical is the angle shown in my diagrams.
Again, regardless of if you want to appeal to "compression" or if you just accept the angles, you can potentially see the ground.
This is why a scope is not to be used, or naked eye in the scenario I gave.
As I have explained to you repeatedly, I am using a tube.
There is a tube which blocks part of your FOV, restricting it, so it isn't just the naked eye; and there is no lens so it isn't a scope.
The tube needs to be a foot long at least
Why?
Again, if your nonsense was true, the length of the tube should not matter.
It seems like you are just doing whatever you can to reduce the FOV to as small as possible so you can then pretend you were correct while ignoring the fact that that is entirely due to the significantly smaller FOV.
If what you are claiming is true, it shouldn't matter if the tube is 1 mm long, 1 foot long or 1 mile long.
Specifying a minimum length means it depends on the FOV of the tube.
You think the tunnel vision allows you to see to the end of the tube and then it all angles out.
No, it goes from your eye to the end of the tube and then continues in a straight line.
more light filters in from the sides and creates that reflection to flood out the magnification you already had with your own eye and atmosphere.
There is no reflection. It is simply light travelling in straight lines.
Again, to say we are wrong there are a few things for you to do, such as drawing a diagram, showing how the light goes from the tree to the eye. This will show you that it follows those angles you want to say don't exist. Another option would be explaining what stops the blue line.
But now we have finally reached the point where you have effectively admitted you are wrong. We can see the ground through a level tube.
So why shouldn't we see the RE and the horizon at basically eye level?
I haven't admitted I'm wrong.
I've just told you about compression. I haven't changed anything.
-
I haven't admitted I'm wrong.
You have admitted that this "compression" of yours allows you to see things which are above and below the line of the tube, that the tube provide an angular FOV which you deem to be theoretical.
With that, you have effectively admitted you are wrong.
As this "compression" allows you to see the ground.
-
I haven't admitted I'm wrong.
You have admitted that this "compression" of yours allows you to see things which are above and below the line of the tube, that the tube provide an angular FOV which you deem to be theoretical.
With that, you have effectively admitted you are wrong.
As this "compression" allows you to see the ground.
It allows convergence of light over distance to compress into the diameter of the tube.
There's nothing in there that I haven't said before.
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
-
I haven't admitted I'm wrong.
You have admitted that this "compression" of yours allows you to see things which are above and below the line of the tube, that the tube provide an angular FOV which you deem to be theoretical.
With that, you have effectively admitted you are wrong.
As this "compression" allows you to see the ground.
It allows convergence of light over distance to compress into the diameter of the tube.
There's nothing in there that I haven't said before.
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this "compression" business, but if I'm looking through the toilet paper roll tube and the tree is far enough away, I can see the whole tree, maybe some ground in front of it, maybe some sky above it and equal amounts around the sides.
If I raise my head so I'm no longer looking through the tube, the tree is the same "compressed" size in my vision as through the tube. Nothing changes except I'm just not looking through a tube any more.
So are you saying this "compression" bit is simply that stuff looks smaller the further away from it you are?
-
I haven't admitted I'm wrong.
You have admitted that this "compression" of yours allows you to see things which are above and below the line of the tube, that the tube provide an angular FOV which you deem to be theoretical.
With that, you have effectively admitted you are wrong.
As this "compression" allows you to see the ground.
It allows convergence of light over distance to compress into the diameter of the tube.
There's nothing in there that I haven't said before.
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this "compression" business, but if I'm looking through the toilet paper roll tube and the tree is far enough away, I can see the whole tree, maybe some ground in front of it, maybe some sky above it and equal amounts around the sides.
If I raise my head so I'm no longer looking through the tube, the tree is the same "compressed" size in my vision as through the tube. Nothing changes except I'm just not looking through a tube any more.
So are you saying this "compression" bit is simply that stuff looks smaller the further away from it you are?
Yes I'm saying it looks smaller from distance but the reason I'm saying it is because more light is added as you move away and it compresses everything into that vision, whether it's in a tube or by naked eye.
You can decompress that distant vision by using a scope.
The crux is, you see everything in that diameter of tube. Your tunnel vision and if looked directly centre from a level stance, on a gradient, you do not see the gradient.
The argument of seeing the ground the farther away, with a tube, is based on a scope or naked eye.
If you have angled view then of course you can bring the ground into view...but this is not what I'm talking about.
-
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
So you telling us that the Earth is not a globe makes it true does it? Because obviously you have never been wrong about anything.
-
I haven't admitted I'm wrong.
You have admitted that this "compression" of yours allows you to see things which are above and below the line of the tube, that the tube provide an angular FOV which you deem to be theoretical.
With that, you have effectively admitted you are wrong.
As this "compression" allows you to see the ground.
It allows convergence of light over distance to compress into the diameter of the tube.
There's nothing in there that I haven't said before.
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this "compression" business, but if I'm looking through the toilet paper roll tube and the tree is far enough away, I can see the whole tree, maybe some ground in front of it, maybe some sky above it and equal amounts around the sides.
If I raise my head so I'm no longer looking through the tube, the tree is the same "compressed" size in my vision as through the tube. Nothing changes except I'm just not looking through a tube any more.
So are you saying this "compression" bit is simply that stuff looks smaller the further away from it you are?
Yes I'm saying it looks smaller from distance but the reason I'm saying it is because more light is added as you move away and it compresses everything into that vision, whether it's in a tube or by naked eye.
You can decompress that distant vision by using a scope.
The crux is, you see everything in that diameter of tube. Your tunnel vision and if looked directly centre from a level stance, on a gradient, you do not see the gradient.
The argument of seeing the ground the farther away, with a tube, is based on a scope or naked eye.
If you have angled view then of course you can bring the ground into view...but this is not what I'm talking about.
If everything is compressing into that diameter of a tube, including the ground, why cant a gradient compress into it as well? Are gradients non compressible for some reason?
Hmmm....
-
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
So you telling us that the Earth is not a globe makes it true does it? Because obviously you have never been wrong about anything.
I really don't care what you believe. I only know what I believe to be true and that is, the Earth you believe in, is nonsense, in my honest opinion.
I don't expect you to care what I think.
-
If everything is compressing into that diameter of a tube, including the ground, why cant a gradient compress into it as well? Are gradients non compressible for some reason?
Hmmm....
the gradient doesn't offer the ground to the level tube. The level tube gains height over every inch of gradient directly below the end of that tube.
This means you do not see it unless you can angle your vision to actually do that.
JJA shows how it can be done by angling his vision whilst pretending to level the tube.
-
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
So you telling us that the Earth is not a globe makes it true does it? Because obviously you have never been wrong about anything.
I really don't care what you believe. I only know what I believe to be true and that is, the Earth you believe in, is nonsense, in my honest opinion.
I don't expect you to care what I think.
I don't believe you. You are willing to argue endlessly about it for years on the internet. In my opinion you obviously care what people think about your thoughts or you would just keep them to yourself and not do this endlessly.
-
If everything is compressing into that diameter of a tube, including the ground, why cant a gradient compress into it as well? Are gradients non compressible for some reason?
Hmmm....
the gradient doesn't offer the ground to the level tube. The level tube gains height over every inch of gradient directly below the end of that tube.
This means you do not see it unless you can angle your vision to actually do that.
JJA shows how it can be done by angling his vision whilst pretending to level the tube.
But it can compress into the diameter. The tube is already over the ground and it can compress into it. You have already stated this. Are you saying that the ground can compress into the diameter but if it has any slope at all, it cant?
-
It allows convergence of light over distance to compress into the diameter of the tube.
There's nothing in there that I haven't said before.
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
And you telling us is entirely worthless.
The issue is actually you claiming it magically stops you seeing the ground, even though that "compression" should allow you to see it.
The argument of seeing the ground the farther away, with a tube, is based on a scope or naked eye.
No, it's based upon the FOV of the tube.
Something you are yet to refute and which your compression nonsense relies upon.
If you have angled view then of course you can bring the ground into view...but this is not what I'm talking about.
You just need an angular FOV, that FOV you now accept, but only as theoretical.
Again, the compression can allow you to see what is below you, as the distance between your eye-level and the ground is "compressed" just like a tree.
Unless you can tell us why trees and other objects will be "compressed" but the distance between the ground and your eye-level isn't.
And again, this can easily be determined by the fact that from far enough away, you will be able to see the entire tree, including the ground it is in.
The only way you can claim that we can't see the ground and remain consistent is if you claim we can only see 1 physical inch of the tree, without any of your compression nonsense.
The level tube gains height over every inch of gradient directly below the end of that tube.
And the "compression" you appeal to fights that, shrinking the height. Now you have 2 competing effects and need to determine which wins.
If the gradient is small enough, the "compression" wins and you can see the gradient.
If the gradient is steep enough, the extra height wins and you can't see the gradient.
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to accept a simple analysis based upon a FOV which subtends an angle like any sane person would, or if you want to appeal to your nonsense of compression; you can potentially see the ground through a level tube, even when it is on a downwards slope.
-
I really don't care what you believe. I only know what I believe to be true and that is, the Earth you believe in, is nonsense, in my honest opinion.
So you have chosen to believe that the Earth is not a globe. So why then is it the shape you believe it actually is? This is a flat Earth website. Yet you describe it as 'flatish' with apparently a central hub or dome or such like. So what has made it that shape. The shape you believe it is. Or is it the usual case with you of 'I have no clue'? In other words you just believe?
-
The issue you are having is in, you think this is happening on a globe.
I'm telling you it's not.
So you telling us that the Earth is not a globe makes it true does it? Because obviously you have never been wrong about anything.
I really don't care what you believe. I only know what I believe to be true and that is, the Earth you believe in, is nonsense, in my honest opinion.
I don't expect you to care what I think.
I don't believe you. You are willing to argue endlessly about it for years on the internet. In my opinion you obviously care what people think about your thoughts or you would just keep them to yourself and not do this endlessly.
You feel free to believe what you like.
-
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to accept a simple analysis based upon a FOV which subtends an angle like any sane person would, or if you want to appeal to your nonsense of compression; you can potentially see the ground through a level tube, even when it is on a downwards slope.
No you can't, not from a eye level stance and a level tube set up atop a downward gradient.
The only way you would is if you have an angled sight from top eye piece of the tube to the bottom front of it.
Drop your head and eye to the crosshair point and you have no chance.
-
I really don't care what you believe. I only know what I believe to be true and that is, the Earth you believe in, is nonsense, in my honest opinion.
So you have chosen to believe that the Earth is not a globe. So why then is it the shape you believe it actually is? This is a flat Earth website. Yet you describe it as 'flatish' with apparently a central hub or dome or such like. So what has made it that shape. The shape you believe it is. Or is it the usual case with you of 'I have no clue'? In other words you just believe?
It's all been explained.
-
It's all been explained.
Has it? Where? Specifically where?
-
It's all been explained.
Has it? Where? Specifically where?
Calm yourself down and ask your internet mates, I'm sure they'll help you out.
-
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to accept a simple analysis based upon a FOV which subtends an angle like any sane person would, or if you want to appeal to your nonsense of compression; you can potentially see the ground through a level tube, even when it is on a downwards slope.
No you can't, not from a eye level stance and a level tube set up atop a downward gradient.
But why? The flat ground which is below the level tube sight can compress into the diameter of the tube. Why cant ground with an ever so slight downhill gradient not compress in the same way?
-
Calm yourself down and ask your internet mates, I'm sure they'll help you out.
I appreciate your concerns about my mental health but there really is no need.
No I'm asking you. Its your model I'm asking you about so if you have already explained why you think the Earth is the shape you believe it is and how it came to being that shape then you can tell me. Why do you keep dodging questions? If my internet 'mates' came up with their own claims then I would ask them but at the moment I'm asking you about yours. If you have already explained it then you tell me where you have already explained it.
-
If everything is compressing into that diameter of a tube, including the ground, why cant a gradient compress into it as well? Are gradients non compressible for some reason?
Hmmm....
the gradient doesn't offer the ground to the level tube. The level tube gains height over every inch of gradient directly below the end of that tube.
This means you do not see it unless you can angle your vision to actually do that.
JJA shows how it can be done by angling his vision whilst pretending to level the tube.
You still have yet to show even the slightest shred of evidence I am angling the tube. You're just making that up, and the proof is you refuse to perform the experiment yourself and show us how it's done right. Stop being so dishonest.
-
Despite angleing the tube or not, it disproves your theory of the tree and fluted comprsssing whateverwhatever word salad.
Light can come in at an angle.
Further proving with A TO SCALE GLOBE MODEL it shows that depending on altitude, the distance and angle you can see the ground.
But either way, again, is irreleveant because your fiest posit is now bunk.
-
Despite angleing the tube or not, it disproves your theory of the tree and fluted comprsssing whateverwhatever word salad.
Light can come in at an angle.
Further proving with A TO SCALE GLOBE MODEL it shows that depending on altitude, the distance and angle you can see the ground.
But either way, again, is irreleveant because your fiest posit is now bunk.
By all means think what you want. It changes nothing from my side.
-
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to accept a simple analysis based upon a FOV which subtends an angle like any sane person would, or if you want to appeal to your nonsense of compression; you can potentially see the ground through a level tube, even when it is on a downwards slope.
No you can't
Yes, you can. Again, if you wish to disagree you need to tell us what magic stops the blue line and why this magic compression of yours will haply compress a tree to let you see all of it, but not the distance between your eye-level and the ground, especially considering that tree is on the ground.
Again, your only 2 options are that either you can see the ground depending on the gradient and how far away, or you will only ever see 1 physical inch of any object without any of your precious compression.
It's all been explained.
No, it hasn't. You have continually made false assertions with no justification nor explanation at all.
-
It's all been explained.
Isn't that Sceptimatics standard reply for every question asked of him that he cannot provide an answer to. He dismisses outright anything to do with the Earth being a globe yet he cannot give us any details of what he believes is the real shape of the Earth. Whenever he is asked we just get the bog standard 'It's all been explained' reply. Yet those explanations don't seem to actually exist.
It is common knowledge in physics that above a certain mass threshold solid objects become spherical under the influence of gravity. Yet Sceptimatic seems to believe the Earth is some weird shape that I can only describe as a kind of bell shape. How did that come about?
He also seems to have a problem understanding the laws of how rays of light travel. As per your 'blue line' diagram. Somehow the cropping or masking of the human eye FOV caused by a simple tube has got confused with compression.
-
Despite angleing the tube or not, it disproves your theory of the tree and fluted comprsssing whateverwhatever word salad.
Light can come in at an angle.
Further proving with A TO SCALE GLOBE MODEL it shows that depending on altitude, the distance and angle you can see the ground.
But either way, again, is irreleveant because your fiest posit is now bunk.
By all means think what you want. It changes nothing from my side.
How can it not?
Your whole premise as per the pictures with the trees is based on this.
Maybe you need to revisit the trees and clarify, using pcitures, what is scene.
-
@ jja
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
So you believe, however I think scepti's demonstration adequately suggests, if not shows/demonstrates, that the point you would zoom in on is indistinguishable from the horizon. Effectively, it IS the horizon until the observer height is increased significantly. I do agree that with varying weather condition, you could potentially achieve all three - zooming in to see only sky, zooming in to see only land, and zooming in to see only the horizon (the convergence of the two, typically - but not always, as the horizon is an optical illusion).
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
This is the "defensible" response to scepti's claim in my view. However, once again the crosshairs suggest that you cannot zoom "beyond"/"through" the horizon to reach pure sky as you would expect standing on a globe and looking parallel to its surface. I can appreciate that the calculations suggest that you can't do so with available lenses, however it is likely not necessary to do so when a series of "zoom"/"point"/"cross-hair" with differing lens sizes / amount of cross-hair tubes are used to suggest/estimate a "limit". My understanding of the horizon makes clear that close to sea level (at least) assuming you could see that far without the air itself obscuring your view essentially entirely, is that scepti is correct. The point of the crosshairs will more or less always point directly at the horizon (never at the sky, or the ground). The reasons for this (the interpretation, as I said) is what is being discussed now (or should be).
-
@ jja
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
So you believe, however I think scepti's demonstration adequately suggests, if not shows/demonstrates, that the point you would zoom in on is indistinguishable from the horizon. Effectively, it IS the horizon until the observer height is increased significantly. I do agree that with varying weather condition, you could potentially achieve all three - zooming in to see only sky, zooming in to see only land, and zooming in to see only the horizon (the convergence of the two, typically - but not always, as the horizon is an optical illusion).
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
This is the "defensible" response to scepti's claim in my view. However, once again the crosshairs suggest that you cannot zoom "beyond"/"through" the horizon to reach pure sky as you would expect standing on a globe and looking parallel to its surface. I can appreciate that the calculations suggest that you can't do so with available lenses, however it is likely not necessary to do so when a series of "zoom"/"point"/"cross-hair" with differing lens sizes / amount of cross-hair tubes are used to suggest/estimate a "limit". My understanding of the horizon makes clear that close to sea level (at least) assuming you could see that far without the air itself obscuring your view essentially entirely, is that scepti is correct. The point of the crosshairs will more or less always point directly at the horizon (never at the sky, or the ground). The reasons for this (the interpretation, as I said) is what is being discussed now (or should be).
You're vastly overcomplicating things here.
It started off with his Ye Olde "horizon always rises to eye-level" trope. It was demonstrated to him many times that that is not true as you elevate your view. He just says all of the evidence/experiments/demonstrations that show him wrong are faked.
Sandwiched somewhere in here was his explanation as to why the bottoms of buildings are obscured at distance (think ships disappearing over the horizon hull first) - Something about how optically the bottoms of things magically shrink, get compressed, so they appear to be obscured - Something like that.
Then came his "looking through a level toilet paper roll you can't see the ground, only see sky" thing. Demonstrations were presented showing him he's wrong. He claimed they are all faked as well.
Which lead to his plumb line + two tubes + crosshairs experiment he wants everyone to do which he won't do himself (As well as him refusing to do any of the other experiments/demonstrations others have)
Everything he has asked for and was delivered, all of which show him to be wrong, he just claims that it's all fake. The bottom line: If you experimentally demonstrate he is wrong, his sole response is that the result is impossible so it had to have been faked. Full stop.
That's the long and short of it. It's really that simple.
-
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
So you believe, however I think scepti's demonstration adequately suggests, if not shows/demonstrates, that the point you would zoom in on is indistinguishable from the horizon.
Only if your eyes are on the horizon.
And scepti explictly rejects the idea that it would be indistinguishable.
It is without zooming in that it is indistinguishable.
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
This is the "defensible" response to scepti's claim in my view.
And the part he completely ignores.
He pretends the fact that you can see the horizon at all when looking out level even when close to the surface definitively proves Earth is not round.
-
@ jja
This is incorrect. If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.
So you believe, however I think scepti's demonstration adequately suggests, if not shows/demonstrates, that the point you would zoom in on is indistinguishable from the horizon. Effectively, it IS the horizon until the observer height is increased significantly. I do agree that with varying weather condition, you could potentially achieve all three - zooming in to see only sky, zooming in to see only land, and zooming in to see only the horizon (the convergence of the two, typically - but not always, as the horizon is an optical illusion).
It's not a matter of believing, it's simple geometry. I gave you the math, feel free to point out flaws or errors in it but you can't simply deny such simple calculations. You are simply claiming things here which are not backed up by the numbers.
But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.
This is the "defensible" response to scepti's claim in my view. However, once again the crosshairs suggest that you cannot zoom "beyond"/"through" the horizon to reach pure sky as you would expect standing on a globe and looking parallel to its surface. I can appreciate that the calculations suggest that you can't do so with available lenses, however it is likely not necessary to do so when a series of "zoom"/"point"/"cross-hair" with differing lens sizes / amount of cross-hair tubes are used to suggest/estimate a "limit". My understanding of the horizon makes clear that close to sea level (at least) assuming you could see that far without the air itself obscuring your view essentially entirely, is that scepti is correct. The point of the crosshairs will more or less always point directly at the horizon (never at the sky, or the ground). The reasons for this (the interpretation, as I said) is what is being discussed now (or should be).
But your vision is not a one dimensional line only going directly through the crosshairs. It's a cone, spreading out from your eye, or the camera.
Regardless, my images show that you can in fact see the ground through a level tube. Feel free to show your own experiment if you don't believe me.
-
Sceppy is rejecting triangles exist...
-
For the fun of it, I'm in the process of making sceptimatic's chicken little experiment a reality. A life size extravaganza.
Sceptimatic, you owe me $17.20 AU for the cost of the tube I'm using. I'll send you my banking details and you can fix me up. What, do you think money grows on trees down here in upside down Australia?
Otherwise, you can suggest to me something useful I can use the tubes for when I'm finished........
-
For the fun of it, I'm in the process of making sceptimatic's chicken little experiment a reality. A life size extravaganza.
Sceptimatic, you owe me $17.20 AU for the cost of the tube I'm using. I'll send you my banking details and you can fix me up. What, do you think money grows on trees down here in upside down Australia?
Otherwise, you can suggest to me something useful I can use the tubes for when I'm finished........
I'll certainly do that.
-
If they are pvc / stiff material, didgeridoos of course!
-
@jja
Regardless, my images show that you can in fact see the ground through a level tube. Feel free to show your own experiment if you don't believe me.
Not an experiment; merely an observation. However, the original claim made by scepty is that you always WILL see the ground (as you did), contrary to the expected round earth conception where you (imagine, in any case) that you ought to conceivably see only sky (at some point - which, as we have discussed, is the sticky wicket).
As others have clarified in this thread already, the cross-hairs were put in specifically to avoid the irrelevant (to the original claim made) point about the ground staying "in frame" or not. It is about the point to zoom in on (ensured perfectly level from the ground), which is expected to be the sky on a round earth, but is in fact the horizon in most places (perhaps most especially when the observer height is close to sea level).
-
@jja
Regardless, my images show that you can in fact see the ground through a level tube. Feel free to show your own experiment if you don't believe me.
Not an experiment; merely an observation. However, the original claim made by scepty is that you always WILL see the ground (as you did), contrary to the expected round earth conception where you (imagine, in any case) that you ought to conceivably see only sky (at some point - which, as we have discussed, is the sticky wicket).
As others have clarified in this thread already, the cross-hairs were put in specifically to avoid the irrelevant (to the original claim made) point about the ground staying "in frame" or not. It is about the point to zoom in on (ensured perfectly level from the ground), which is expected to be the sky on a round earth, but is in fact the horizon in most places (perhaps most especially when the observer height is close to sea level).
We've been through all of this before. Skepti is simply incorrect, regardless of whether an observation or an experiment. That's neither here nor there and needlessly pedantic. Tube doesn't matter, crosshairs don't matter. Level observation from height shows that the horizon is below eye-level and your field of view lets you see the foreground. It's not rocket science here. It's just reality. He can deny reality, but at the end of the day, he's just denying reality. Which isn't a good look.
(https://i.imgur.com/sS7mNC5.gif)
-
Not an experiment; merely an observation. However, the original claim made by scepty is that you always WILL see the ground
No, his claim was that you would NOT see the ground.
As others have clarified in this thread already, the cross-hairs were put in specifically to avoid the irrelevant (to the original claim made) point about the ground staying "in frame" or not.
No, it was merely put in as a needless overcomplication so he had an excuse to dismiss the evidence showing he is wrong as fake.
The cross hairs do nothing except obstruct the view.
It is about the point to zoom in on (ensured perfectly level from the ground), which is expected to be the sky on a round earth, but is in fact the horizon in most places (perhaps most especially when the observer height is close to sea level).
No, it is not expected to be only sky. That is only the case for most locations if you zoom in to a very extreme level. For the most part, you expect to see the ground in most places on the RE. And for the most part, if you actually perform the careful measurements which can distinguish between the horizon being level or slightly below as expected for the RE, you find that it is below.
-
For the most part, you expect to see the ground in most places on the RE.
About the 'Most Part' or exactly the 'Most Part'?
-
@jja
Regardless, my images show that you can in fact see the ground through a level tube. Feel free to show your own experiment if you don't believe me.
Not an experiment; merely an observation.
An observation that contradicts what skeptimatic is saying, which is the entire point.
It's also still an experiment, and you making up your own definitions for words doesn't change that, nor does it matter.
-
@jja
Regardless, my images show that you can in fact see the ground through a level tube. Feel free to show your own experiment if you don't believe me.
Not an experiment; merely an observation. However, the original claim made by scepty is that you always WILL see the ground (as you did), contrary to the expected round earth conception where you (imagine, in any case) that you ought to conceivably see only sky (at some point - which, as we have discussed, is the sticky wicket).
As others have clarified in this thread already, the cross-hairs were put in specifically to avoid the irrelevant (to the original claim made) point about the ground staying "in frame" or not. It is about the point to zoom in on (ensured perfectly level from the ground), which is expected to be the sky on a round earth, but is in fact the horizon in most places (perhaps most especially when the observer height is close to sea level).
We've been through all of this before. Skepti is simply incorrect, regardless of whether an observation or an experiment. That's neither here nor there and needlessly pedantic. Tube doesn't matter, crosshairs don't matter. Level observation from height shows that the horizon is below eye-level and your field of view lets you see the foreground. It's not rocket science here. It's just reality. He can deny reality, but at the end of the day, he's just denying reality. Which isn't a good look.
(https://i.imgur.com/sS7mNC5.gif)
Yep, if Earth were flat, the levels in those tubes would line up exactly with the horizon line. That photo destroys flat earth.
Reality denial is usually because one can't face reality. If you were to dig deep into scepti's psyche, you'd probably find it's a metaphor for something traumatic that happened to him, which he won't or simply can't face. It's always easier to live in fantasy land than to face painful reality.
A great fictional example of this is a new tv series titled Wanda Vision. **Spoiler Alert.** Wanda can't face the painful reality of personal losses, and decides to live in a reality she literally creates. This thread could appropriately be re-titled to, "Scepti Vision".
-
@all
I cannot be certain without scepti's clarification, however when they did confirm my interpretation of their claim (damn near 100 pages ago) - it was this :
On an imagined/assumed spherical earth, an observer that looks parallel to the ground ought to be able to see/center focus on/zoom/crop to only sky - when they focus straight ahead of them. In fact, when we look out towards the horizon (as straight as we can, using levels and cross-hairs in tubes if one so desires) we see the surface of the earth where we might imagine only sky ought to be. The cross-hairs do not appear to point at the sky, they pretty clearly point at the horizon (when you are near sea level anyhow).
You may argue that they do in fact point at the sky (under certain weather conditions) and we simply lack the magnification to confirm that - as jja does, but the point was that this zoom in / crop / focus point being sky (rather than the horizon that it appears when we perform the observation near sea level) would serve as strong proof to scepti that the world is actually round.
@jja
Mere observations are NEVER experiments, and you don't want them to be. These words have rigorous definitions in science for good reason.
-
You may argue that they do in fact point at the sky (under certain weather conditions) and we simply lack the magnification to confirm that - as jja does, but the point was that this zoom in / crop / focus point being sky (rather than the horizon that it appears when we perform the observation near sea level) would serve as strong proof to scepti that the world is actually round.
No it wouldn't, as he had already dismissed such things as fake. That happened right near the start of the thread. He was provided clear evidence that when high enough the horizon is clearly not at eye level, which he dismissed as fake.
But yes, they DO appear to point at the sky.
It is quite dishonest to say it points to the horizon and does not point at the sky.
In order to be able to do that honestly, you need to show that you can tell the difference, with an error less than the difference expected for RE vs FE.
-
@jackblack
It is quite dishonest to say it points to the horizon and does not point at the sky.
It's dishonest if I am being untruthful. To the best of my knowledge, I am not and the observation/statement is true (at/around sea level anyhow).
THIS is the reason that scepty has been so insistent that the observation be performed (by anyone interested, and specifically follow their outlined procedure) - so there can be no misunderstanding. If you follow scepty's procedure, and are near sea level, the crosshairs will point at the horizon (or, if you insist, "appear" to point at the horizon - effectively the same for our purposes).
If they pointed at the sky (or merely appeared to), then scepty would find the posit of a spherical earth more consistent with their conception of it. If you think they clearly point at the sky when leveled as they described, maybe take a picture of that and show it to scepty?
-
@jackblack
It is quite dishonest to say it points to the horizon and does not point at the sky.
It's dishonest if I am being untruthful. To the best of my knowledge, I am not and the observation/statement is true (at/around sea level anyhow).
THIS is the reason that scepty has been so insistent that the observation be performed (by anyone interested, and specifically follow their outlined procedure) - so there can be no misunderstanding. If you follow scepty's procedure, and are near sea level, the crosshairs will point at the horizon (or, if you insist, "appear" to point at the horizon - effectively the same for our purposes).
If they pointed at the sky (or merely appeared to), then scepty would find the posit of a spherical earth more consistent with their conception of it. If you think they clearly point at the sky when leveled as they described, maybe take a picture of that and show it to scepty?
But of course, you are adding in a caveat that Sceptimatic is not, right?
My read is that an FE geometric interpretation would be that your infinite zoom, fixed crosshair vision would ALWAYS have the horizon at eye level, correct? And of course this is directly what Sceptimatic claims, so Im not sure why you keep adding the "sea level" caveat to your interpretation of his ideas?
Perhaps you could clarify?
-
It's dishonest if I am being untruthful. To the best of my knowledge, I am not and the observation/statement is true (at/around sea level anyhow).
You show you are when you acknowledge that we may simply lack the required magnification to discern if it pointed at the sky or horizon.
That means you cannot tell if it is pointed at the sky or horizon.
So no, that statement of yours is not true, or at least not justified.
And that means it is dishonest to claim it is not pointed at the sky.
so there can be no misunderstanding.
There was no "misunderstanding" from the very start, except by him.
He is so insistent on details like that so he can dismiss any evidence which shows he is wrong. He will always come up with some excuse and refuse to provide a complete set of requirements such that if they are met he will admit he is wrong; and likewise why he wont get and provide the evidence himself (because he can't then dismiss his own evidence as fake)
If you follow scepty's procedure, and are near sea level, the crosshairs will point at the horizon (or, if you insist, "appear" to point at the horizon - effectively the same for our purposes).
Exactly as you would expect for the RE, and nothing like what he claims.
-
Sea level has nothing ti do with it and skews the experiment.
Sceppy already admitted that hirzuon will rise to eye level regardless of altitude.
He refused to draw a diagram of how this works.
So sea level only brings the hirizon closer to eye level and gives a margin of error that will allow him to weasel out.
-
@jja
Mere observations are NEVER experiments, and you don't want them to be. These words have rigorous definitions in science for good reason.
An experiment can be as complex or as simple as it is designed, and setting up AND observing a phenomenon is certainly an experiment.
You can try and redefine terms as much as you like, but they aren't changing for the rest of us.
-
@jja
I know you have extreme bias in this regard, and you are defending something you love (astronomy).
As a part of me loves it to, I will try to be more sensitive than usual.
It is astronomy's (and others) abuse (incorrect usage) of the word experiment that makes you defend such an indefensible position.
In truth (and by semantical definition) there is no science or scientific discipline in which observation is a synonym for experiment - nor are they functionally equivilant / substitutable for one another.
ONLY natural law can be established by mere observation in science. The rest requires experiment (it's not an optional step in the scientific method).
-
But of course, you are adding in a caveat that Sceptimatic is not, right?
The "sea level" bit you mean? In that case, it is possible and that was exactly stash's point as well - however I think it may (possibly) have to do with the definition of horizon.
Scepty did not clarify anything about sea level, and this is either an oversight or, as others have responded, is a repeat of the "horizon always rises to eye level" claim.
One of the "catches", however, involves the definition of the horizon. In my understanding/conception of the horizon, that statement is true even though the horizon (where air and sky meet) demonstrably doesn't rise to eye level. The trick is that there is more than one horizon - the "visible/optical" horizon (the meeting of the starkly different sky and surface) and the one that is caused by the workings of the eye (distance limits). At sea level they are close to one another (often indistinguishable), but above that - the "horizontal nexus" line of the limits of your vision (the one imposed by your eyes) is above the visible horizon (and not easy to discern, due to lack of reference points / "stuff" there to observe).
My read is that an FE geometric interpretation would be that your infinite zoom, fixed crosshair vision would ALWAYS have the horizon at eye level, correct?
Depending on your definition(s) for horizon... If you define the horizon as the visible/optical horizon where the sky meets the surface - then no. That often/typically shows "drop" from higher elevation above sea level.
However, my interpretation is that this is precisely scepty's claim (as you just described it) and that they may well not be using the aforementioned definition of horizon.
Perhaps you could clarify?
Sadly I can only clarify the things that scepty has confirmed - like my description of the premise (with the added sea level caveat - because without it we are/were distracting from scepty's point talking about irrelevant "horizon drop", and no longer evaluating it earnestly - which requires benefit of the doubt)
-
Depending on your definition(s) for horizon... If you define the horizon as the visible/optical horizon where the sky meets the surface - then no. That often/typically shows "drop" from higher elevation above sea level.
However, my interpretation is that this is precisely scepty's claim (as you just described it) and that they may well not be using the aforementioned definition of horizon.
For the love of god, will you just keep it simple and stop muddying the whole discussion up with your constant pedantry and strange assumptions about the "horizontal nexus" excuses, blah, blah, blah, etc. We're all talking about the horizon, this bloody thing:
(https://i.imgur.com/IwtnIWJ.jpg)
Nothing more, nothing less. With elevation, it doesn't rise to eye level. It's right there, reality, no fakery, no nothing. Just a straight up image among many that prove the point. It's not rocket science we're dealing with here so don't bludgeon it into such.
-
@jja
I know you have extreme bias in this regard, and you are defending something you love (astronomy).
As a part of me loves it to, I will try to be more sensitive than usual.
It is astronomy's (and others) abuse (incorrect usage) of the word experiment that makes you defend such an indefensible position.
In truth (and by semantical definition) there is no science or scientific discipline in which observation is a synonym for experiment - nor are they functionally equivilant / substitutable for one another.
ONLY natural law can be established by mere observation in science. The rest requires experiment (it's not an optional step in the scientific method).
You should look in the mirror before accusing others of extreme bias.
Looking through a tube to determine if you can see the ground sloping away from you is an experiment. It's got a hypothesis, it's got a prediction, it's got a method to test that prediction and possible results that could falsify it.
Experiments were run, and the results showed exactly what was predicted. Yeah, you can see the ground. Not much of an experiment, but it certainly qualifies. We proved that light behaves exactly as described when going through a tube, not whatever strange behavior skeptimatic thinks it does instead.
-
I know you have extreme bias in this regard
You should really try to understand what bias is.
Someone accepting something as true doesn't mean they have an extreme bias towards it, nor does them defending it.
But you lot sure do seem to need to make up excuses for what is wrong with REers, rather than focusing on the arguments presented.
It is astronomy's (and others) abuse (incorrect usage) of the word experiment that makes you defend such an indefensible position.
Are you sure it isn't your abuse and incorrect usage, where you want to dismiss things which don't prop up a FE?
In truth (and by semantical definition) there is no science or scientific discipline in which observation is a synonym for experiment
Notice how he didn't say just mere observation?
Instead he has setting up and observing a phenomenon.
For example, if you just had a mere observation of a cat walking past you, that is not an experiment. But no one is suggesting anything like that.
In my understanding/conception of the horizon, that statement is true even though the horizon (where air and sky meet) demonstrably doesn't rise to eye level. The trick is that there is more than one horizon - the "visible/optical" horizon (the meeting of the starkly different sky and surface) and the one that is caused by the workings of the eye (distance limits).
And in reality, there is only 1.
Your eye doesn't magically create a horizon.
There is no justification at all for it to do so.
There is no magical distance limit where it starts blocking out photons that have travelled too far.
My read is that an FE geometric interpretation would be that your infinite zoom, fixed crosshair vision would ALWAYS have the horizon at eye level, correct?
Depending on your definition(s) for horizon... If you define the horizon as the visible/optical horizon where the sky meets the surface - then no. That often/typically shows "drop" from higher elevation above sea level.
For a FE, yes, at least for an infinite one.
A FE has no justification at all for a near horizon.
Sadly I can only clarify the things that scepty has confirmed - like my description of the premise (with the added sea level caveat - because without it we are/were distracting from scepty's point talking about irrelevant "horizon drop", and no longer evaluating it earnestly - which requires benefit of the doubt)
Quite the opposite.
By trying to bring in a sea level caveat you are ignoring the fact that his claim is pure garbage.
To defend his claim you need to move far enough away from sea level such that for the globe you would see nothing but sky.
The other option would be to use sea level and point out that the distinction between exactly level, and where the horizon is on a RE, is indistinguishable for most people and only detectable with sensitive instruments (certainly not the simple tube with crosshairs), and thus his claim that you would see "nothing but sky" is pure fiction.
-
Depending on your definition(s) for horizon... If you define the horizon as the visible/optical horizon where the sky meets the surface - then no. That often/typically shows "drop" from higher elevation above sea level.
However, my interpretation is that this is precisely scepty's claim (as you just described it) and that they may well not be using the aforementioned definition of horizon.
For the love of god, will you just keep it simple and stop muddying the whole discussion up with your constant pedantry and strange assumptions about the "horizontal nexus" excuses, blah, blah, blah, etc. We're all talking about the horizon, this bloody thing:
(https://i.imgur.com/IwtnIWJ.jpg)
Nothing more, nothing less. With elevation, it doesn't rise to eye level. It's right there, reality, no fakery, no nothing. Just a straight up image among many that prove the point. It's not rocket science we're dealing with here so don't bludgeon it into such.
You're showing a still image that is deliberately off level.
Here is the gif you originally showed after you tried it the first time.
The moving line.
Stop the line on the horizon and show me it. You can clearly stop it above and below so stop it on the line and let's see the still.
Here it is as it moves above and below as well as on that line as it goes to pass.
(https://i.imgur.com/sS7mNC5.gif)
Do you think it would be easy for me to set that up and argue the line is level?
Do you think this set up is so easy to dupe with an off centre view simply bby dipping or raising a lens to the string and tube levels?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IwtnIWJ.jpg)
You're showing a still image that is deliberately off level.
The water in the tube shows that isn't the case.
It shows that it is looking level.
Stop the line on the horizon and show me it. You can clearly stop it above and below so stop it on the line and let's see the still.
You mean this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/WqYKtu9.png)
Where we clearly see that the water levels no longer line up, this shows us that we are not looking level. It shows that we are looking down.
So it still shows you are wrong.
It shows the horizon is BELOW eye level.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IwtnIWJ.jpg)
You're showing a still image that is deliberately off level.
The water in the tube shows that isn't the case.
It shows that it is looking level.
Stop the line on the horizon and show me it. You can clearly stop it above and below so stop it on the line and let's see the still.
You mean this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/WqYKtu9.png)
Where we clearly see that the water levels no longer line up, this shows us that we are not looking level. It shows that we are looking down.
So it still shows you are wrong.
It shows the horizon is BELOW eye level.
There has to be a reason why you deliberately try to salvage your globe when you can clearly see it's a non starter. It's finished, Jacky.
-
Do the expeirme t yourself and show us trickery was invovled.
Prove it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IwtnIWJ.jpg)
You're showing a still image that is deliberately off level.
The water in the tube shows that isn't the case.
It shows that it is looking level.
Stop the line on the horizon and show me it. You can clearly stop it above and below so stop it on the line and let's see the still.
You mean this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/WqYKtu9.png)
Where we clearly see that the water levels no longer line up, this shows us that we are not looking level. It shows that we are looking down.
So it still shows you are wrong.
It shows the horizon is BELOW eye level.
There has to be a reason why you deliberately try to salvage your globe when you can clearly see it's a non starter. It's finished, Jacky.
Is that how you always confront something/someone that shows you are wrong? You just blurt out, "Your salvaging! It's a non-starter! You're finished!" Are you a child? Have you ever been wrong before? I have. Have you ever admitted when you are wrong? I have. That's what adults do.
How about confronting the evidence and actually present a valid argument against? You know, like an adult. And take it that it's not fakery, it's real. It's actually what we see at altitude. The tube water lines are even with each other and even with the cross-string that is even with eye-level. And above the horizon.
The way to argue it is to show the same or similar at altitude showing something contrary, like all are at eye-level. That would be an interesting adult manner of arguing against this evidence. But in the mean time, if your only argument is the stomping of your feet screaming it's fake and/or something oddly bizarre and irrelevant like, "you can clearly see it's a non starter," whatever that is supposed to mean, then I'm afraid you have conceded the point and the horizon, as evidenced, does not always rise to eye-level.
Here's the evidence again. Notice the blue eye-level line:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
-
There has to be a reason why you deliberately try to salvage your globe when you can clearly see it's a non starter. It's finished, Jacky.
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Just a simple honest analysis of the evidence.
When you look level through the 2 tubes, as clearly shown that the 2 water levels are aligned, you see that the horizon is below level.
In order to dishonestly pretend that the horizon is at eye level, to try to salvage your failed flat Earth model you need to look down.
To get the horizon on the line you need to be looking down as clearly shown by the water at the front appearing lower.
If it really was a non-starter and really did have to be salvaged you would be able to point out problems with what has been presented rather than repeatedly resorting to just ridiculing or insulting it.
Can you point out any problem with the argument and evidence presented? Can you offer evidence to the contrary?
So there has to be a reason why you deliberately try to salvage your complete failure of a FE and complete failure of an argument when any honest person can clearly see it's a non-starter.
And that reason is quite simple, you have an irrational hatred of the RE, and are happy to use whatever dishonest BS you can to try to prop it up.
Again, the evidence clearly shows that the horizon is below eye level.
The evidence clearly shows that you can see the ground through a level tube, depending on the conditions.
Logic clearly shows that the RE has a horizon.
Logic clearly shows that this horizon will be quite close to eye level.
Logic clearly shows that it is only when you have a high altitude that it will be easy to tell using simple instruments (like the water level tubes) that it is below level.
Logic clearly shows that you need a tiny FOV to see only sky.
Logic clearly shows that looking through a tube will let you see things above and below the tube.
So logic and evidence clearly shows you are wrong on multiple counts.
Now grow up and deal with the fact that you are wrong.
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Well on one hand we have photgraphic, repeatable evidence.
On the other we have sceppy claiming its false because it doesnt mafch his hypothesis.
So he can either
A provide evidence of a "correct" experiemnt.
B admit he is wrong
Heres a condition for you, sceppy, the dodge ram of dodging all ownership - do your own experiemnt and prove us wrong.
Dont just SAY its wrong.
PROVE it.
Your words are cheap.
-
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
And another blatant lie.
It is quite conditional, conditional upon it being supported by evidence, making sense, explaining reality and observed phenomenon, and not being contradicted by evidence.
And so far it has met those conditions quite well, unlike your DOA FE models.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
And you not liking it doesn't change reality.
Do you have any justification for that at all, or can you just repeat the same pathetic lies and assertions?
Because so far in this thread it has just been one failure from you after another with you continually running away and doing whatever you can to pretend you haven't failed.
Have you thought of an explanation for why the RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Have you thought of an explanation for why, when close to sea level, that horizon will be basically at eye-level?
Have you thought of an explanation for why, when well above sea level, that horizon (which is the one in reality) is clearly below eye level?
Have you thought of an explanation for why you can't see things above or below a level tube, even though you admit you do as long as it is some object like a tree rather than the ground?
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Well on one hand we have photgraphic, repeatable evidence.
You have photographs but not photographs that prove your globe.
On the other we have sceppy claiming its false because it doesnt mafch his hypothesis.
It doesn't match reality, never mind what my hypothesis is.
So he can either
A provide evidence of a "correct" experiemnt.
B admit he is wrong
I've provided simple evidence. SImple evidence that you people deny. That's ok for me because what you people say does not come with back up of proof.
Heres a condition for you, sceppy, the dodge ram of dodging all ownership - do your own experiemnt and prove us wrong.
Dont just SAY its wrong.
PROVE it.
Your words are cheap.
I've already proved you people wrong.
-
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
And another blatant lie.
It is quite conditional, conditional upon it being supported by evidence, making sense, explaining reality and observed phenomenon, and not being contradicted by evidence.
It's not supported by evidence. It's supported by strength in numbers of adherence to that storyline.
It's like a mass of children reciting all the workings of the Harry Potter books and films and using them as arguments for the reality.
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Well on one hand we have photgraphic, repeatable evidence.
You have photographs but not photographs that prove your globe.
On the other we have sceppy claiming its false because it doesnt mafch his hypothesis.
It doesn't match reality, never mind what my hypothesis is.
So he can either
A provide evidence of a "correct" experiemnt.
B admit he is wrong
I've provided simple evidence. SImple evidence that you people deny. That's ok for me because what you people say does not come with back up of proof.
Heres a condition for you, sceppy, the dodge ram of dodging all ownership - do your own experiemnt and prove us wrong.
Dont just SAY its wrong.
PROVE it.
Your words are cheap.
I've already proved you people wrong.
Incorrect
You waved away all cgi space photogrpahs - all roads lead to conspiracy.
Your "proofs" are nothing more than you refusal to do the expeirment yourself tl show us where we went wrong = a lot of effort by everyone except sceppyy.
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
Actually no. The image is referred to as "evidence" that is in direct contradiction to your "Opinion". The evidence is not an opinion.
How about posting some actual evidence to support your claim instead of just your feelings on the matter.
-
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
No, he is putting up evidence which refutes your fantasy.
You are just dodging however you can.
We can see that when looking level (from the top of the water in the 2 tubes lining up) the horizon is below eye level. It is only when looking down that the horizon lines up with the line in the image.
I've provided simple evidence.
Where?
So far all you have provided are demonstrable false claims. You have refused to provide any evidence, likely because you can't then go and claim your own evidence is fake when it refutes you.
I've already proved you people wrong.
Where?
Repeatedly asserting the same refuted lie isn't proving anyone wrong.
You haven't proven anyone wrong. All you have done is repeat the same pathetic refuted lies, dismissed any evidence that shows you are wrong as fake, and done whatever you can to avoid logical arguments that show you are wrong.
You haven't even attempted to prove anyone wrong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
And another blatant lie.
It is quite conditional, conditional upon it being supported by evidence, making sense, explaining reality and observed phenomenon, and not being contradicted by evidence.
It's not supported by evidence.
You ignoring the evidence doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.
You have been provided with some of the evidence in this thread, and have no counter to it.
All you do is dodge or dismiss it as fake.
So yes, it is supported by evidence, regardless of how much you hate that because of blind, irrational hatred of the RE.
Now again, care to justify your repeated blatant lies, or admit they are wrong?
Are you going to explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon?
Why it shouldn't appear at roughly eye-level for an observer near sea level?
Or how a tube magically gives you tunnel vision so you can't see things above or below the tube even though you admit you can but pretend it is just magic compression where the object is compressed while remaining the same size?
-
Is this what the residents of a mental institution argue about? Whether the world outside the grey concrete walls is flat or forms a sphere?
I can't believe I have to say this, but eagle eye pain in the backside, sceptimatic, makes one valid argument with the green liquid tubes photo. How can anyone know the levels in each tube are level with each other, before comparing against the horizon line? Where's the proof they are level with each other? It's a valid point. Would have been better off using a flat table top, levelled on all sides using levels.
-
Is this what the residents of a mental institution argue about? Whether the world outside the grey concrete walls is flat or forms a sphere?
I can't believe I have to say this, but eagle eye pain in the backside, sceptimatic, makes one valid argument with the green liquid tubes photo. How can anyone know the levels in each tube are level with each other, before comparing against the horizon line? Where's the proof they are level with each other? It's a valid point. Would have been better off using a flat table top, levelled on all sides using levels.
The tubes are connected to one another by the horizontal tube on the bottom creating a "U" filled with liquid - It's all the same volume of liquid. One is in front (closest to you) and one is in the back even with the cross string in the back. All are level with each other. So no, it's not a valid argument.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l1NwZJo91sM/Wvx9JhwC4AI/AAAAAAAAJko/N9O901kKVKUr29ILGTnY3wCs2whghx27wCLcBGAs/s1600/Soledad%2BSunset%2B1.jpg)
-
Is this what the residents of a mental institution argue about? Whether the world outside the grey concrete walls is flat or forms a sphere?
I can't believe I have to say this, but eagle eye pain in the backside, sceptimatic, makes one valid argument with the green liquid tubes photo. How can anyone know the levels in each tube are level with each other, before comparing against the horizon line? Where's the proof they are level with each other? It's a valid point. Would have been better off using a flat table top, levelled on all sides using levels.
With the later you can just argue that the levels are off.
It also hides the horizon.
The tubes are connected to one another so water can flow freely between them.
It relies upon water always finding its level, and relies upon extreme paranoia to reject it.
Ultimately, which such extreme paranoia, you will reject any evidence that shows you are wrong.
If you could see the entire water filled tube, you will instead appeal to something skewing the level, such as using fluids of different density, or having the cap closed so it is under higher pressure, or a hidden wall to prevent them finding their level, or some excuse.
If you use spirit levels you can dismiss it as the spirit level is broken show it shows a false reading.
And so on.
Eventually you either reach a point where you accept the evidence is provided, or you think everyone is involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth from you so the only evidence you will ever accept is that obtained yourself at which point asking for evidence is an entirely useless and dishonest exercise.
-
Is this what the residents of a mental institution argue about? Whether the world outside the grey concrete walls is flat or forms a sphere?
I can't believe I have to say this, but eagle eye pain in the backside, sceptimatic, makes one valid argument with the green liquid tubes photo. How can anyone know the levels in each tube are level with each other, before comparing against the horizon line? Where's the proof they are level with each other? It's a valid point. Would have been better off using a flat table top, levelled on all sides using levels.
He will know its level when he performs it himself and debunks the experiment as false ... just like every other peer reviewed anything.
If its not repeatable, its not a thing
-
Is this what the residents of a mental institution argue about? Whether the world outside the grey concrete walls is flat or forms a sphere?
I can't believe I have to say this, but eagle eye pain in the backside, sceptimatic, makes one valid argument with the green liquid tubes photo. How can anyone know the levels in each tube are level with each other, before comparing against the horizon line? Where's the proof they are level with each other? It's a valid point. Would have been better off using a flat table top, levelled on all sides using levels.
The tubes are connected to one another by the horizontal tube on the bottom creating a "U" filled with liquid - It's all the same volume of liquid. One is in front (closest to you) and one is in the back even with the cross string in the back. All are level with each other. So no, it's not a valid argument.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l1NwZJo91sM/Wvx9JhwC4AI/AAAAAAAAJko/N9O901kKVKUr29ILGTnY3wCs2whghx27wCLcBGAs/s1600/Soledad%2BSunset%2B1.jpg)
Good. Sceptimatic, you're wrong as per usual. Your argument is null and void. The earth is a sphere, no matter what pitiful argument you try to throw out against it.
If you dont face your pain that led you on this insane odyssey, your paranoia and insanity is only going to grow worse.
-
Incorrect
You waved away all cgi space photogrpahs - all roads lead to conspiracy.
Your "proofs" are nothing more than you refusal to do the expeirment yourself tl show us where we went wrong = a lot of effort by everyone except sceppyy.
Effort?
You don't know the meaning of effort. All you do is try to ridicule.
Remember one thing. It's you and your little like minded gang that taker it in turns to have a dig at me inbetween showing a few explanations from your side.
I'm one person having to answer to everyone of you. I'd say I'm putting plenty of effort in.
What I'm not doing is pacifying you people with answers that you want from your side rather than answers from my side.
Carry on doing it but expect scant reply.
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
Actually no. The image is referred to as "evidence" that is in direct contradiction to your "Opinion". The evidence is not an opinion.
How about posting some actual evidence to support your claim instead of just your feelings on the matter.
That picture is a silly con job and anyone with a small amount of unbiased logic can see that.
-
Good. Sceptimatic, you're wrong as per usual. Your argument is null and void. The earth is a sphere, no matter what pitiful argument you try to throw out against it.
If you dont face your pain that led you on this insane odyssey, your paranoia and insanity is only going to grow worse.
I'm not wrong on this. It's a clear dupe.
-
Remember one thing. It's you and your little like minded gang that taker it in turns to have a dig at me inbetween showing a few explanations from your side.
Projecting again I see.
We have provided you with plenty of explanations why you are wrong, and in response all you have done is dodged and dismiss evidence provided as fake.
That picture is a silly con job
I know you so desperately need to pretend it is a con job, but you are yet to provide any justification for why ANYONE should accept it is.
All the available evidence and logical thought shows you are wrong.
-
I know you so desperately need to pretend it is a con job, but you are yet to provide any justification for why ANYONE should accept it is.
I don't need to pretend. It is in your face and anyone with any unbiased logic will see that.
-
Incorrect
You waved away all cgi space photogrpahs - all roads lead to conspiracy.
Your "proofs" are nothing more than you refusal to do the expeirment yourself tl show us where we went wrong = a lot of effort by everyone except sceppyy.
Effort?
You don't know the meaning of effort. All you do is try to ridicule.
Remember one thing. It's you and your little like minded gang that taker it in turns to have a dig at me inbetween showing a few explanations from your side.
I'm one person having to answer to everyone of you. I'd say I'm putting plenty of effort in.
What I'm not doing is pacifying you people with answers that you want from your side rather than answers from my side.
Carry on doing it but expect scant reply.
Go ahead and answer from your side showing horizon rises to eye level then
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
Actually no. The image is referred to as "evidence" that is in direct contradiction to your "Opinion". The evidence is not an opinion.
How about posting some actual evidence to support your claim instead of just your feelings on the matter.
That picture is a silly con job and anyone with a small amount of unbiased logic can see that.
Feel free to reproduce and debunk it
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
Actually no. The image is referred to as "evidence" that is in direct contradiction to your "Opinion". The evidence is not an opinion.
How about posting some actual evidence to support your claim instead of just your feelings on the matter.
That picture is a silly con job and anyone with a small amount of unbiased logic can see that.
Feel free to reproduce and debunk it
You lot debunked it yourselves.
-
The picture is true until you show us otherwise.
-
The picture is true until you show us otherwise.
(https://i.imgur.com/WqYKtu9.png)
-
No attempt at all to try to salvage the globe. There is no need to salvage it. It is still going quite strong.
Of course it's still going strong in the minds of people like yourself. It's unconditional to you people.
It's unconditional when staring at unconditional evidence:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXxbxYf.jpg)
You're very welcome to that mindset.
To me your so called globe, is dead in the level water.
Sure, all fine and good. But that's not an argument. That's just how you "feel" about it. How about posting up some evidence that actually refutes this?
You're doing that yourself.
Actually no. The image is referred to as "evidence" that is in direct contradiction to your "Opinion". The evidence is not an opinion.
How about posting some actual evidence to support your claim instead of just your feelings on the matter.
That picture is a silly con job and anyone with a small amount of unbiased logic can see that.
Where's the con job?
-
I know you so desperately need to pretend it is a con job, but you are yet to provide any justification for why ANYONE should accept it is.
I don't need to pretend. It is in your face and anyone with any unbiased logic will see that.
If you didn't need to pretend and it was so in your face you would easily be able to explain why it is a con job.
But so far your only justification seems to be that it shows you are wrong.
The fact that you cannot provide a single rational justification for why it is a con job and you cannot provide any evidence to counter it shows that you are pretending.
The picture is true until you show us otherwise.
(https://i.imgur.com/WqYKtu9.png)
And this again shows that the horizon is BELOW level.
Notice how the 2 water levels don't line up?
Notice how the one in front is lower, that it appears BELOW the horizon?
That shows you are looking down from above.
So if you look down from above you can have the horizon line up with the far water level.
So this again shows you are wrong.
So where is the con job?
Where is the "in your face" logic which clearly shows it is wrong?
Where have disproven ourselves?
Again, something showing you are wrong does not mean it is a con job. It means YOU ARE WRONG!
Deal with it.
-
Try harder next time.
-
global energt crisis could be solved by hooking up wind turbines to all of sceppy's hand waving (and the GOP).
-
global energt crisis could be solved by hooking up wind turbines to all of sceppy's hand waving (and the GOP).
There is no global energy crisis.
-
global energt crisis could be solved by hooking up wind turbines to all of sceppy's hand waving (and the GOP).
There is no global energy crisis.
Well that's a load off my mind! Is there anything sceptimatic can't solve by ignoring it?
-
Try harder next time.
What's the con job again? Why won't you at least express what you think is wrong with the image that clearly shows the horizon does not rise to eye-level with altitude? "Try harder next time," is just a dodge.
It's basically the same experiment as you had originally suggested to see if the horizon always stays at eye-level. Instead of a tube, it's a box. And this one is even better because it has the leveling fluids fore and aft with the cross-string to show that the instrument and view from the camera is definitely level.
-
Try harder next time.
What's the con job again? Why won't you at least express what you think is wrong with the image that clearly shows the horizon does not rise to eye-level with altitude? "Try harder next time," is just a dodge.
It's basically the same experiment as you had originally suggested to see if the horizon always stays at eye-level. Instead of a tube, it's a box. And this one is even better because it has the leveling fluids fore and aft with the cross-string to show that the instrument and view from the camera is definitely level.
My advice to you would be to go into a room by yourself...sit down and put your mind to what's been said.
Try your best not to conform to what you were indoctrinated with, with your globe but instead counteract it by using all your logical basics that you do possess.
Once you understand that there can be no horizon on a globe and also definitely none from height when looking level, you might start to wake up to reality instead of the fantasy you've been coaxed into, severely.
-
Try harder next time.
What's the con job again? Why won't you at least express what you think is wrong with the image that clearly shows the horizon does not rise to eye-level with altitude? "Try harder next time," is just a dodge.
It's basically the same experiment as you had originally suggested to see if the horizon always stays at eye-level. Instead of a tube, it's a box. And this one is even better because it has the leveling fluids fore and aft with the cross-string to show that the instrument and view from the camera is definitely level.
My advice to you would be to go into a room by yourself...sit down and put your mind to what's been said.
Try your best not to conform to what you were indoctrinated with, with your globe but instead counteract it by using all your logical basics that you do possess.
But that's just the thing. There's nothing for me to ruminate on what's been "said" because you haven't "said" anything yet. All you have said is that it's a "con job", but you haven't said why other than your belief system won't allow it to be true. That's faith, not science. And it's certainly not evidence.
It's fine that you have a differing belief system, but the whole point here isn't to discuss whether you believe one thing or another, it's to show why. To show evidence that backs up your belief system. You're not providing any evidence as to why your system works and others don't.
Once you understand that there can be no horizon on a globe and also definitely none from height when looking level, you might start to wake up to reality instead of the fantasy you've been coaxed into, severely.
That's not science. That's just stomping your feet and saying, "No, my belief system won't allow for it." You need to look at the observable evidence and state what is wrong with it and the answer is not just because you don't believe in it. That means nothing.
Otherwise, what's the point? You could just say, "I believe the earth is flat, covered by a dome, with crystal projected holographic Sun, moon and stars, and air pressure is what gravity is," and walk away. Why even respond to anyone if your only response is, "I don't believe in that, so it must be fake"?
So, what's the con job - The physical attributes of the actual observable experiment (not your belief system) and the result that make it a con job?
-
Try harder next time.
What's the con job again? Why won't you at least express what you think is wrong with the image that clearly shows the horizon does not rise to eye-level with altitude? "Try harder next time," is just a dodge.
It's basically the same experiment as you had originally suggested to see if the horizon always stays at eye-level. Instead of a tube, it's a box. And this one is even better because it has the leveling fluids fore and aft with the cross-string to show that the instrument and view from the camera is definitely level.
My advice to you would be to go into a room by yourself...sit down and put your mind to what's been said.
Try your best not to conform to what you were indoctrinated with, with your globe but instead counteract it by using all your logical basics that you do possess.
Once you understand that there can be no horizon on a globe and also definitely none from height when looking level, you might start to wake up to reality instead of the fantasy you've been coaxed into, severely.
We will mever understand why unless you show us.
Because the two 3d simulations i gave you show a horizon and match real photo examples by real people.
Youve yet to provide any visual showing your model and how it matches reality.
Are you a real person?
Are we all failing at johnDs turing experiemtn?
-
Try harder next time.
Follow your own advice.
Again, we have clear evidence that shows your claim is wrong.
We also have simple logic that shows your claim is wrong.
All you have done to try to counter that so far is dismiss the evidence as a con job with no justification at all (and no, it showing you are wrong is not justification), and to continually ignore the simple logic and instead just repeat the same outright lies.
So perhaps you can try harder, or act like a rational adult and admit you are wrong.
Once you understand that there can be no horizon on a globe and also definitely none from height when looking level, you might start to wake up to reality instead of the fantasy you've been coaxed into, severely.
Perhaps people will start to "understand" that outright lie when you can find some way to justify it.
All the available evidence and logic clearly shows that the horizon does exist on the RE, and should exist on a RE.
And as we have a FOV, that means we typically can see it when we look out level, with the ability to see it dependent upon your height above Earth and your FOV.
All of this has been explained to you and justified with logic and evidence.
You have offered nothing except outright lies to try to dismiss it.
So again, YOU try harder.
Explain why the RE CANNOT have a horizon, because all logic and evidence shows you are wrong.
If you forgot about the discussion before, or want to try to hide it, remember, you have already admitted that if you look down you see ground, and if you look up you see sky.
The horizon is a direct logical consequence of that.
That is because if you start looking down at the ground, and slowly lift your head up you will eventually reach a point where the lower part of your vision has the ground/sea and the upper part will have sky, with the division between them being the horizon.
You tried to falsely claim that we wouldn't have a horizon and instead it would magically produce a blur, but you offered nothing to justify that.
Especially nothing which takes into consideration that if it was going to be caused by the air, then that would have happen in your Fantasy Earth as well.
So what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon, as we observe all round objects having a horizon.
-
But that's just the thing. There's nothing for me to ruminate on what's been "said" because you haven't "said" anything yet.
Then my genuine advice to you is to concentrate on other things and cast me aside as someone who just spouts nothing.
This way you can concentrate on the stuff you want to.
Can you do that?
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
-
But that's just the thing. There's nothing for me to ruminate on what's been "said" because you haven't "said" anything yet.
Then my genuine advice to you is to concentrate on other things and cast me aside as someone who just spouts nothing.
This way you can concentrate on the stuff you want to.
Can you do that?
Why won't you just simply address the situation rather than just saying it's not real without providing any information as to why other than it doesn't fit your belief system? Isn't that the whole point? I mean, like I said, why don't you just state what you believe and walk away? You obviously don't want to be challenged. Because when you are, you just say you don't believe it, period. No reason why other than you just don't. You refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist". What part of you just saying, "Uh uh, no, I don't believe it," is the science part?
So, what's the con job - The physical attributes of the actual observable experiment (not your belief system) and the result that make it a con job?
-
But that's just the thing. There's nothing for me to ruminate on what's been "said" because you haven't "said" anything yet.
Then my genuine advice to you is to concentrate on other things and cast me aside as someone who just spouts nothing.
This way you can concentrate on the stuff you want to.
Can you do that?
And this just further shows that you do spout nothing.
If you actually spouted something of significance and could actually defend your claims, you would be suggesting people go and read what you have said and pay attention, and you would have provided something of substance, like what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon, a clear separation between the object and its surroundings, in direct contrast to other round objects, or what magic prevents you seeing things above and below a level tube, when you have effectively admitted you can see above and below a level tube but you pretend it is just the object magically compressing so you can continue to pretend the ground would be impossible to see.
-
But that's just the thing. There's nothing for me to ruminate on what's been "said" because you haven't "said" anything yet.
Then my genuine advice to you is to concentrate on other things and cast me aside as someone who just spouts nothing.
This way you can concentrate on the stuff you want to.
Can you do that?
Why won't you just simply address the situation rather than just saying it's not real without providing any information as to why other than it doesn't fit your belief system? Isn't that the whole point? I mean, like I said, why don't you just state what you believe and walk away? You obviously don't want to be challenged. Because when you are, you just say you don't believe it, period. No reason why other than you just don't. You refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist". What part of you just saying, "Uh uh, no, I don't believe it," is the science part?
So, what's the con job - The physical attributes of the actual observable experiment (not your belief system) and the result that make it a con job?
I provide plenty of answers and under a mass attack of a mix up fo questions, insults and hand waving...etc....etc.
The fact that you people just dismiss anything I say and then start crying about me not putting my side across, is your own issues.
All I see from my side is you lot generally just copy and pasting stuff and claiming facts when you have absolutely no idea whether they are or not.
Just admit stuff and you'll gain a bit of internet respect from me.
-
And this just further shows that you do spout nothing.
Ditto.
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
Nice dodging
Dodged the part where 3d simulations were provided and insyead going with more irrelevant non answers.
Draw your horizon.
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
Nice dodging
Dodged the part where 3d simulations were provided and insyead going with more irrelevant non answers.
Draw your horizon.
I can't draw any horizon.
The horizon is theoretical and is only visible to each individuals eye level.
-
But that's just the thing. There's nothing for me to ruminate on what's been "said" because you haven't "said" anything yet.
Then my genuine advice to you is to concentrate on other things and cast me aside as someone who just spouts nothing.
This way you can concentrate on the stuff you want to.
Can you do that?
Why won't you just simply address the situation rather than just saying it's not real without providing any information as to why other than it doesn't fit your belief system? Isn't that the whole point? I mean, like I said, why don't you just state what you believe and walk away? You obviously don't want to be challenged. Because when you are, you just say you don't believe it, period. No reason why other than you just don't. You refer to yourself as a "Flat Earth Scientist". What part of you just saying, "Uh uh, no, I don't believe it," is the science part?
So, what's the con job - The physical attributes of the actual observable experiment (not your belief system) and the result that make it a con job?
I provide plenty of answers and under a mass attack of a mix up fo questions, insults and hand waving...etc....etc.
The fact that you people just dismiss anything I say and then start crying about me not putting my side across, is your own issues.
All I see from my side is you lot generally just copy and pasting stuff and claiming facts when you have absolutely no idea whether they are or not.
Just admit stuff and you'll gain a bit of internet respect from me.
I'm not dismissing anything you say with handwaving. Ironically, that's exactly what you've been doing for pages regarding the experiments showing that the horizon does not rise to eye-level at altitude. You have yet to say what the con job is.
Why won't you just simply explain why you think it's a con job. And not because it assaults your belief system, actually what is wrong with it. You just keep going back to a diatribe about how people aren't paying attention, they're being dicks, or whatever.
What is wrong physically with the experiment? Why do you think it shows what you don't want it to show?
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
Nice dodging
Dodged the part where 3d simulations were provided and insyead going with more irrelevant non answers.
Draw your horizon.
I can't draw any horizon.
The horizon is theoretical and is only visible to each individuals eye level.
Fine
Draw the dark and draw the not so dark regions.
Draw what we are seeing and how it hits peoples eyes.
Draw your model.
-
I provide plenty of answers
Only after you change the question to avoid the question which shows you are wrong.
Where was your answer to what causes the RE to magically not have a horizon in direct contrast to basically all observed round objects?
The closest you have gotten is to try to claim that it will magically have a blur, a claim you still have not justified in anyway, and a claim refuted by the fact that we don't, clearly showing that the air would not cause a problem of seeing a blur.
Likewise, where is your answer for what magic stops the light reaching the eye from below the tube, when there is nothing to obstruct it?
Entirely absent.
Likewise where is your answer for how this "compression" of yours can allow you to see an entire tree, without also allowing you to see the ground the tree is growing out of?
So no, you don't provide plenty of answers.
You do whatever to dodge when you know an honest answer will show you are wrong.
The fact that you people just dismiss anything I say and then start crying about me not putting my side across, is your own issues.
We don't dismiss what you say.
We clearly explain why you are wrong, and why/how you aren't actually addressing what we say.
This is unlike you who just entirely dismisses what you can without justification, such as by claiming it is fake, and otherwise just entirely ignores things which clearly show you are wrong.
All I see from my side is you lot generally just copy and pasting stuff
Just admit stuff and you'll gain a bit of internet respect from me.
Why would we just "admit" stuff which is obviously false?
I have no desire for respect from you, especially if that requires discarding all logic and reasoning and just accepting whatever BS you say.
Perhaps when you can actually start addressing issues raised against your blatant lies you will start earning respect from others. Because currently your actions do not merit any respect at all and you are being given far more than are owed.
-
All I see from my side is you lot generally just copy and pasting stuff
Until you have physically watched me sitting at a keyboard copying and pasting stuff as you put it then please do not accuse me of it. I will assume that I would be included in the 'you lot' description. As it is I don't need to copy and paste anything since I can use my own knowledge to say what I want to say. If I copy and paste anything I will also credit the author as is proper practice. If I don't add a credit then you can take the words I post as my own.
-
I'm not dismissing anything you say with handwaving. Ironically, that's exactly what you've been doing for pages regarding the experiments showing that the horizon does not rise to eye-level at altitude. You have yet to say what the con job is.
Why won't you just simply explain why you think it's a con job. And not because it assaults your belief system, actually what is wrong with it. You just keep going back to a diatribe about how people aren't paying attention, they're being dicks, or whatever.
What is wrong physically with the experiment? Why do you think it shows what you don't want it to show?
I already did explain it and the gif you posted shows exactly how it was done, which should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to question the global dupe.
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
Nice dodging
Dodged the part where 3d simulations were provided and insyead going with more irrelevant non answers.
Draw your horizon.
I can't draw any horizon.
The horizon is theoretical and is only visible to each individuals eye level.
Fine
Draw the dark and draw the not so dark regions.
Draw what we are seeing and how it hits peoples eyes.
Draw your model.
I can't. What am I drawing?
The horizon is right in front of your eyes. Go and take a look. You ask for some silly things.
-
We don't dismiss what you say.
Who are you trying to kid?
-
All I see from my side is you lot generally just copy and pasting stuff
Until you have physically watched me sitting at a keyboard copying and pasting stuff as you put it then please do not accuse me of it. I will assume that I would be included in the 'you lot' description. As it is I don't need to copy and paste anything since I can use my own knowledge to say what I want to say. If I copy and paste anything I will also credit the author as is proper practice. If I don't add a credit then you can take the words I post as my own.
If you aren't part of it then I'm not directing at you.
If you want to believe I am, then feel free.
-
I already did explain it and the gif you posted shows exactly how it was done, which should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to question the global dupe.
You mean you repeatedly avoided it and the gif shows exactly why you are wrong.
The gif clearly shows that when looking level (as established by the water levels lining up) the horizon is below eye level.
You can only make it line up with the line by looking down from above the line.
We don't dismiss what you say.
Who are you trying to kid?
No one, unlike you who needs to contiually ignore large sections of posts which so clearly show you are wrong.
That is why I said we explain what is wrong with the garbage you say, which is distinct from merely dismissing it.
Who are you trying to kid?
Everyone in the world?
Because yet again you ignore extremely simple questions that show you are wrong.
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
-
I already did explain it and the gif you posted shows exactly how it was done, which should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to question the global dupe.
You mean you repeatedly avoided it and the gif shows exactly why you are wrong.
The gif shows exactly why I'm right.
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
Nice dodging
Dodged the part where 3d simulations were provided and insyead going with more irrelevant non answers.
Draw your horizon.
I can't draw any horizon.
The horizon is theoretical and is only visible to each individuals eye level.
Fine
Draw the dark and draw the not so dark regions.
Draw what we are seeing and how it hits peoples eyes.
Draw your model.
I can't. What am I drawing?
The horizon is right in front of your eyes. Go and take a look. You ask for some silly things.
Draw a side view of what we are seeing.
What is it?
-
Are you a real person?
That's for you to decide.
My advice to you is to treat me as a bot and stay clear. Ignore me and get on with other stuff. Can you do that?
Nice dodging
Dodged the part where 3d simulations were provided and insyead going with more irrelevant non answers.
Draw your horizon.
I can't draw any horizon.
The horizon is theoretical and is only visible to each individuals eye level.
Fine
Draw the dark and draw the not so dark regions.
Draw what we are seeing and how it hits peoples eyes.
Draw your model.
I can't. What am I drawing?
The horizon is right in front of your eyes. Go and take a look. You ask for some silly things.
Draw a side view of what we are seeing.
What is it?
How many times do I need to tell you that I can't.
It's like you asking me to draw a ghost.
-
https://images.app.goo.gl/nmZmZjb3eyq2dmUbA
https://images.app.goo.gl/2dYHgUHaYr3Po2rz7
Heres how we do it.
Do yours.
If you can see something, then explain the light that is causing what we are seeing.
Not hard.
-
https://images.app.goo.gl/nmZmZjb3eyq2dmUbA
https://images.app.goo.gl/2dYHgUHaYr3Po2rz7
Heres how we do it.
Do yours.
If you can see something, then explain the light that is causing what we are seeing.
Not hard.
The horizon is specific to you. It is your horizon.
Why?
Because it's the convergence (theoretical) line to your vision. Your horizontally level vision.
Darker verses lighter shades of light spectrum.
The distance to your theoretical line is determined by the elevation.
You are not looking down to an edge you are looking directly level to the very same shades of light from top to below converging to the horizontally level eye line.
Putting up globes as if you see an edge to a curve, is nonsense.
-
I already did explain it and the gif you posted shows exactly how it was done, which should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to question the global dupe.
You mean you repeatedly avoided it and the gif shows exactly why you are wrong.
The gif shows exactly why I'm right.
Repeating the same lie and ignoring the refutation of it wont help you. It just shows how desperate you are.
Again, the gif quite clearly shows that when you are looking level at this height the horizon is clearly below the line. The only way to make it line up is if you look down.
And that means the horizon is below level.
Now again, care to explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon?
The horizon is specific to you. It is your horizon.
No, it isn't.
It is simply the tangent to your eyes.
If you want to claim other nonsense, explain it, preferably with a diagram, clearly indicating how it causes the appearance of the horizon which is independent of the optics used and isn't a blur.
-
https://images.app.goo.gl/nmZmZjb3eyq2dmUbA
https://images.app.goo.gl/2dYHgUHaYr3Po2rz7
Heres how we do it.
Do yours.
If you can see something, then explain the light that is causing what we are seeing.
Not hard.
The horizon is specific to you. It is your horizon.
Why?
Because it's the convergence (theoretical) line to your vision. Your horizontally level vision.
Darker verses lighter shades of light spectrum.
The distance to your theoretical line is determined by the elevation.
You are not looking down to an edge you are looking directly level to the very same shades of light from top to below converging to the horizontally level eye line.
Putting up globes as if you see an edge to a curve, is nonsense.
Fine by you.
Dismiss the diagram without merrit as the diagram is stand alone.
However - provide YOUR MODEL is the current request.
-
Repeating the same lie and ignoring the refutation of it wont help you. It just shows how desperate you are.
It's certainly not going to help you by your repetition.
-
https://images.app.goo.gl/nmZmZjb3eyq2dmUbA
https://images.app.goo.gl/2dYHgUHaYr3Po2rz7
Heres how we do it.
Do yours.
If you can see something, then explain the light that is causing what we are seeing.
Not hard.
The horizon is specific to you. It is your horizon.
Why?
Because it's the convergence (theoretical) line to your vision. Your horizontally level vision.
Darker verses lighter shades of light spectrum.
The distance to your theoretical line is determined by the elevation.
You are not looking down to an edge you are looking directly level to the very same shades of light from top to below converging to the horizontally level eye line.
Putting up globes as if you see an edge to a curve, is nonsense.
Fine by you.
Dismiss the diagram without merrit as the diagram is stand alone.
However - provide YOUR MODEL is the current request.
Don't waste your time asking again. I've already explained why. Next time you ask it will be overlooked.
-
Mcdodger cant draw why light hits the eye yet claims he knows whats what.
-
Repeating the same lie and ignoring the refutation of it wont help you. It just shows how desperate you are.
It's certainly not going to help you
Repeating your same lie again and again is not going to make me nor anyone believe your BS.
Again, I'll stop my "repetition" when you can start addressing the issues raised rather than continually ignoring or dismissing them.
Don't waste your time asking again. I've already explained why. Next time you ask it will be overlooked.
No you haven't. You spouted handwavy nonsense which in no way explains why we have a clear horizon a finite distance away which doesn't depend on optics.
You just need to pretend to have explained it as you know that the RE is the reason why we have a horizon.
Just like you need to pretend to have explained how the photo shows the horizon is below eye level, because you know an honest analysis shows it is actually below eye level, which destroys your claims.
Now again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
-
Repeating your same lie again and again is not going me nor anyone believe your BS.
What does that mean? It makes no sense.
-
your word salad makes no sense.
if you can see something, that means light is coming from somewhere-hitting your eye.
draw it.
wtf is your horizon and why does a person at 1,000ft see it at "eye level" and another person at 5ft see it at their "eye level"?
draw it.
-
Repeating your same lie again and again is not going me nor anyone believe your BS.
What does that mean? It makes no sense.
And there you go ignoring the point yet again, using whatever distraction you can.
Yes, I made a typo, so what. The intent is clear.
Now care to address the issues or will you just continue with these deflections?
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
And just how does the gif show you are correct, as it clearly shows the horizon is BELOW eye level?
-
your word salad makes no sense.
if you can see something, that means light is coming from somewhere-hitting your eye.
draw it.
wtf is your horizon and why does a person at 1,000ft see it at "eye level" and another person at 5ft see it at their "eye level"?
draw it.
Once you understand that the horizon you see is your horizon (theoretical) line at any height, you will start to get a grip on what I'm talking about.
Until then you will set yourself back.
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
-
your word salad makes no sense.
if you can see something, that means light is coming from somewhere-hitting your eye.
draw it.
wtf is your horizon and why does a person at 1,000ft see it at "eye level" and another person at 5ft see it at their "eye level"?
draw it.
Once you understand that the horizon you see is your horizon (theoretical) line at any height, you will start to get a grip on what I'm talking about.
Until then you will set yourself back.
What a bullshit non answer.
Your eyes are full of light receptor cells.
When a raybeam of light hits a receptir, it triggers the brain to percieve that.
So
Where are these light rays coming from.
Draw it.
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
No, it isn't an answer, it is yet another deflection.
I didn't ask you why the RE doesn't have a horizon at eye level.
I asked why it doesn't have a horizon. That would include one which is not at eye level, including those below it, as repeatedly observed in reality.
Given the previous interactions, you KNOW that I am not limiting it to a level sight, such as by the previous line of inquiry, you start with your head looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea, and slowly lift it up until you can see nothing but sky. Visually what happens in between?
What separates the ground/sea from the sky?
This means you didn't answer my question.
Instead you substituted the question with a different question, one you felt you could answer.
So don't come back saying you have answered, when you threw in an additional restriction of a 0 degree level sight which were not in the original question.
So I'll ask again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
This time see if you can actually answer the question asked rather than a different one you want to answer because you find it easier.
-
Are we back to level sight again?
Can people not see down?
Are there not computers or drawing software thst will allow someone to create a simulation and show the model matches reality?
I mean seriously - youve already admitted that nasa is cgi startrek trickery.
So someone has the ability.
Possobly those two vids i alrrady gave you thst you are yet to watch?
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
See, this is where you misunderstand size, scale, and perspective here on Earth. Your mind just doesn't seem capable of differentiating between what you see while standing on top of a basketball, compared to what you see while standing on Earth.
I know it must be confusing for you, but this is where the app, google earth, could be very helpful and educational for someone like you. Yes, it's a computer simulation of the earth, where you can test it against the physical world around you.
I use it all the time at work.
-
Are we back to level sight again?
Can people not see down?
Are there not computers or drawing software thst will allow someone to create a simulation and show the model matches reality?
I mean seriously - youve already admitted that nasa is cgi startrek trickery.
So someone has the ability.
Possobly those two vids i alrrady gave you thst you are yet to watch?
Take a bit more time to answer and think a bit.
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
See, this is where you misunderstand size, scale, and perspective here on Earth. Your mind just doesn't seem capable of differentiating between what you see while standing on top of a basketball, compared to what you see while standing on Earth.
I know it must be confusing for you, but this is where the app, google earth, could be very helpful and educational for someone like you. Yes, it's a computer simulation of the earth, where you can test it against the physical world around you.
I use it all the time at work.
I'm not mixed up.
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
Anything you look at from a level vision will never reach a distant object just a score miles away.
8 inches per mile squared is all you need to know. It does not end up trivial even over the one mile, never mind mile after mile.
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
See, this is where you misunderstand size, scale, and perspective here on Earth. Your mind just doesn't seem capable of differentiating between what you see while standing on top of a basketball, compared to what you see while standing on Earth.
I know it must be confusing for you, but this is where the app, google earth, could be very helpful and educational for someone like you. Yes, it's a computer simulation of the earth, where you can test it against the physical world around you.
I use it all the time at work.
I'm not mixed up.
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
Anything you look at from a level vision will never reach a distant object just a score miles away.
8 inches per mile squared is all you need to know. It does not end up trivial even over the one mile, never mind mile after mile.
What's really strange to me is that you truly don't understand the mechanics of a globe earth, the thing that you rail against. Using the accurate measurement calculations it works like this.
Here is a 50' tall Target Object. The Observer is at 6'. The distance to the Target is 1 mile. The amount hidden by the globe is 0:
(https://i.imgur.com/0VyO0TG.png)
Now we push the same Target out to about our normal optical range limit of the Horizon, around 3 miles typically, at the same Observer height. The amount hidden by the globe earth is 0.0000001485':
(https://i.imgur.com/yLNF6fz.png)
Now we push the same Target out to 10 miles at the same Observer height. The amount hidden by the globe earth is 32.68':
(https://i.imgur.com/972cKr6.png)
Looking through a 2" level tube would look something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/KXse6jH.jpg)
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
See, this is where you misunderstand size, scale, and perspective here on Earth. Your mind just doesn't seem capable of differentiating between what you see while standing on top of a basketball, compared to what you see while standing on Earth.
I know it must be confusing for you, but this is where the app, google earth, could be very helpful and educational for someone like you. Yes, it's a computer simulation of the earth, where you can test it against the physical world around you.
I use it all the time at work.
I'm not mixed up.
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
Anything you look at from a level vision will never reach a distant object just a score miles away.
8 inches per mile squared is all you need to know. It does not end up trivial even over the one mile, never mind mile after mile.
What's really strange to me is that you truly don't understand the mechanics of a globe earth, the thing that you rail against. Using the accurate measurement calculations it works like this.
Here is a 50' tall Target Object. The Observer is at 6'. The distance to the Target is 1 mile. The amount hidden by the globe is 0:
(https://i.imgur.com/0VyO0TG.png)
Now we push the same Target out to about our normal optical range limit of the Horizon, around 3 miles typically, at the same Observer height. The amount hidden by the globe earth is 0.0000001485':
(https://i.imgur.com/yLNF6fz.png)
Now we push the same Target out to 10 miles at the same Observer height. The amount hidden by the globe earth is 32.68':
(https://i.imgur.com/972cKr6.png)
Looking through a 2" level tube would look something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/KXse6jH.jpg)
There is no horizon on your globe so all that stuff you put, is bumph.
8 inches per mile squared is what would happen from a level sight.
It means that your level sight just rises and rises over the downward curvature over distance.
It means that you see sky, not horizon.
Your globe is nonsense.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
But even when looking out level, initially perspective makes it curve up into your vision, as repeatedly shown.
8 inches per mile squared is all you need to know. It does not end up trivial even over the one mile, never mind mile after mile.
Except as already shown, that is an outright lie. The angular drop for the horizon is roughly 2.7 arc minutes, i.e. basically nothing.
There is no horizon on your globe so all that stuff you put, is bumph.
Stop just repeating the same pathetic lie.
If you want to assert the RE can't have a horizon, you need to explain what separates the ground/sea from the sky (visually).
If you need to continually appeal to a 0 degree level sight, it shows you have no case, as it is no better than saying "If you look straight up you can't see the ground".
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
See, this is where you misunderstand size, scale, and perspective here on Earth. Your mind just doesn't seem capable of differentiating between what you see while standing on top of a basketball, compared to what you see while standing on Earth.
I know it must be confusing for you, but this is where the app, google earth, could be very helpful and educational for someone like you. Yes, it's a computer simulation of the earth, where you can test it against the physical world around you.
I use it all the time at work.
I'm not mixed up.
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
Anything you look at from a level vision will never reach a distant object just a score miles away.
8 inches per mile squared is all you need to know. It does not end up trivial even over the one mile, never mind mile after mile.
What's really strange to me is that you truly don't understand the mechanics of a globe earth, the thing that you rail against. Using the accurate measurement calculations it works like this.
Here is a 50' tall Target Object. The Observer is at 6'. The distance to the Target is 1 mile. The amount hidden by the globe is 0:
(https://i.imgur.com/0VyO0TG.png)
Now we push the same Target out to about our normal optical range limit of the Horizon, around 3 miles typically, at the same Observer height. The amount hidden by the globe earth is 0.0000001485':
(https://i.imgur.com/yLNF6fz.png)
Now we push the same Target out to 10 miles at the same Observer height. The amount hidden by the globe earth is 32.68':
(https://i.imgur.com/972cKr6.png)
Looking through a 2" level tube would look something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/KXse6jH.jpg)
There is no horizon on your globe so all that stuff you put, is bumph.
8 inches per mile squared is what would happen from a level sight.
It means that your level sight just rises and rises over the downward curvature over distance.
It means that you see sky, not horizon.
Your globe is nonsense.
Your self-indoctrinated faith based religion of one is, well, at least consistent.
You've been provided an endless stream of demonstrations and evidence to the contrary and your only argument is that it's all a lie based solely on your belief system. You refuse to provide and demonstrations, experiments, or evidence of your own to counter. You don't even understand what the thing is you are against. It's just you stomping your feet saying, "It's all a lie!"
Like I said before, no one even remotely thinks you would ever change your mind. Faith based religions like yours don't work that way. Faith usurps all logic and evidence.
All that's being done here is pointing out that you provide nothing but your devotion to your religion when faced with actual reality based evidence. There's no debating with faith. You've made that abundantly clear.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
Do we all go about looking down or do we generally look horizontally level?
And, if your Earth does not curve down and way from you then what the hell does it do?
Make up your mind.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
And that is one of the key points.
You look down YOU SEE GROUND/SEA.
You look up, you see sky.
So what visually separates them other than the horizon?
Stop appealing to your stupid 0 degree level sight which no one has.
Instead just address the simple fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon.
Either explain why it shouldn't, or admit it has one.
-
Your self-indoctrinated faith based religion of one is, well, at least consistent.
You've been provided an endless stream of demonstrations and evidence to the contrary and your only argument is that it's all a lie based solely on your belief system.
You refuse to provide and demonstrations, experiments, or evidence of your own to counter. You don't even understand what the thing is you are against. It's just you stomping your feet saying, "It's all a lie!"
No, that's not right. I give out plenty but you people don't accept it and then go into a frenzy about me not providing anything.
You throw a load of copy and paste into the ring and say " there you go."
Put some effort in.
Like I said before, no one even remotely thinks you would ever change your mind. Faith based religions like yours don't work that way. Faith usurps all logic and evidence.
I certainly won't change my mindset on anything you people have put forward.
None of you can put anything forward from your own minds. You can't put anything into simple basic because your whole set up is all about following what's set out and replicating it.
It's a bit sickening to be fair.
I feel like I'm dealing with some people on some kind of spectrum.
All that's being done here is pointing out that you provide nothing but your devotion to your religion when faced with actual reality based evidence. There's no debating with faith. You've made that abundantly clear.
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
And that is one of the key points.
You look down YOU SEE GROUND/SEA.
You look up, you see sky.
So what visually separates them other than the horizon?
Stop appealing to your stupid 0 degree level sight which no one has.
Instead just address the simple fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon.
Either explain why it shouldn't, or admit it has one.
What you're missing is the major key and that major key is a standing start of a level outlook, not a raised vision into the sky with a stop off line.
-
Your self-indoctrinated faith based religion of one is, well, at least consistent.
You've been provided an endless stream of demonstrations and evidence to the contrary and your only argument is that it's all a lie based solely on your belief system.
You refuse to provide and demonstrations, experiments, or evidence of your own to counter. You don't even understand what the thing is you are against. It's just you stomping your feet saying, "It's all a lie!"
No, that's not right. I give out plenty but you people don't accept it and then go into a frenzy about me not providing anything.
You throw a load of copy and paste into the ring and say " there you go."
Put some effort in.
People have done a lot more than just putting forth copy and paste stuff. Actual experiments have been done and many others have been shown. You've shown nothing. People make diagrams and such. You've rendered maybe one. Quite poorly and wildly inaccurate at that. Sure, people dig up information that reflects how 99.999% of folks think, engineer, & construct things. How things are used in the real world. Everything from how a roller coaster works to how a rocket flies. And everywhere and everything in between. And you just say it's all lies, even though shit works and works well as designed. That is just your faith talking. That's the real "there you go". You say it's all lies, and there you go.
Like I said before, no one even remotely thinks you would ever change your mind. Faith based religions like yours don't work that way. Faith usurps all logic and evidence.
I certainly won't change my mindset on anything you people have put forward.
None of you can put anything forward from your own minds. You can't put anything into simple basic because your whole set up is all about following what's set out and replicating it.
It's a bit sickening to be fair.
I feel like I'm dealing with some people on some kind of spectrum.
You made up a carbonite crystal at the north pole that holographically projects the sun, moon, and stars onto a breathing dome and we are the ones on some kind of spectrum?
All that's being done here is pointing out that you provide nothing but your devotion to your religion when faced with actual reality based evidence. There's no debating with faith. You've made that abundantly clear.
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
What makes it for sure?
-
The few 'explanations' we get from Sceptimatic are vague, meaningless and based on nothing but his claims. He dismisses everything that science has come up with as silly and nonsensical and yet he can offer nothing even remotely believable (except to himself) to convince us to change our minds.
If making up stories about carbonite crystals and breathing domes is his alternative to reality then he had better start coming up with something a bit more substantial than anything he has come up with so far. Yet he accuses us of 'having no clue' about anything. Pot and kettle comes to mind!
-
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
Hilarious.
You literally just described your religious belief that leads you to simply disregard all of science.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
Do we all go about looking down or do we generally look horizontally level?
And, if your Earth does not curve down and way from you then what the hell does it do?
Make up your mind.
Ok 8in per sq mile.
If you stood on a hill and that hill steeply dropped and curved away from you do yoy see an "edge" of the hill against the backdrop of the background?
Do you see the backside of a basket ball when looking at it?
Or do you see a circle's edge?
Do you have to look down to see down or can you see a FIELD OF VIEW?
All super simple questions you have yet to address.
https://images.app.goo.gl/J9CCVSomKeouhFpE8
-
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
Hilarious.
You literally just described your religious belief that leads you to simply disregard all of science.
It's not religion. It's called logical sense.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
Do we all go about looking down or do we generally look horizontally level?
And, if your Earth does not curve down and way from you then what the hell does it do?
Make up your mind.
Ok 8in per sq mile.
If you stood on a hill and that hill steeply dropped and curved away from you do yoy see an "edge" of the hill against the backdrop of the background?
Do you see the backside of a basket ball when looking at it?
Or do you see a circle's edge?
Do you have to look down to see down or can you see a FIELD OF VIEW?
All super simple questions you have yet to address.
https://images.app.goo.gl/J9CCVSomKeouhFpE8
We aren't looking at the back of any basket ball.
Come back when you have something legitimate.
-
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
Hilarious.
You literally just described your religious belief that leads you to simply disregard all of science.
It's not religion. It's called logical sense.
No, you said you are sure because it makes no sense to you. That's ignorance, not logic.
-
Right.
Youre looking at the top and a relalllllly big ball.
So whats your problem?
You keep saying it curves away from you - right it cuurves away so you cant see the backsidethats what happens.
So whats your poeblem?
-
No, you said you are sure because it makes no sense to you. That's ignorance, not logic.
It makes no sense because evidence.....real evidence shows it to be nonsense, not just the thought process of the nonsense of it.
-
Right.
Youre looking at the top and a relalllllly big ball.
So whats your problem?
You keep saying it curves away from you - right it cuurves away so you cant see the backsidethats what happens.
So whats your poeblem?
You are not stood there looking back at a basket ball. You are supposed to be on that ball.
-
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assuming it was magically possible to stand on a globe as you believe it to be, then looking over that globe with level sight will only offer you a curved angle away from your level vision. It leaves you with sky. That's it.
You may not like this answer but it is an answer, so don;t be coming back saying I haven't answered.
See, this is where you misunderstand size, scale, and perspective here on Earth. Your mind just doesn't seem capable of differentiating between what you see while standing on top of a basketball, compared to what you see while standing on Earth.
I know it must be confusing for you, but this is where the app, google earth, could be very helpful and educational for someone like you. Yes, it's a computer simulation of the earth, where you can test it against the physical world around you.
I use it all the time at work.
I'm not mixed up.
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
Anything you look at from a level vision will never reach a distant object just a score miles away.
8 inches per mile squared is all you need to know. It does not end up trivial even over the one mile, never mind mile after mile.
No. Eight inches per mile squared is all any flat earther thinks they need to know to throw at people. However, that's just a rule of thumb that does not account for observer height and atmospheric refraction. How many less flat earthers would there be in the world if they all read the fine print?
Sceptimatic, I dont know why you are trying so hard to create an alternate reality around yourself. Maybe you don't even remember why yourself, you've been at it for so long now. The only reason we are all having this forum discussion, is because science works. Think about that and try to absorb what that means for the world around you in which you live.
-
No. Eight inches per mile squared is all any flat earther thinks they need to know to throw at people. However, that's just a rule of thumb that does not account for observer height and atmospheric refraction. How many less flat earthers would there be in the world if they all read the fine print?
You don't need fine print. It's pretty self explanatory.
Sceptimatic, I dont know why you are trying so hard to create an alternate reality around yourself. Maybe you don't even remember why yourself, you've been at it for so long now. The only reason we are all having this forum discussion, is because science works. Think about that and try to absorb what that means for the world around you in which you live.
The reason we're having this discussion is because people like you think you can alter people's minds to go back to the absolutely unscientific nonsense of a global model.
The reason why you people stay must be en masse ego boosting, pertaining to the mainstream authoritative narrative.
Basically you come armed with all the references you need. You don't even need to think....and yet.....and yet....here you are spending your time on a flat Earth forum making lots and lots of posts....for what?
If you were honest and said " oh I'm here to learn about alternate theories because I question the globe" I'd say, fair enough. If you said you were here to play devils advocate, I say, fair enough.
I have nothing against any of you, to be fair.............................but.
-
Right.
Youre looking at the top and a relalllllly big ball.
So whats your problem?
You keep saying it curves away from you - right it cuurves away so you cant see the backsidethats what happens.
So whats your poeblem?
You are not stood there looking back at a basket ball. You are supposed to be on that ball.
You say "not"... followed by...
Care to finish the thought?
-
If you were honest and said " oh I'm here to learn about alternate theories because I question the globe" I'd say, fair enough.
Ok I will be honest and say I'm here to hear about alternate theories. You have your alternate theory. I have the evidence to support the globe model. What I lack is the evidence from you to support your alternate theory. I can't accept it unless you provide that evidence. You simply making claims and dismissing the globe model as silly and nonsensical is not the evidence I need. You question the globe because you have a personal vendetta against it so you have convinced yourself it is wrong.
I would say the Sun and Moon are physical bodies. I would say the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Moon orbits the Earth. Watch the sky over a period of a year and I would say you will see evidence that supports that without reading a word from any book. You say they are holographic reflections produced by some crystal inside the Earth. Ok provide the evidence that I should accept what you say over what I say. For example how does the crystal produce the energy to emit the light which produces the holograms? And why does the Sun change its appearance continuously while the Moon always appears the same. And why do stars disappear behind the Moon suggesting it is a solid body?
The globe model explains all this but your alternate theory doesn't.
-
The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
And that is one of the key points.
You look down YOU SEE GROUND/SEA.
You look up, you see sky.
So what visually separates them other than the horizon?
Stop appealing to your stupid 0 degree level sight which no one has.
Instead just address the simple fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon.
Either explain why it shouldn't, or admit it has one.
What you're missing is the major key and that major key is a standing start of a level outlook, not a raised vision into the sky with a stop off line.
No, what you are missing is the fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon, a fact you are yet to refute or challenge in any meaningful way, which instead you need to continually appeal to a magical level sight with no FOV.
Remember, you are not merely claiming that the horizon should not be visible in such a hypothetical and physically impossible FOV. Instead you are claiming the RE should not have a horizon AT ALL!
That means you cannot appeal to a level sight.
Now again, ANSWER THE QUESTION! It is an extremely simple question you continually refuse to answer because you know you have no answer.
Why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
What visually separates the ground/sea from the sky?
No, that's not right. I give out plenty
It is right. You not liking that wont change that.
You give out nothing of value, dismissing evidence provided as a con-job, with no justification at all, completely ignoring logical arguments that show you are wrong, and continually refusing to answer questions and instead pretending to by answering different questions.
The example above is just yet another example of this behaviour of yours.
You cannot justify your lie that the RE shouldn't have a horizon, so instead of attempting to answer the extremely simple question, you instead deal with a completely different question.
None of you can put anything forward from your own minds.
We have put forward plenty, but as you have no rational objection, you need to find some excuse to dismiss it.
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
Hilarious.
You literally just described your religious belief that leads you to simply disregard all of science.
It's not religion. It's called logical sense.
No, it is called a complete absence of logical sense and reasoning.
You yet again religiously assert that the RE model is nonsense, while being completely incapable of showing a single fault with it.
And likewise being incapable of defending your lies about it.
It makes no sense because evidence.....real evidence shows it to be nonsense, not just the thought process of the nonsense of it.
Something not being supported by or it being contradicted by evidence does not mean it makes no sense, it just means it is incorrect.
But what evidence would that be?
Do you mean the plentiful evidence showing the horizon below eye level, exactly as expected for a RE, and not what is expected for a FE?
Or do you mean the evidence of water obscuring the view to the base of a distant object, even though both the object and observer are above water level, clearly demonstrating the water is curved?
Or do you mean your pathetic experiments in a sink where your observations match those expected for a RE?
The reason why you people stay must be en masse ego boosting
That would be the reason you stay, and the reason you avoid anything which shows you are wrong, unless you can find some way to twist it to get out of it.
We stay because we care about the truth.
This would include seeing an argument which actually stands, which shows the RE model is wrong, and thus accepting the RE model is wrong, as well as explaining why arguments put forward are incorrect, and the latter includes arguments from both the RE side and the FE side.
-
No. Eight inches per mile squared is all any flat earther thinks they need to know to throw at people. However, that's just a rule of thumb that does not account for observer height and atmospheric refraction. How many less flat earthers would there be in the world if they all read the fine print?
You don't need fine print. It's pretty self explanatory.
Sceptimatic, I dont know why you are trying so hard to create an alternate reality around yourself. Maybe you don't even remember why yourself, you've been at it for so long now. The only reason we are all having this forum discussion, is because science works. Think about that and try to absorb what that means for the world around you in which you live.
The reason we're having this discussion is because people like you think you can alter people's minds to go back to the absolutely unscientific nonsense of a global model.
The reason why you people stay must be en masse ego boosting, pertaining to the mainstream authoritative narrative.
Basically you come armed with all the references you need. You don't even need to think....and yet.....and yet....here you are spending your time on a flat Earth forum making lots and lots of posts....for what?
If you were honest and said " oh I'm here to learn about alternate theories because I question the globe" I'd say, fair enough. If you said you were here to play devils advocate, I say, fair enough.
I have nothing against any of you, to be fair.............................but.
Eight inches per square mile, applies to ground zero, being the world according to an ant or insect on the ground. If you really want to experience eight inches per square mile, have one of your kids bury you at the beach up to your eyeballs.
Lots and lots of posts are for something. The fact is, myself and a few of the other posters in this thread, have managed to change the minds of two or three flat earthers in the past. So, it's not impossible. It can be done.
While you're being true to yourself in holding your viewpoints, so are we. Likewise, you don't have to be in this thread either, making all your posts. You could resign to the believers only section and live in ignorant bliss. But, you're here.
So, obviously, you want to hear what we have to say. Maybe it's because we represent 99.9999 percent of society views you get to meet outside cyberspace?
I'm here because I find the psychology aspect you're peddling, fascinating. Have you ever watched Derren Brown's tv specials, "the hero" or "the push"? People's thoughts can be manipulated.
I would argue, you are a flat earther sceptimatic, because of flat earth propaganda. Eight inches per square mile among many of your other card tricks, gives you away. It's flat earther bread and butter trope.
You didn't think 8 inches per square mile, up all by yourself, yet here you are denouncing everybody else for not thinking for themselves and being indoctrinated. The thing with education and university, is you are taught to think for yourself and question everything.
Flat earth propaganda works exactly the same as the nazi propaganda used on Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940's. It's also no different to advertising campaigns, taking full advantage of YouTube algorithms.
-
I agree with SM. Flat Earth belief is not about proving what shape the Earth is. Like all other conspiracy theorists it is purely about sticking two fingers up at those they consider to represent 'authority' and rebel against popular thought.
If you want to ignore (deny) all the evidence that is has been given to us by modern technology it is (from ground level at least) pretty difficult to prove the shape of the Earth. However the evidence for the Earths true shape can be gathered by pretty much anyone in this day and age. I can buy all the equipment I need online for about the cost of a months salary. It is not just something we rely on the likes of NASA for anymore.
Back in the dark ages when this sort of technology was not available, there was perhaps a stronger case for thinking the Earth might be flat. Flat Earthers today are essentially people who prefer to role play as those who lived in ancient times. Overlooking and living in denial of all the evidence that is available to us now. If that makes you happy then fine. But I have got better things to do with my life than live in constant denial in that way.
-
Denialism is present all around us in different forms. It's defined basically as "a person's choice to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. It's an irrational action where a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality." Flat earth is an extreme denial. The most extreme denial.
The pathway to such an extreme denial is fascinating. Propaganda is a big part of it, but there has to be another underlying psychological reason.
It's a shame that Mike Hughes, a passionate flat earther, died on his homemade rocket, before reaching the height he wanted, and satisfying his curiosity as to the shape of the world.
A homemade helium balloon, if flat earthers were legitimate about truth, could reach a height of 35 kilometers with go pro cameras filming the whole journey. It's affordable, and it's already been done.
This leads us back to the psychological reasons for wanting to continue living in denial, and not wanting to do such an experiment with a helium balloon and go pro cameras.
-
This leads us back to the psychological reasons for wanting to continue living in denial, and not wanting to do such an experiment with a helium balloon and go pro cameras.
You can indeed send a balloon and camera up for next to nothing - why haven't you done it? We were all taught incorrectly about the horizon (which does not curve at any, publicly at least, attainable height), and yet rather than learn you were mistaught you just stay wrong instead...
-
You can indeed send a balloon and camera up for next to nothing - why haven't you done it?
Because we aren't paranoid and wont simply reject all the evidence available.
If I tried to verify all the evidence for everything in science I would waste my entire life doing so, and still not be able to finish. There is simply too much for any single person to do so.
So instead I accept the mountains of evidence available instead of thinking there is a massive conspiracy to hide the truth, including plenty of high altitude footage.
We were all taught incorrectly about the horizon (which does not curve at any, publicly at least, attainable height), and yet rather than learn you were mistaught you just stay wrong instead...
And do you have any evidence to support that claim?
-
If you were honest and said " oh I'm here to learn about alternate theories because I question the globe" I'd say, fair enough.
Ok I will be honest and say I'm here to hear about alternate theories. You have your alternate theory. I have the evidence to support the globe model. What I lack is the evidence from you to support your alternate theory. I can't accept it unless you provide that evidence. You simply making claims and dismissing the globe model as silly and nonsensical is not the evidence I need. You question the globe because you have a personal vendetta against it so you have convinced yourself it is wrong.
A personal vendetta against a globe?
I've got no vendetta. I merely discard it because I do not see nor perceive it as being a globe and I absolutely do not believe the stuff cast out as factual, for it.
You're going well overboard.
I would say the Sun and Moon are physical bodies.
Good for you but you have no real proof of what you're told.
I would say the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Moon orbits the Earth.
Good for you but you have no real proof.
Watch the sky over a period of a year and I would say you will see evidence that supports that without reading a word from any book.
Nope, there is no provable evidence of a globe, nor balls of rock and gas in a vacuum.
You say they are holographic reflections produced by some crystal inside the Earth. Ok provide the evidence that I should accept what you say over what I say.
I can't provide evidence. I can only give out my reasons why I think this may be the case.
When I start putting it out as fact, like you do with your belief, then you can ask for factual proof.
The difference is mine is my theory and yours is given out as factual for which you accept as being that but you have no proof of it being that.
For example how does the crystal produce the energy to emit the light which produces the holograms?
It doesn't. It channels it.
The energy comes from beneath the crystal. A super carbon arc like a huge welding arc for an analogy.
And why does the Sun change its appearance continuously while the Moon always appears the same.
Arcing.
And why do stars disappear behind the Moon suggesting it is a solid body?
Washout of light. Stars are just points of light from crystal reflection/refraction.
The globe model explains all this but your alternate theory doesn't.
Of course. The globe model has been made up to fit what people see, over time.
All sorts of magical mysteries got added as people started to question.
-
what you are missing is the fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon
No, I'm not missing anything to do with that..... you are.
-
I can't provide evidence. I can only give out my reasons why I think this may be the case.
So your alternate theory is based on nothing other than your opinion then.
Good for you but you have no real proof of what you're told.
Just like you have no real proof that your model is correct. You have no real proof that what you believe is true either. The globe model is based on evidence. Yours is based on opinion only. The opinion of just you it seems. One person not liking and therefore dismissing the globe model is hardly likely to change the thinking of science I'm afraid. No matter how much you might like it to.
When I start putting it out as fact, like you do with your belief, then you can ask for factual proof.
This has been pointed out to you before. You don't do anything else other than put it out as fact. While at the same time sitting there smugly on your backside all day asking us to us explain this and explain that as simply as possible for you just so you can shoot us all down in flames and feed your ego even more. Your latest post below is just another example of you doing just that.
Arcing.
What is arcing and how? Once again explain don't just claim. One word answers mean nothing. Apart from making it obvious you are just guessing.
Washout of light. Stars are just points of light from crystal reflection/refraction.
Wash out of light? How can that be true when stars visibly disappear behind the dark portion of the Moons disk? The Moon moves eastwards in the sky relative to the stars so when the Moon is waxing (between new and full Moon) stars disappear behind the eastern (dark limb). How can that be caused by washout of light. Again a pure guess on your part and a pretty poor one at that. Try again.
-
Eight inches per square mile, applies to ground zero, being the world according to an ant or insect on the ground. If you really want to experience eight inches per square mile, have one of your kids bury you at the beach up to your eyeballs.
Bring it right down to the deck if you want.
The thing is I catered for all this stuff you people use by standing upright at about 5 to 6 feet in height and looking level.
And also it's per mile squared not a square mile.
Lots and lots of posts are for something. The fact is, myself and a few of the other posters in this thread, have managed to change the minds of two or three flat earthers in the past. So, it's not impossible. It can be done.
I'd like to know who because nothing you lot are saying has any nudge on me to change my mind.
You need to remember that I changed my mind from a globe and not just at the drop of a hat. I started to question everything. Here I am arguing for alternate Earth to the one bullied into us.
While you're being true to yourself in holding your viewpoints, so are we. Likewise, you don't have to be in this thread either, making all your posts. You could resign to the believers only section and live in ignorant bliss. But, you're here.
You may feel you are being true to yourselves. I have no issue with that. I just believe you are wrong. Not just slightly wrong but massively wrong overall in following the global model set out for you.
That's not a dig at people who follow that. It's just my personal thought with my view of the model set out.
So, obviously, you want to hear what we have to say.
I honestly don't care what you have to say.
If you interact with me I'll obviously answer to what I feel I want to. If you decided never to post another word I'd carry on as usual.
That's not specific to you.
Maybe it's because we represent 99.9999 percent of society views you get to meet outside cyberspace?
Maybe that's what you think.
I'm here because I find the psychology aspect you're peddling, fascinating. Have you ever watched Derren Brown's tv specials, "the hero" or "the push"? People's thoughts can be manipulated.
You're here because you find it soothing that you have somewhere to join in with internet bullies and get some satisfaction out of joining a posse of so called intimidators and feeling smug about having all the ammo already stacked up for you to pick and choose when to fire. No real need to think.
I fnd is fascinating how people like you actually go about in life with that attitude.......But, there you go. It shows how we perceive each other....right?
I would argue, you are a flat earther sceptimatic, because of flat earth propaganda. Eight inches per square mile among many of your other card tricks, gives you away. It's flat earther bread and butter trope.
You didn't think 8 inches per square mile, up all by yourself, yet here you are denouncing everybody else for not thinking for themselves and being indoctrinated
Globalists made that up, not me.
I can only go on what I can argue against in what is put out by global minded people.
And it's per mile squared not a square mile.
The thing with education and university, is you are taught to think for yourself and question everything.
Not how I see it.
You think for yourself and your marks become useless because you thought for yourself.
You follow a curriculum. You follow what is set out for you to regurgitate from memory once exam time comes around.
It's as simple as that.
Flat earth propaganda works exactly the same as the nazi propaganda used on Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940's. It's also no different to advertising campaigns, taking full advantage of YouTube algorithms.
Bringing nazi stuff up is pointless. The world we know of people is full of propaganda in all aspects of stuff, so using it in specifics that suit you, is only relevant, to you.
-
I agree with SM. Flat Earth belief is not about proving what shape the Earth is. Like all other conspiracy theorists it is purely about sticking two fingers up at those they consider to represent 'authority' and rebel against popular thought.
In your mind you can think what you want.
If you want to ignore (deny) all the evidence that is has been given to us by modern technology it is (from ground level at least) pretty difficult to prove the shape of the Earth.
It's pretty difficult to find real evidence of a globe because there is no real evidence.
I believed all the global stuff once upon a time because I fell into that exact mindset of following mass opinion and a curriculum on top of adults telling me, on top of seeing all kinds of fictional movies to little news tit bits on so called rockets going into so called space....etc.
I questioned it.... and sill am.
My overall thought process up to now is, we 100% do not live on a globe and the Earth is most certainly something different to what we've been coaxed into believing.
However the evidence for the Earths true shape can be gathered by pretty much anyone in this day and age.
No it can't.
I can buy all the equipment I need online for about the cost of a months salary. It is not just something we rely on the likes of NASA for anymore.
You can buy all kinds of equipment but none of it proves a spinning globe and vacuum of space.
Overlooking and living in denial of all the evidence that is available to us now. If that makes you happy then fine. But I have got better things to do with my life than live in constant denial in that way.
most of us have better things to do. Do you think I send all my life on this forum?
Do you?
I put a small part of my day into this forum, so try again.
-
It's pretty difficult to find real evidence of a globe because there is no real evidence.
What is the evidence that proves you are right then? What is the evidence that proves the Sun and Moon are anything other than a G2V type star and the Earths natural satellite respectively? What evidence is there to prove the Sun is not a star.... as we've been told?
My overall thought process up to now is, we 100% do not live on a globe and the Earth is most certainly something different to what we've been coaxed into believing.
Fair enough. I really would like to know how equatorial mounts work 100% successfully in both the northern and southern hemispheres then if Earth is not a globe. It's the most obvious answer and you don't need to be told that. If I am told something and I can then go and try it myself then what do I conclude about what I have been told?
-
Denialism is present all around us in different forms. It's defined basically as "a person's choice to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. It's an irrational action where a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality." Flat earth is an extreme denial. The most extreme denial.
The pathway to such an extreme denial is fascinating. Propaganda is a big part of it, but there has to be another underlying psychological reason.
It's a shame that Mike Hughes, a passionate flat earther, died on his homemade rocket, before reaching the height he wanted, and satisfying his curiosity as to the shape of the world.
A homemade helium balloon, if flat earthers were legitimate about truth, could reach a height of 35 kilometers with go pro cameras filming the whole journey. It's affordable, and it's already been done.
This leads us back to the psychological reasons for wanting to continue living in denial, and not wanting to do such an experiment with a helium balloon and go pro cameras.
The key question is in bold and who it actually does apply to. It could well be you lot denying an alternate Earth to the one you follow unconditionally, it seems.
-
I can't provide evidence. I can only give out my reasons why I think this may be the case.
So your alternate theory is based on nothing other than your opinion then.
It's based on simple experiments that show potentials as to what alternate Earth may be from my point of view.
To understand it from my side it has to be looked at from my side...not referenced against because it sways from a globe model of en masse, comfort.
-
You talk about alternate theories. OK during the mid 20th century there were two theories about the origin and age of the Universe. One said that the Universe had a beginning and was expanding. The other said the Universe did not have a beginning and was essentially static.
One theory predicted there should be an 'echo' of when the beginning happened. In the 1960s that echo was detected and so evidence was found which provided overwhelming support for one theory over the other. So the steady state theory was discarded.
If we say that the Big Bang is equivalent to the globe theory and the steady state theory is equivalent to your theory, what is needed is some compelling and verifiable evidence that your theory is correct and therefore a better theory than the globe model. Where is that evidence?
It's based on simple experiments
OK explain these experiments fully so we have something to go on. Not just your claims about 'simple experiments'.
-
It's pretty difficult to find real evidence of a globe because there is no real evidence.
What is the evidence that proves you are right then? What is the evidence that proves the Sun and Moon are anything other than a G2V type star and the Earths natural satellite respectively? What evidence is there to prove the Sun is not a star.... as we've been told?
My overall thought process up to now is, we 100% do not live on a globe and the Earth is most certainly something different to what we've been coaxed into believing.
Fair enough. I really would like to know how equatorial mounts work 100% successfully in both the northern and southern hemispheres then if Earth is not a globe. It's the most obvious answer and you don't need to be told that. If I am told something and I can then go and try it myself then what do I conclude about what I have been told?
Explain an equatorial mount in simple terms that proves a globe and not a concave dome.
-
what you are missing is the fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon
No, I'm not missing anything to do with that..... you are.
As you are still unable to explain why it shouldn't have a horizon, and instead can only try to explain why it shouldn't be visible with a 0 degree non-FOV level sight, you are certainly the one missing it.
Now again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
What visually separates the ground/sea and the sky on a RE?
Do you have any answer at all, or can you just continue with the same lies and deflection?
You need to remember that I changed my mind from a globe and not just at the drop of a hat.
It certainly wasn't because of any rational thought or evidence, as you are incapable of providing any to support your FE fantasy or to refute the RE.
With how you act, it seems to be more an act of rebellion.
Not just slightly wrong but massively wrong overall in following the global model set out for you.
That's not a dig at people who follow that.
That is a dig, as you are basically calling us all morons, with absolutely nothing to justify that insult.
you find it soothing that you have somewhere to join in with internet bullies
If that was going to be the case, he would have joined in with you.
I can only go on what I can argue against in what is put out by global minded people.
Then why do you continually spout your pathetic strawmen, which are nothing like what is put out by the "global minded people"?
You follow a curriculum. You follow what is set out for you to regurgitate from memory once exam time comes around.
It's as simple as that.
It really isn't.
For sciences, if you try that you will be quite likely to fail.
Any decent institution will have questions that require you to actually think, rather than just regurgitate from memory.
It's pretty difficult to find real evidence of a globe because there is no real evidence.
The only reason you think there is "no real evidence" is because you dismiss all the real evidence as a con-job.
Amazingly enough, if you dismiss all the evidence and pretend it isn't real, then you will think there is no real evidence.
My overall thought process up to now is, we 100% do not live on a globe and the Earth is most certainly something different to what we've been coaxed into believing.
And that's the problem. There is no justification for it at all, it is just you being absolutely certain that Earth cannot be round, so you dismiss or ignore everything which shows it is. It shows blind faith, just like a religion.
It could well be you lot denying an alternate Earth to the one you follow unconditionally, it seems.
The fundamental distinction is what side has evidence and logical thought to back them up.
That would be the RE side, backed up by mountains of evidence and logical reasoning.
Unlike the FE side, based upon a wilful rejection of evidence, dismissing anything that shows they are wrong as part of a massive conspiracy or using whatever BS they can to pretend it isn't a problem, and arguing against the RE by setting up pathetic strawmen.
You can't even bring yourself to answer an extremely simple question because of how much you despise the RE and despise being wrong.
If your position wasn't based upon denial you would have already answered the question entirely.
-
You talk about alternate theories. OK during the mid 20th century there were two theories about the origin and age of the Universe. One said that the Universe had a beginning and was expanding. The other said the Universe did not have a beginning and was essentially static.
One theory predicted there should be an 'echo' of when the beginning happened. In the 1960s that echo was detected and so evidence was found which provided overwhelming support for one theory over the other. So the steady state theory was discarded.
How about you simple explain this space echo.
I'm being serious. Just explain it nice and briefly and simply.
A simple analogy will suffice so get what's being said.
If we say that the Big Bang is equivalent to the globe theory and the steady state theory is equivalent to your theory, what is needed is some compelling and verifiable evidence that your theory is correct and therefore a better theory than the globe model. Where is that evidence?
The big bang is what?
What exactly is it?
want your words simply and briefly. A simple analogy, if you want to.
It's based on simple experiments
OK explain these experiments fully so we have something to go on. Not just your claims about 'simple experiments'.
Low pressure chambers are a good indication of why there's a dome like structure above us, holding everything in.
-
Explain an equatorial mount in simple terms that proves a globe and not a concave dome.
There are many, many websites which do this already but as usual I have done the donkey work for you because you can't do anything for yourself can you.
https://www.spaceoddities.eu/2018/08/astrophotography-what-is-an-equatorial-mount-and-how-does-it-work/
Two point in the sky, 180 degrees apart from each other. Polar axis should line up with either north or south celestial pole so the mount is lined up with the Earths polar axis. How could any of this work if the Earth itself was a concave dome? Whatever that is. Same as a convex dome but looking inside out rather than outside in I guess.
-
You can't even bring yourself to answer an extremely simple question because of how much you despise the RE and despise being wrong.
You seem to be getting irate. You're acting all personal in guarding a globe model. Why?
I don't agree with your model, get over it.
-
Explain an equatorial mount in simple terms that proves a globe and not a concave dome.
There are many, many websites which do this already but as usual I have done the donkey work for you because you can't do anything for yourself can you.
https://www.spaceoddities.eu/2018/08/astrophotography-what-is-an-equatorial-mount-and-how-does-it-work/
Two point in the sky, 180 degrees apart from each other. Polar axis should line up with either north or south celestial pole so the mount is lined up with the Earths polar axis. How could any of this work if the Earth itself was a concave dome? Whatever that is. Same as a convex dome but looking inside out rather than outside in I guess.
Explain like I'm a slow person who is child like.
What you're saying means nothing.
Take me outside and point and set up your mount and show me.
Explain it from that set up.
-
You can't even bring yourself to answer an extremely simple question because of how much you despise the RE and despise being wrong.
You seem to be getting irate. You're acting all personal in guarding a globe model. Why?
I don't agree with your model, get over it.
No, I'm not acting all personal.
I'm just sick of you continually using whatever dishonest BS you can think of to avoid extremely simple questions which show you are wrong.
You are wrong, get over it.
Again, WHY SHOULDN'T THE RE HAVE A HORIZON?
Can you honestly answer that question for once instead of ignoring it or dodging with some other BS?
-
Regarding your reply #3782, why do you always insist on us explaining anything to you? What difference will it make? You have already made your mind up about what you want to believe and what you don't so us explaining anything to you is pointless. Especially when you can read up all about it on literally millions of websites.
If you don't understand how one explains it find another one. That's what everyone else does. In the meantime you sit there proudly on your pedestal and do bugger all. Whatever we try to explain to you is dismissed outright in your very next post anyway.
Low pressure chambers are a good indication of why there's a dome like structure above us, holding everything in.
I asked you to describe your 'simple experiments'. What does this mean about low pressure chambers? Have you got one handy? How does it work? What does it do? You have once again just made a claim with absolutely no details. How do these low pressure chambers hold everything in? Break it down into nice simple terms so this dummy understands you.
When I have done experiments in the past I have had to explain what my hypothesis is, what my equipment is going to be, what I am going to do, set out my results and conclusion and account for errors. How about you do the same with your 'simple experiments'. It can't be too hard for you. If I had just handed an assignment in saying I had done the experiment I would have failed straight away.
-
You can't even bring yourself to answer an extremely simple question because of how much you despise the RE and despise being wrong.
You seem to be getting irate. You're acting all personal in guarding a globe model. Why?
I don't agree with your model, get over it.
No, I'm not acting all personal.
I'm just sick of you continually using whatever dishonest BS you can think of to avoid extremely simple questions which show you are wrong.
You are wrong, get over it.
I don't believe I am, so you get over it.
-
What you're saying means nothing.
That's your problem not mine. Learn about it then. There is plenty of information online to help you.
Take me outside and point and set up your mount and show me.
OK when are you free to pop round then and I will.
1. Level the mount and aim it roughly north or south depending on your location.
2. Adjust the mount so it is set to very nearly my known latitude. I can use Polaris to obtain latitude in the northern hemisphere.
3. Now you can use a polar scope, drift alignment or the PoleMaster camera to get more accurate polar alignment. For visual use approximate is more than adequate. For long exposure images you need the alignment to be as good as you can get it. I use the PoleMaster as it is the quickest and most accurate method.
4. Load PoleMaster software and then follow the procedure given by the software to achieve polar alignment accurate to better than 30" within 10 minutes.
5. Connect mount to ASCOM compliant star chart software, calibrate home position of mount (I use home position 3 for my AP 1200GTO mount since it is pointing directly to the NCP) and then do a test aim to a star. Verify for accuracy by using plate solving.
Job done.
All the above is done using my own equipment. Happy to list it along with all the software I use if you are interested.
-
Regarding your reply #3782, why do you always insist on us explaining anything to you?
I ask. It's entirely up to you people whether you want to explain. I simply ask you to do it from your own head in simple terms.
Rarely does anyone oblige and fair enough.
Copy and paste is fine for those who accept it. I already question teh stuff being copied and pasted. I ask for clarity from the person. Simplified as they see it.
Feel free to ignore anything I say but don't whine when you feel you're not getting anywhere.
What difference will it make?
None if that's how you look at it. Make a difference and do what I asked, or don't and carry on with something that does not include me.
You have already made your mind up about what you want to believe and what you don't so us explaining anything to you is pointless.
I have certainly made up my mind about a global spinning Earth and space vacuum being nonsense.
Prove me wrong.
Show me I'm wrong.
If you find it difficult rthen nail it with something physical. If you can't, then I can't help you.
Especially when you can read up all about it on literally millions of websites.
Of course I can but then again, I read up on lots of this stuff and did well before I came here. I disagree with it and have my reasons.
You cannot verify what you're reading about when it pertains to this.
If you don't understand how one explains it find another one.
I do. I look at all ways. I see nothing that shows me reality.
That's what everyone else does.
Yep. It's called mass acceptance of mainstream explanations.
In the meantime you sit there proudly on your pedestal and do bugger all.
I do plenty but it doesn't suit you. I don't care about whether it does or not.
Whatever we try to explain to you is dismissed outright in your very next post anyway.
Only if it makes no sense.
-
Like I said. How do you explain the successful operation of equatorial mounts in the southern hemisphere based around your non-globe model. That is something physical and very real. So explain it.
The PoleMaster camera has an FOV of a couple of degrees and adjust the gain and exposure so you can see the stars immediately surrounding the NCP/SCP. There is then a template overlaid on the image which shows the position of known stars. By rotating the mount in RA the software is able to calculate any error between the axis of rotation of the mount and the actual celestial pole. You then manually adjust the mount until the two coincide. At that point your mount is polar aligned.
Since we are using multiple stars within a couple of degrees of the actual celestial pole it is irrelevant that there no bright star near the SCP itself is there is for the northern hemisphere.
It's called mass acceptance of mainstream explanations.
Not everything that is explained to us is wrong you know. Even if you don't agree with it.
Make a difference and do what I asked
Do as you ask? Are you my boss or something?
-
What you're saying means nothing.
That's your problem not mine.
It's not a problem to me.
-
Take me outside and point and set up your mount and show me.
OK when are you free to pop round then and I will.
1. Level the mount and aim it roughly north or south depending on your location.
2. Adjust the mount so it is set to very nearly my known latitude. I can use Polaris to obtain latitude in the northern hemisphere.
3. Now you can use a polar scope, drift alignment or the PoleMaster camera to get more accurate polar alignment. For visual use approximate is more than adequate. For long exposure images you need the alignment to be as good as you can get it. I use the PoleMaster as it is the quickest and most accurate method.
4. Load PoleMaster software and then follow the procedure given by the software to achieve polar alignment accurate to better than 30" within 10 minutes.
5. Connect mount to ASCOM compliant star chart software, calibrate home position of mount (I use home position 3 for my AP 1200GTO mount since it is pointing directly to the NCP) and then do a test aim to a star. Verify for accuracy by using plate solving.
Job done.
All the above is done using my own equipment. Happy to list it along with all the software I use if you are interested.
Ok and none of that proves a globe and you know it.
-
Not everything that is explained to us is wrong you know.
Most likely not.
-
No, you said you are sure because it makes no sense to you. That's ignorance, not logic.
It makes no sense because evidence.....real evidence shows it to be nonsense, not just the thought process of the nonsense of it.
If the "thought process" to you is nonsense that means you don't actually understand the concept. I can make up a theory that dragons flap their wings to push you up and unicorns stomp on you to pull you down and I can UNDERSTAND how that would move things, even if it's complete nonsense.
Your inability to understand HOW gravity is meant to work is what is limiting you here, you can't comprehend hot it works, thus you making nonsense comments like the curve being uphill or downhill or not understanding how people don't fall off the bottom of the world.
You just reject it all because you can't understand the ideas behind it. It's that simple.
-
If the "thought process" to you is nonsense that means you don't actually understand the concept. I can make up a theory that dragons flap their wings to push you up and unicorns stomp on you to pull you down and I can UNDERSTAND how that would move things, even if it's complete nonsense.
You're basically describing your gravity.
Your inability to understand HOW gravity is meant to work is what is limiting you here, you can't comprehend hot it works, thus you making nonsense comments like the curve being uphill or downhill or not understanding how people don't fall off the bottom of the world.
I have no issues about understanding how people don't fall off the bottom of the world. It doesn't exist for people to fall off it and people like you should know better.
You just reject it all because you can't understand the ideas behind it. It's that simple.
Do you understand the ideas behind star trek or star wars?
Have a think on that.
People like you pretend the universe just sprung up from a big bang, out of nothing.
And you say I don't understand. What an utter joke.
-
Ok and none of that proves a globe and you know it.
You asked me how I set up my own mount. So that's how I do it.
You are right about everything and we are wrong. Because we fall into the trap of accepting everything we are told and we have needed you to rescue us from our severe indoctrination.
There you go... happy?
-
Ok and none of that proves a globe and you know it.
You asked me how I set up my own mount. So that's how I do it.
You are right about everything and we are wrong. Because we fall into the trap of accepting everything we are told and we have needed you to rescue us from our severe indoctrination.
There you go... happy?
In terms of you once believing it was a globe but now realise it isn't....yes, I'm happy.
At least you know.
-
All I've got to do now is to know a bit more about your model.. So help me out with that. What is my new vision of the world like?!? Exactly what shape is it to start with and how did it get to be that shape?
-
You can't even bring yourself to answer an extremely simple question because of how much you despise the RE and despise being wrong.
You seem to be getting irate. You're acting all personal in guarding a globe model. Why?
I don't agree with your model, get over it.
No, I'm not acting all personal.
I'm just sick of you continually using whatever dishonest BS you can think of to avoid extremely simple questions which show you are wrong.
You are wrong, get over it.
I don't believe I am, so you get over it.
If you don't believe you are, then ANSWER THE QUESTION That you have been avoiding almost from the start of this thread.
Why shouldn't a RE have a horizon?
It is an extremely simple question which you continually refuse to answer, which you continually deflect from, where an honest answer shows you are wrong.
If you actually believed you were not wrong, you would be able to answer the question, or at least admit you have no idea why it shouldn't.
Regarding your reply #3782, why do you always insist on us explaining anything to you?
I ask. It's entirely up to you people whether you want to explain. I simply ask you to do it from your own head in simple terms.
The issue isn't simply you asking, it is why you ask and what purpose you think it serves?
The only reason you seem to ask is to deflect from your complete inability to explain anything.
When an explanation is provided you either just dismiss it as nonsense or the like without cause, without any explanation at all, or ignore it in its entirety.
If it actually made no sense, you would be able to explain why, as we repeatedly do with your nonsense. But you can't. Instead you just say it is nonsense and leave it at that.
This shows that you are not interested in actually getting an explanation. You are just using it to avoid the fact you can't explain anything.
I disagree with it and have my reasons.
And so far, those "reasons" seem to be they show there is no problem with the RE and you hate the RE.
You cannot verify what you're reading about when it pertains to this.
Ok and none of that proves a globe and you know it.
Yes it does. The fact you can use it anywhere on the RE to accurately track stars against the rotation of Earth shows that Earth is round. It cannot distinguish between Earth rotating and the sky rotating, but it can distinguish between the RE and a FE.
It shows that either Earth rotates on its axis, or the sky rotates as a sphere, with the stars incredibly far away (many times the size of Earth), with the axis of rotation inclined relative to your location on Earth.
This inclination is one of the most important parts, as the inclination varies across Earth.
The axis is the same for everyone, but the inclination of it relative to the ground varies. That means the orientation of the ground varies. And that variation is that for a round Earth.
If Earth was flat, with the stars still vastly distant, then the inclination of the axis would be the same everywhere.
And if the stars were near, they would appear to trace elliptical paths in the night sky, and a simple equatorial mount would not be capable of following them.
So yes, it does "prove" a RE, beyond any sane doubt.
I have no issues about understanding how people don't fall off the bottom of the world. It doesn't exist for people to fall off it and people like you should know better.
And this further shows a complete lack of understanding. You are only ever viewing things in the context of your FE fantasy.
The question is not about your fantasy, it is about the RE model.
There is no reason in the RE model for why people wouldn't fall off. But you don't like that fact.
Do you understand the ideas behind star trek or star wars?
No. They have no explanation for what is in their dilithium crystals.
Lithium is a metal which would experience metallic bonding and simply produce lithium metal. Dilithium makes no sense.
Likewise, aluminium is a metal, this means it has an electron cloud which interacts with incoming radiation to reflect/scatter it, making it impossible to have transparent aluminium.
Likewise, they have no explanation at all for why a matter-antimatter reaction distorts spacetime to such an extent, and in such a controllable manner to offer warp speed.
Likewise, they have no explanation for why the Enterprise, under Captain Kirk is capable of going from the galactic rim to the centre of the galaxy in roughly 5 years, with a bunch of screwing around in between, yet Voyager, a much improved and faster ship would take 70 years to cross a comparable 70 000 light years, especially when travelling at their stated max cruising speed it would take approximately 5 to 10 years to cross the entire galaxy.
Likewise, they have no explanation at all for how their artificial gravity work.
And so on.
I can show you many parts of Star Trek that makes no sense.
Star Wars is pure fantasy, relying upon "the force", a purely magical idea. Not to mention their lightsabres with no real power source. In cannon the ones which made more sense were the ones which required a quite substantial battery pack.
-
Denialism is present all around us in different forms. It's defined basically as "a person's choice to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. It's an irrational action where a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality." Flat earth is an extreme denial. The most extreme denial.
The pathway to such an extreme denial is fascinating. Propaganda is a big part of it, but there has to be another underlying psychological reason.
It's a shame that Mike Hughes, a passionate flat earther, died on his homemade rocket, before reaching the height he wanted, and satisfying his curiosity as to the shape of the world.
A homemade helium balloon, if flat earthers were legitimate about truth, could reach a height of 35 kilometers with go pro cameras filming the whole journey. It's affordable, and it's already been done.
This leads us back to the psychological reasons for wanting to continue living in denial, and not wanting to do such an experiment with a helium balloon and go pro cameras.
The key question is in bold and who it actually does apply to. It could well be you lot denying an alternate Earth to the one you follow unconditionally, it seems.
Sceptimatic, only half of the key question, you have put in bold. The other half is, "and not wanting to do such an experiment with a helium balloon and go pro cameras"
I've got an hour up my sleeve today, which is 40 minutes more than I care to devote to this forum and your looniness, today. But, I will do your tube experiment (which you appear too lazy to do yourself) and we'll see how much denial you can come up with. Oh, and I expect a suggestion on what practical usefulness the tubes and chicken costume will bring me.
Why haven't you asked one of us to do the helium balloon to a height of 35 kilometers with go pro experiment? In fact, why haven't you or your sidekick, jack455667788 done the experiment yourselves and posted up the results?
You want usernames of flat earther traitors? What do you want to do to them?
-
The issue isn't simply you asking, it is why you ask and what purpose you think it serves?
The only reason you seem to ask is to deflect from your complete inability to explain anything.
When an explanation is provided you either just dismiss it as nonsense or the like without cause, without any explanation at all, or ignore it in its entirety.
If it actually made no sense, you would be able to explain why, as we repeatedly do with your nonsense. But you can't. Instead you just say it is nonsense and leave it at that.
This shows that you are not interested in actually getting an explanation. You are just using it to avoid the fact you can't explain anything.
I think another reason is that whenever Scepti asks us to 'explain' anything he knows that whatever we say is going to be different to what he believes and so that gives him the excuse he needs to disagree with us and dismiss whatever we say as the 'global nonsense we have been indoctrinated with' or words to that effect. The trick with these people is to be sympathetic with them and almost agree with them rather than challenging them.
Conspiracy theorists expect to be challenged about what they believe. That is what feeds them and what they thrive on. It is when people agree with them that they come unstuck because then their egos have nothing to feed from.
-
All I've got to do now is to know a bit more about your model.. So help me out with that. What is my new vision of the world like?!? Exactly what shape is it to start with and how did it get to be that shape?
If you want me to help you with it then stop having digs after every explanation. ls.
The shape is like a decaying cell with a membrane covering...basically.
-
You can't even bring yourself to answer an extremely simple question because of how much you despise the RE and despise being wrong.
You seem to be getting irate. You're acting all personal in guarding a globe model. Why?
I don't agree with your model, get over it.
No, I'm not acting all personal.
I'm just sick of you continually using whatever dishonest BS you can think of to avoid extremely simple questions which show you are wrong.
You are wrong, get over it.
I don't believe I am, so you get over it.
If you don't believe you are, then ANSWER THE QUESTION That you have been avoiding almost from the start of this thread.
Why shouldn't a RE have a horizon?
It is an extremely simple question which you continually refuse to answer, which you continually deflect from, where an honest answer shows you are wrong.
If you actually believed you were not wrong, you would be able to answer the question, or at least admit you have no idea why it shouldn't.
Regarding your reply #3782, why do you always insist on us explaining anything to you?
I ask. It's entirely up to you people whether you want to explain. I simply ask you to do it from your own head in simple terms.
The issue isn't simply you asking, it is why you ask and what purpose you think it serves?
The only reason you seem to ask is to deflect from your complete inability to explain anything.
When an explanation is provided you either just dismiss it as nonsense or the like without cause, without any explanation at all, or ignore it in its entirety.
If it actually made no sense, you would be able to explain why, as we repeatedly do with your nonsense. But you can't. Instead you just say it is nonsense and leave it at that.
This shows that you are not interested in actually getting an explanation. You are just using it to avoid the fact you can't explain anything.
I disagree with it and have my reasons.
And so far, those "reasons" seem to be they show there is no problem with the RE and you hate the RE.
You cannot verify what you're reading about when it pertains to this.
Ok and none of that proves a globe and you know it.
Yes it does. The fact you can use it anywhere on the RE to accurately track stars against the rotation of Earth shows that Earth is round. It cannot distinguish between Earth rotating and the sky rotating, but it can distinguish between the RE and a FE.
It shows that either Earth rotates on its axis, or the sky rotates as a sphere, with the stars incredibly far away (many times the size of Earth), with the axis of rotation inclined relative to your location on Earth.
This inclination is one of the most important parts, as the inclination varies across Earth.
The axis is the same for everyone, but the inclination of it relative to the ground varies. That means the orientation of the ground varies. And that variation is that for a round Earth.
If Earth was flat, with the stars still vastly distant, then the inclination of the axis would be the same everywhere.
And if the stars were near, they would appear to trace elliptical paths in the night sky, and a simple equatorial mount would not be capable of following them.
So yes, it does "prove" a RE, beyond any sane doubt.
I have no issues about understanding how people don't fall off the bottom of the world. It doesn't exist for people to fall off it and people like you should know better.
And this further shows a complete lack of understanding. You are only ever viewing things in the context of your FE fantasy.
The question is not about your fantasy, it is about the RE model.
There is no reason in the RE model for why people wouldn't fall off. But you don't like that fact.
Do you understand the ideas behind star trek or star wars?
No. They have no explanation for what is in their dilithium crystals.
Lithium is a metal which would experience metallic bonding and simply produce lithium metal. Dilithium makes no sense.
Likewise, aluminium is a metal, this means it has an electron cloud which interacts with incoming radiation to reflect/scatter it, making it impossible to have transparent aluminium.
Likewise, they have no explanation at all for why a matter-antimatter reaction distorts spacetime to such an extent, and in such a controllable manner to offer warp speed.
Likewise, they have no explanation for why the Enterprise, under Captain Kirk is capable of going from the galactic rim to the centre of the galaxy in roughly 5 years, with a bunch of screwing around in between, yet Voyager, a much improved and faster ship would take 70 years to cross a comparable 70 000 light years, especially when travelling at their stated max cruising speed it would take approximately 5 to 10 years to cross the entire galaxy.
Likewise, they have no explanation at all for how their artificial gravity work.
And so on.
I can show you many parts of Star Trek that makes no sense.
Star Wars is pure fantasy, relying upon "the force", a purely magical idea. Not to mention their lightsabres with no real power source. In cannon the ones which made more sense were the ones which required a quite substantial battery pack.
Now that you think like that you'd be serving yourself a comfort of actually questioning your global model ith space dessert.
-
You want usernames of flat earther traitors? What do you want to do to them?
What the hell are you talking about?
-
The issue isn't simply you asking, it is why you ask and what purpose you think it serves?
The only reason you seem to ask is to deflect from your complete inability to explain anything.
When an explanation is provided you either just dismiss it as nonsense or the like without cause, without any explanation at all, or ignore it in its entirety.
If it actually made no sense, you would be able to explain why, as we repeatedly do with your nonsense. But you can't. Instead you just say it is nonsense and leave it at that.
This shows that you are not interested in actually getting an explanation. You are just using it to avoid the fact you can't explain anything.
I think another reason is that whenever Scepti asks us to 'explain' anything he knows that whatever we say is going to be different to what he believes and so that gives him the excuse he needs to disagree with us and dismiss whatever we say as the 'global nonsense we have been indoctrinated with' or words to that effect. The trick with these people is to be sympathetic with them and almost agree with them rather than challenging them.
Conspiracy theorists expect to be challenged about what they believe. That is what feeds them and what they thrive on. It is when people agree with them that they come unstuck because then their egos have nothing to feed from.
I think the easiest would be for you to totally ignore what I say and concentrate on other things.
If you think like you do then do yourself a favour.
-
Now that you think like that you'd be serving yourself a comfort of actually questioning your global model ith space dessert.
And there you go ignoring everything yet again.
I have questioned it, but unlike you, I don't think questioning means just outright rejecting it.
For one such example.
As far as I can tell, the RE should have a horizon, but you claim otherwise.
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
What should be separating the ground/sea from the sky visually?
-
Now that you think like that you'd be serving yourself a comfort of actually questioning your global model ith space dessert.
And there you go ignoring everything yet again.
I have questioned it, but unlike you, I don't think questioning means just outright rejecting it.
For one such example.
As far as I can tell, the RE should have a horizon, but you claim otherwise.
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
What should be separating the ground/sea from the sky visually?
When you deal with what I originally said, then I'll be happy to go through it.
Just to recap for you...niot that you need it, as you well know.
My argument was. I'll bold it.
My argument was: If you are stood upright and looking level out to sea....if you were on a globe, you would not see the sea, you would only see sky.
Forget the obvious reasons that you would see the sea with a sea being impossible to stay on a globe, just look at it from the position of your globe being curved downwards and away from your level sight. This means your level sight does not bring any downward curve back into play, it would do the opposite and actually create a height difference under each inch of level view.
It simply means you would see sky.
Now let me make this clear, also.We are not arguing about bowing your head and lifting it up slowly until you supposedly see Earth's global edge....somehow, so get that out of your head.
All you do is twist the argument, which is absolutely fine...but don't whine when I overlook a lot of the stuff.
-
Mand it has been said many times whst is wrong with your premise.... yet you never address and continue to parrot the same claim over and over.
Take a ruler stick.
Take a basket ball.
Place the ruler on the ball.
Does it wrap itself around the ball or does it touch it at one point?
That point is where the curve of the ball curves away from your level sight.
It is the "edge".
The "horizon".
-
Mand it has been said many times whst is wrong with your premise.... yet you never address and continue to parrot the same claim over and over.
Take a ruler stick.
Take a basket ball.
Place the ruler on the ball.
Does it wrap itself around the ball or does it touch it at one point?
That point is where the curve of the ball curves away from your level sight.
It is the "edge".
The "horizon".
You have to be on the wind up.
-
Refutes nothing.
Continues saying nothing.
-
You have to be on the wind up.
That's weird... that's exactly what everyone else says about you!
-
When you deal with what I originally said, then I'll be happy to go through it.
I have.
To recap:
You claimed that on a RE, when looking out level, you would see nothing but sky.
I showed quite clearly using math that unless your FOV was tiny, or you were extremely high up, you would see the sky.
I proved this with a simple logical which you refused to get past the very first part of it. You dismissed the fact that the RE has a horizon in the first place.
Your claim wasn't simply that it is not visible when looking out level, but that it doesn't exist at all.
This is so you can ignore the fact that a FOV would allow you to see the horizon, even on a RE.
You continually appeal to a level sight so you can pretend the RE can't have a horizon, so you can dismiss the fact that it is so insignificantly below level that you can easily see it.
This is because you know as soon as you admit the RE does have a horizon, the next question is where does it appear, and the math shows that it would be roughly 2.7 arc minutes below level for an observer with eyes 2 m above sea level, and thus it would easily be visible when looking out level.
So you are right, I don't need your recap. I know what you have been doing.
Now, if you don't want to try to justify your claim that the RE would not have a horizon at all, then simply that it does and instead claim that it would not be visible when looking out level, and we can move on.
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
-
Draw a circle of size 12,750,000 units wide.
Draw a triangle with tangent to the circle and 2 units above the circle.
Let us know the angle between the 2 unit and the tangent point.
Tangent as defined in the conventional sense.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
And yet again you refuse to answer an extremely simple question.
Do you accept that a RE would have a horizon, and just claim that it would not be visible with a level view, or do you claim that the RE does not have a horizon at all?
Quit with the deflection and just answer the question, because so far in this thread you like to appeal to level to pretend there isn't a horizon, to dismiss the fact that the horizon would be so close to level that unless your FOV is tiny you would see it.
So just forget about a level view for now and tell us if you think the RE should have a horizon at all.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
You really have no idea what it is that you object to.
The old saying turns out to be just about true. For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 3 miles (5 km) away.
3 miles. That's about it normally. Apparently, you have very limited knowledge as to how globe earth geometry works or even just how massive the earth is. Why in the world would you ever think that at just 3 miles the horizon would be below your view. Just how much do you think the earth would curve downward and away from your eye-level 6' elevation view? What's your calculation given what convention (The thing you argue against) says the size of the earth is? And for the 1000th time, can you post up an image you took showing what you claim?
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
And yet again you refuse to answer an extremely simple question.
Do you accept that a RE would have a horizon, and just claim that it would not be visible with a level view, or do you claim that the RE does not have a horizon at all?
Quit with the deflection and just answer the question, because so far in this thread you like to appeal to level to pretend there isn't a horizon, to dismiss the fact that the horizon would be so close to level that unless your FOV is tiny you would see it.
So just forget about a level view for now and tell us if you think the RE should have a horizon at all.
I've answered your question but you certainly avoid answering mine.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
You really have no idea what it is that you object to.
The old saying turns out to be just about true. For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 3 miles (5 km) away.
3 miles. That's about it normally. Apparently, you have very limited knowledge as to how globe earth geometry works or even just how massive the earth is. Why in the world would you ever think that at just 3 miles the horizon would be below your view.
I'm not the one that thinks the horizon is below my view.
It seems you don't have the ability to comprehend simplictity.
I'll say it again.
The horizon is always at eye level.
Just how much do you think the earth would curve downward and away from your eye-level 6' elevation view?
It doesn't matter to be honest.
It would curve down and away looking from sea level height. At 6 feet the level sight would ensure a much much bigger curve downwards.
The issue is still the same for your globalists. You cannot have any horizon and we clearly do have one, which is another reason why your Earth is not a globe you walk upon or sail upon.
You really need to have a word with yourself about what you believe...not me.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
And yet again you refuse to answer an extremely simple question.
Do you accept that a RE would have a horizon, and just claim that it would not be visible with a level view, or do you claim that the RE does not have a horizon at all?
Quit with the deflection and just answer the question, because so far in this thread you like to appeal to level to pretend there isn't a horizon, to dismiss the fact that the horizon would be so close to level that unless your FOV is tiny you would see it.
So just forget about a level view for now and tell us if you think the RE should have a horizon at all.
I've answered your question but you certainly avoid answering mine.
Not really. The one time you came close was when you claimed you would have a blur, which you outright refused to go further into.
Remember, this question is simply asking if the RE has a horizon. It isn't asking if you would see it through a level view. That comes later.
You saying you wouldn't see it with a level view is NOT answering that question. It is answering a different question.
So again, do you think the RE has a horizon AT ALL?
Can you actually answer this question and be consistent dealing with whatever issue your answer results in, either explaining why it doesn't have a horizon, or dealing with the logical consequences of it.
When you start actually answering the questions asked instead of the questions you want to be asked your demands to have your questions answered would carry more weight.
I'll say it again.
The horizon is always at eye level.
Except as repeatedly observed, such as in the evidence provided earlier which you dismiss as a conjob with no justification at all, all because it shows you are wrong.
You saying it is worthless when evidence shows you are wrong.
Just how much do you think the earth would curve downward and away from your eye-level 6' elevation view?
It doesn't matter to be honest.
Yes it does, as repeatedly shown with you incapable of refuting the logic that shows you are wrong.
Perspective makes things below you appear higher.
That means close to your feet, when the drop is ~0 and the ground is travelling ~ parallel to your line of sight, perspective is going to be more significant and result in the ground appear to rise into your FOV.
Then when further away, past the horizon, the downwards gradient is far more significant and the effect of perspective is less significant, meaning the ground gets lower visually and this is what produces the horizon.
As the math has clearly shown (and you have completely ignored as you cannot refute it), the horizon, when 2 m above sea level, will be at roughly 2.7 arc minutes below level. This is insignificant, and unless you had a tiny FOV, you would see this horizon in a level view.
That is why it matters.
That is why I say you are pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.
If Earth was such a tiny ball, then when standing 2 m above it, the curvature becomes the dominant effect, before it is anywhere close to visually at eye level.
The issue is still the same for your globalists.
You mean not an issue at all and instead you just continuing to dishonest misrepresent the globe to pretend there is an issue?
You cannot have any horizon and we clearly do have one
Again, is this you claiming that the RE does not have a horizon at all, regardless of what direction you look, or is it merely you claiming that it wouldn't be in a level view?
-
I've answered your question but you certainly avoid answering mine.
Not really. The one time you came close was when you claimed you would have a blur, which you outright refused to go further into.
This would be the best you'd get over a short distance.
-
I've answered your question but you certainly avoid answering mine.
Not really. The one time you came close was when you claimed you would have a blur, which you outright refused to go further into.
This would be the best you'd get over a short distance.
So are you now claiming the RE does not have a horizon at all? and the best you get is a blur? If so, WHY?
-
So are you now claiming the RE does not have a horizon at all? and the best you get is a blur? If so, WHY?
I'm not now claiming it, I've always claimed it.
Your global Earth cannot have any horizon. Understand that instead of trying to twist it.
-
It does have a horizon hwich the reason was explained to you.
If you see a ball, it has a circle look to it.
An edge.
Thats rhe horizon.
Where you cease to see the back side of the ball and see the sky behind.
Your explaination of a dwrk on light haze ending of light in a distance of visual limit or whatever word salad you used would end up with a blur.
Not a difinitive sepaeate "thoeritical" line.
TRY DRAWING BOTH THEORIES.
RE and DENP.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
You really have no idea what it is that you object to.
The old saying turns out to be just about true. For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 3 miles (5 km) away.
3 miles. That's about it normally. Apparently, you have very limited knowledge as to how globe earth geometry works or even just how massive the earth is. Why in the world would you ever think that at just 3 miles the horizon would be below your view.
I'm not the one that thinks the horizon is below my view.
It seems you don't have the ability to comprehend simplictity.
I'll say it again.
The horizon is always at eye level.
Just yelling it in red doesn't make it so. You've already been shown countless times that you're just saying something that doesn't fit reality. And that's fine. You would never admit to being wrong, so it doesn't really matter. But at the end of the day, very simple human observation by anyone clearly shows that the horizon doesn't rise to eye-level with altitude. You can claim that all of these observations are faked just to challenge you, but literally everyone knows that is not the case.
If you really wanted to make your point, you would actually post your experiment instead of stomping your feet. But you won't because it would show you are wrong. And that's clear to everyone as well.
Just how much do you think the earth would curve downward and away from your eye-level 6' elevation view?
It doesn't matter to be honest.
It would curve down and away looking from sea level height. At 6 feet the level sight would ensure a much much bigger curve downwards.
The issue is still the same for your globalists. You cannot have any horizon and we clearly do have one, which is another reason why your Earth is not a globe you walk upon or sail upon.
You really need to have a word with yourself about what you believe...not me.
Why would a measurement not matter? If it curves away in 3 miles, how much does it curve away? That's a pretty significant part of the question. It's really weird to say it doesn't matter.
You're still just relying on your belief system - Saying you can't have something just because you can't have something. It doesn't get more religious than that. Do you ever back anything up with anything other than just your belief system? And no, your "logic", or whatever you think it is, is solely predicated on your "It doesn't work because I don't believe in your sphere..." business. You need something more. Otherwise we're just stuck in this religious belief of yours cul-de-sac.
-
So are you now claiming the RE does not have a horizon at all? and the best you get is a blur? If so, WHY?
I'm not now claiming it, I've always claimed it.
Yet you repeatedly acted like you weren't claiming it and were doing whatever you can to avoid that claim, repeatedly accusing me of twisting your claims.
This is the claim you need to deal with before trying to claim the horizon is not visible from a level view.
Your global Earth cannot have any horizon. Understand that instead of trying to twist it.
If you want me to understand that outright lie you need to justify it.
Why can't the RE have a horizon?
If we look at a ball, we have a region where the ball is in our vision and a region where it is not. The boundary is its horizon.
So why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Again, the best you have been able to give is claiming you would have a blur.
But the only way for that to happen is if the air or whatever causes it to have a blur because the actual horizon would be too far away.
That would simply mean Earth doesn't curve fast enough to cause a visible horizon due to the atmosphere/whatever causing a blur instead.
But that would require the air or whatever to cause that blur in reality, and on a FE. But instead we often get a clear horizon.
That means that a blur clearly is not the reason.
-
If you can't bring yourself to admit that the RE would have a horizon, then defend your claim that it would not, remembering that that is claiming it wouldn't have a horizon at all, not merely that it wouldn't have one visible when looking out level.
Upright, 5 feet...level vision...your Earth curving down and away from that. No horizon. How simple can that be ?
You really have no idea what it is that you object to.
The old saying turns out to be just about true. For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 3 miles (5 km) away.
3 miles. That's about it normally. Apparently, you have very limited knowledge as to how globe earth geometry works or even just how massive the earth is. Why in the world would you ever think that at just 3 miles the horizon would be below your view.
I'm not the one that thinks the horizon is below my view.
It seems you don't have the ability to comprehend simplictity.
I'll say it again.
The horizon is always at eye level.
Just how much do you think the earth would curve downward and away from your eye-level 6' elevation view?
It doesn't matter to be honest.
It would curve down and away looking from sea level height. At 6 feet the level sight would ensure a much much bigger curve downwards.
The issue is still the same for your globalists. You cannot have any horizon and we clearly do have one, which is another reason why your Earth is not a globe you walk upon or sail upon.
You really need to have a word with yourself about what you believe...not me.
Sceptimatic, the astronomical horizon is always at your eye level, as it is in perspective drawing. It's also referred to as the geometric or mathematical horizon.
From what I can see, they aren't talking about the astronomical horizon, they are talking about the true horizon. The true horizon is the plane of the earth itself. It is with the true horizon, you get what is referred to as the dip angle.
I fear this isn't really computing with you, is it?
-
It does have a horizon hwich the reason was explained to you.
If you see a ball, it has a circle look to it.
An edge.
Thats rhe horizon.
You are allegedly on your big ball. You don't get to see any fictional edge.
-
Why would a measurement not matter? If it curves away in 3 miles, how much does it curve away? That's a pretty significant part of the question. It's really weird to say it doesn't matter.
You people seem to rely on seeing an edge to your globe.
You argue that for ships going down it at short distances and yet....and yet you then argue that you can see lighthouses 10 times the distance. It's a joke.
You people decide to omit atmospheric mass and obscurity over distance until certain observations show it up...and then....and then is it put down to refraction and a mirage. It's pretty amusing seeing the desperation of media and so called scientists trying to squirm ou of it.
Almost as amusing as NDT saying the Earth's pear shaped.
-
So are you now claiming the RE does not have a horizon at all? and the best you get is a blur? If so, WHY?
I'm not now claiming it, I've always claimed it.
Yet you repeatedly acted like you weren't claiming it and were doing whatever you can to avoid that claim, repeatedly accusing me of twisting your claims.
This is the claim you need to deal with before trying to claim the horizon is not visible from a level view.
Your global Earth cannot have any horizon. Understand that instead of trying to twist it.
If you want me to understand that outright lie you need to justify it.
Why can't the RE have a horizon?
If we look at a ball, we have a region where the ball is in our vision and a region where it is not. The boundary is its horizon.
So why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Again, the best you have been able to give is claiming you would have a blur.
But the only way for that to happen is if the air or whatever causes it to have a blur because the actual horizon would be too far away.
That would simply mean Earth doesn't curve fast enough to cause a visible horizon due to the atmosphere/whatever causing a blur instead.
But that would require the air or whatever to cause that blur in reality, and on a FE. But instead we often get a clear horizon.
That means that a blur clearly is not the reason.
I've never claimed your globe has any horizon, so why are you wasting your time with this?
-
Sceptimatic, the astronomical horizon is always at your eye level, as it is in perspective drawing. It's also referred to as the geometric or mathematical horizon.
Thee's nu such thing as an astronomical horizon. That's just another made up piece of gunk in order to argue for a globe that has no horizon explanation for eye level view.
It's a classic case of people making stuff up to fit a narrative in mainstream indoctrinated belief's.
From what I can see, they aren't talking about the astronomical horizon, they are talking about the true horizon.
The true horizon is not based on any globe, nor is it based on space.
The true horizon is the plane of the earth itself. It is with the true horizon, you get what is referred to as the dip angle.
Dip angle?
Let me make this more clear than the clear I've made it.
You are getting no horizon from a level view with supposed sea curving away and down from your position. It's just never happening.
You will get your horizon on a flat sea that interacts with the concave sky in terms of shades. Atmospheric shades that occur because your eyes take in the brightest shades to one point and the darker shades to the other point.
You get your theoretical horizon line. No real edges so don't bother with global edges because you know fine well a globe will have no edge or any reference point for an edge unless you are somehow sitting in your space seeing your so called globe diameter, or some of it.
That is in the mind.
You should realise you are not on a ball or pear like NDT makes out.
I fear this isn't really computing with you, is it?
Of course it isn't. It's nonsense, so why would it?
-
So are you now claiming the RE does not have a horizon at all? and the best you get is a blur? If so, WHY?
I'm not now claiming it, I've always claimed it.
Yet you repeatedly acted like you weren't claiming it and were doing whatever you can to avoid that claim, repeatedly accusing me of twisting your claims.
This is the claim you need to deal with before trying to claim the horizon is not visible from a level view.
Your global Earth cannot have any horizon. Understand that instead of trying to twist it.
If you want me to understand that outright lie you need to justify it.
Why can't the RE have a horizon?
If we look at a ball, we have a region where the ball is in our vision and a region where it is not. The boundary is its horizon.
So why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Again, the best you have been able to give is claiming you would have a blur.
But the only way for that to happen is if the air or whatever causes it to have a blur because the actual horizon would be too far away.
That would simply mean Earth doesn't curve fast enough to cause a visible horizon due to the atmosphere/whatever causing a blur instead.
But that would require the air or whatever to cause that blur in reality, and on a FE. But instead we often get a clear horizon.
That means that a blur clearly is not the reason.
I've never claimed your globe has any horizon, so why are you wasting your time with this?
No, instead you just deflect and pretend you never claimed it didn't have one.
Again, WHAT CAUSES THE BLUR?
What magic stops the RE from having a horizon like other round objects?
Quit with the pathetic deflection and actually justify your outright lies.
It does have a horizon hwich the reason was explained to you.
If you see a ball, it has a circle look to it.
An edge.
Thats rhe horizon.
You are allegedly on your big ball. You don't get to see any fictional edge.
No, we don't see any fictional edge. We see a real edge.
Just what do you think magically changes between looking forwards at a ball and seeing the edge and looking down at a ball you are standing on and seeing an edge?
You are getting no horizon from a level view with supposed sea curving away and down from your position. It's just never happening.
It doesn't matter how many times you wish to repeat the same lie, it wont magically make it true.
Simple logic shows when standing with your eyes 2 m above the RE, the horizon will be at ~ 2.7 arc minutes below level. So unless your FOV is tiny, YOU WILL SEE THE HORIZON IN A LEVEL VIEW!
You continually lying and ignoring that fact wont change it.
You need to refute it to change it.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
-
No, instead you just deflect and pretend you never claimed it didn't have one.
Ok, you stick to that.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
The ball edgrs id where they touch the tube.
-
Thee's nu such thing as an astronomical horizon. That's just another made up piece of gunk in order to argue for a globe that has no horizon explanation for eye level view.
It's a classic case of people making stuff up to fit a narrative in mainstream indoctrinated belief's.
No its just a classic case of you living in denial of everything you don't like and dismissing whatever doesn't fit in with your belief system.
-
No, instead you just deflect and pretend you never claimed it didn't have one.
Ok, you stick to that.
No, I will stick to asking you what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon, something you continually deflect from because you cannot answer.
Something you don't want to answer because you know the only honest way to answer it is to admit the RE DOES have a horizon.
And once you admit that the RE does have a horizon, you are only a few short steps away from that horizon being easily visible with a level view, and thus total defeat.
So you do whatever you can to avoid this simple fact, using whatever dishonest BS you can.
Now again, grow up and address the issue.
Why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Where's the edges?
A perfect sphere is effectively entirely edges.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
The ball edgrs id where they touch the tube.
Sorry, there's no edge.
If you have good balance then jump on a large ball and walk with it while it rolls. Do you fall off any edge?
There is no edge.
-
Thee's nu such thing as an astronomical horizon. That's just another made up piece of gunk in order to argue for a globe that has no horizon explanation for eye level view.
It's a classic case of people making stuff up to fit a narrative in mainstream indoctrinated belief's.
No its just a classic case of you living in denial of everything you don't like and dismissing whatever doesn't fit in with your belief system.
You spend far too much time in a frenzy of hate rather than using your brain.
Stop the nasty and put your mind to work.
-
No, I will stick to asking you what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon, something you continually deflect from because you cannot answer.
I have never deflected. I've clearly told you many times but you decide to ignore that...which is fine....but...
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
The ball edgrs id where they touch the tube.
Sorry, there's no edge.
If you have good balance then jump on a large ball and walk with it while it rolls. Do you fall off any edge?
There is no edge.
can you define edge?
tangent?
you're seriously arguing geometric shapes?
circles, lines and triangles?
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
In art, there is a technique of drawing called drawing the negative space between objects and around objects. It uses the left side of your brain.
Place a tennis ball on front of you and draw the negative space around the ball from your perspective.
Now try to tell me, you haven't drawn an edge.
Now apply that to your view of the true horizon which also has an edge from your perspective
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
The ball edgrs id where they touch the tube.
Sorry, there's no edge.
If you have good balance then jump on a large ball and walk with it while it rolls. Do you fall off any edge?
There is no edge.
can you define edge?
tangent?
you're seriously arguing geometric shapes?
circles, lines and triangles?
I'm sure I don't need to tell you what an edge is.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
In art, there is a technique of drawing called drawing the negative space between objects and around objects. It uses the left side of your brain.
Place a tennis ball on front of you and draw the negative space around the ball from your perspective.
Now try to tell me, you haven't drawn an edge.
Now apply that to your view of the true horizon which also has an edge from your perspective
Now start walking around that ball.
-
I am just trying to picture what it would be like watching someone trying to walk around a tennis ball? I have stepped on a good few in my time but walking around one... well that's a different matter entirely ;D
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
The ball edgrs id where they touch the tube.
Sorry, there's no edge.
If you have good balance then jump on a large ball and walk with it while it rolls. Do you fall off any edge?
There is no edge.
can you define edge?
tangent?
you're seriously arguing geometric shapes?
circles, lines and triangles?
I'm sure I don't need to tell you what an edge is.
You do
Based 9n past history of misuing words, this is the only way to move forward.
Define edge and define tangent.
Cut a tennis ball in half.
Did an edge magically appear or was it always there?
-
I am just trying to picture what it would be like watching someone trying to walk around a tennis ball? I have stepped on a good few in my time but walking around one... well that's a different matter entirely ;D
How about trying to picture someone walking around a bigger ball like the one you think you live on.
If you want better reality then have a look at people walking on balls and see if you can guess where they see their edge.
-
You do
Based 9n past history of misuing words, this is the only way to move forward.
Define edge and define tangent.
Cut a tennis ball in half.
Did an edge magically appear or was it always there?
Let's deal with you being on a ball. On a ball. On a ball.
-
Ah right a bigger ball than a tennis ball then. OK I've got a beach ball here. I can stand on it just about but it keeps on rolling about causing me to lose my balance.
A ball of course is also a sphere and a sphere has got a finite yet unbounded surface. Now if I were to imagine a very large sphere, say one with a diameter of some 8,000 miles then I can quite easily see myself standing on a ball that big. It would be so big in fact that where ever I stood on that ball I would only ever be able to see a very, very small fraction of the total surface area. So small in fact that it wouldn't even be obvious that what I was standing on was even a ball.
I could carry on walking over the surface in random directions indefinitely. My view of the ball would never change. If I was talking a brisk walk at say 5 mph then using basic maths a diameter of 8,000 miles gives a circumference of 3.1415 x 8,000 miles = 25,132 miles. If I am walking at 5 mph that means it would take me 25,132 / 5 = 209 days to walk all the way round it. If the ball was rotating at just over 1,000 mph at the equator then that would mean a day would be about 24 hours. Which just happens to be the same as a day on Earth. Wow fancy that!
So the fact that we see the Sun, Moon and stars moving across the sky from east to west could be taken as evidence that the Earth is rotating from west to east could it not? That is not just something we are told... we can go outside and see it happening for ourselves. Just like our earliest ancestors did.
However if you say the Earth is not rotating then you have got to find some other explanation for why the sky seems to be rotating above us.
-
Ah right a bigger ball than a tennis ball then. OK I've got a beach ball here. I can stand on it just about but it keeps on rolling about causing me to lose my balance.
A ball of course is also a sphere and a sphere has got a finite yet unbounded surface. Now if I were to imagine a very large sphere, say one with a diameter of some 8,000 miles then I can quite easily see myself standing on a ball that big. It would be so big in fact that where ever I stood on that ball I would only ever be able to see a very, very small fraction of the total surface area. So small in fact that it wouldn't even be obvious that what I was standing on was even a ball.
I could carry on walking over the surface in random directions indefinitely. My view of the ball would never change. If I was talking a brisk walk at say 5 mph then using basic maths a diameter of 8,000 miles gives a circumference of 3.1415 x 8,000 miles = 25,132 miles. If I am walking at 5 mph that means it would take me 25,132 / 5 = 209 days to walk all the way round it. If the ball was rotating at just over 1,000 mph at the equator then that would mean a day would be about 24 hours. Which just happens to be the same as a day on Earth. Wow fancy that!
So the fact that we see the Sun, Moon and stars moving across the sky from east to west could be taken as evidence that the Earth is rotating from west to east could it not? Otherwise you have got to find some other explanation for why the sky seems to be rotating above us.
What would you like to know?
-
You do
Based 9n past history of misuing words, this is the only way to move forward.
Define edge and define tangent.
Cut a tennis ball in half.
Did an edge magically appear or was it always there?
Let's deal with you being on a ball. On a ball. On a ball.
You thinking earth is a ball in space as ridiculous has nothing to do with the fact of very easily viewable geomtry.
Geomtry.
Lines
Circles
Triangles.
Cut a tennis ball in half.
Where did that edge appear from?
Was it there all along, hidden by its roundness, or not?
-
What would you like to know?
Whatever you can tell me... let's start with why you think the sky appears to rotate over our heads if the Earth itself is not rotating.
Also if I walk directly south from where I stand right now the Sun will get higher and higher in the sky, pass through the overhead point and then continue to move northwards towards what I would say is my northern horizon. I back track and the Sun again passes back through my overhead point and off towards what I would call my south horizon this time. All the time the Sun is also moving east to west across the sky. As if it was rotating in a direction perpendicular to that in which I am walking.
How does that not present me with evidence that I am walking over the surface of a ball? I am not carrying in my mind at this point any pre-conceived opinions or beliefs. Nor am I asking anyone else. I am purely looking to find the simplest and most apparent explanation for what I am seeing and experiencing as I walk, based on my own experience of the world.
You of course will have your own explanation for all of the above because of what you call the 'global silly nonsense'. So perhaps, based on nothing other than what we observe you could explain why it is nonsense. Since it makes complete sense to me. Based on nothing other than what we observe. Your version is based on nothing other than what you tell us.
No matter where I walk or for how long I walk the surface of this ball never seems to change very much from being either land or water. Obviously whenever I come to some water I hitch a ride in a ship since I cannot walk on water.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
Didn't we cover this?
Are you still trying to claim you can't see the edge of a sphere? :-\
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
-
I guess if you say that a cube has six faces, eight corners (vertices) and 12 edges then you could say that a sphere has no edges or vertices. But that is just being extremely pedantic as everyone knows what you mean when we talk about the edge of a circle or sphere.
In Sceptis case it is just a way of avoiding having to admit the horizon is the visible edge of the Earth.
-
I am just trying to picture what it would be like watching someone trying to walk around a tennis ball? I have stepped on a good few in my time but walking around one... well that's a different matter entirely ;D
How about trying to picture someone walking around a bigger ball like the one you think you live on.
If you want better reality then have a look at people walking on balls and see if you can guess where they see their edge.
Right about the edge of the balloon:
(https://i.imgur.com/wuHOKJ0.png)
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
In art, there is a technique of drawing called drawing the negative space between objects and around objects. It uses the left side of your brain.
Place a tennis ball on front of you and draw the negative space around the ball from your perspective.
Now try to tell me, you haven't drawn an edge.
Now apply that to your view of the true horizon which also has an edge from your perspective
Now start walking around that ball.
Done! Now, what was I supposed to observe or learn, while walking around the tennis ball?
That it maintains an edge? Check!
That if I put the tennis ball out in the sunlight, it has a terminator line? Check!
That if I get in real close to that edge, the edge looks straight and flat? Check!
If I rotate myself so I'm looking across the top of the tennis ball from that same close angle, that flat edge is horizontal. Check!
That to scale with the earth moon relationship, 1: 190,000,000 with the tennis ball representing the earth and a nerf ball representing the moon, has the moon about 30 tennis ball diameters away. Check!
If I get down as close as possible to the nerf ball and look at the tennis ball, from that distance, the tennis ball looks about the size the earth looked from all the moon landing photos. Check!
If I bounced the tennis ball on your head, sceptimatic, it might knock some sense into you? Double check! >:D
-
No, I will stick to asking you what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon, something you continually deflect from because you cannot answer.
I have never deflected. I've clearly told you many times but you decide to ignore that...which is fine....but...
You have repeatedly deflected.
You do whatever you can to avoid justifying your claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon.
You have appealed to level sights so often it isn't funny.
And when you do make any progress at all towards an explanation all you have said is that it would produce a blur.
You are yet to explain why the RE should produce a blur when we have a clearly visible horizon in reality.
The only justification would be if you think Earth is much smaller then the RE model claims, so the lesser curvature puts the horizon further away and results in a blur, whereas a smaller radius would put it closer and not have a blur. But again, that rules out the FE.
Even with that post of yours, you still deflect. Instead of explaining why the RE shouldn't have a horizon you instead claim you have told us plenty of times.
Sorry, there's no edge.
Again, it is all edge.
The edge is where the surface changes direction.
You spend far too much time in a frenzy of hate rather than using your brain.
Stop the nasty and put your mind to work.
There you go projecting again.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
In art, there is a technique of drawing called drawing the negative space between objects and around objects. It uses the left side of your brain.
Place a tennis ball on front of you and draw the negative space around the ball from your perspective.
Now try to tell me, you haven't drawn an edge.
Now apply that to your view of the true horizon which also has an edge from your perspective
Now start walking around that ball.
The edge is infinite and the view point of a stationary object will see one of those edges - that being the "horizon".
Like how a person cant see as far on the beach vs up on the lighthouse.
Triangles.
Circles.
How can anyone take you seriuisuly on comples fluid dynamics when you cant even comprehend circles and triangles?
You denying the existence of circles and triangles is not the same as refuting their evidence of observed reality.
Try harder and bring up an actual "nu-uh because ...reason" instead of "nu-uh because circles arent real".
Because circles are very much real.
And so are triangles.
-
Sorry, there's no edge.
This is just Sceptimatic being pedantic with words and their meanings. If you hold a tennis ball or indeed any kind of ball in front of you then there is a boundary line around the ball which defines what is part of the ball and what isn't. Visually this boundary line forms a circle obviously. There are no 'edges' on a sphere in the same sense as there are edges on a cube for example which mark the boundaries between the faces. All of the faces of a cube are perpendicular to each other which creates a natural 'edge'.
When we look out towards the horizon over the open sea we are looking at the apparent edge of the Earth. It is apparent because it is not a real, physical edge. We know that because if we start walking towards the horizon, the horizon will remain the same distance from us. We can never physically stand on the horizon. Wherever we are standing would be the apparent horizon line to someone else standing a few miles away. In that case we would both be standing on each others apparent horizon line.
But if Sceptimatic doesn't like using the word edge we could say outline or borderline between sea and sky. Whatever label we wish to attach to it, we all know what we are looking at.
-
You do
Based 9n past history of misuing words, this is the only way to move forward.
Define edge and define tangent.
Cut a tennis ball in half.
Did an edge magically appear or was it always there?
Let's deal with you being on a ball. On a ball. On a ball.
You thinking earth is a ball in space as ridiculous has nothing to do with the fact of very easily viewable geomtry.
Geomtry.
Lines
Circles
Triangles.
Cut a tennis ball in half.
Where did that edge appear from?
Was it there all along, hidden by its roundness, or not?
Is your Earth cut in half?
-
Dodging the question.
Cutting reveals the 2dimensional circle we ve been trying to tell you.
Circles.
Triangles.
Address thr basicness of kindergarten indoctrination that you cant seem to geasp.
-
What would you like to know?
Whatever you can tell me... let's start with why you think the sky appears to rotate over our heads if the Earth itself is not rotating.
I don't believe the sky rotates above our heads.
It's a dome.
It's a dome covered cell, imo.
The movement is down to what is happening in the centre. Movement in the centre is what is shown external for us to see as movement, as in holographic.
Also if I walk directly south from where I stand right now the Sun will get higher and higher in the sky, pass through the overhead point and then continue to move northwards towards what I would say is my northern horizon. I back track and the Sun again passes back through my overhead point and off towards what I would call my south horizon this time. All the time the Sun is also moving east to west across the sky. As if it was rotating in a direction perpendicular to that in which I am walking.
How does that not present me with evidence that I am walking over the surface of a ball? I am not carrying in my mind at this point any pre-conceived opinions or beliefs. Nor am I asking anyone else. I am purely looking to find the simplest and most apparent explanation for what I am seeing and experiencing as I walk, based on my own experience of the world.
You're just a tiny dot in the cell. You can walk and sail where you want or where you think you want. The reality is you are just about wholly reliant of stories of travellers and what was and is to be navigated.
You of course will have your own explanation for all of the above because of what you call the 'global silly nonsense'. So perhaps, based on nothing other than what we observe you could explain why it is nonsense. Since it makes complete sense to me. Based on nothing other than what we observe. Your version is based on nothing other than what you tell us.
I have my thoughts. I'm not asking you to believe them.
I've told you in moe than a few ways why your globe is nonsensical.
No matter where I walk or for how long I walk the surface of this ball never seems to change very much from being either land or water. Obviously whenever I come to some water I hitch a ride in a ship since I cannot walk on water.
Why would it need to change?
You can navigate all around the (near) circle from your known places. It doesn't mean you navigate over and under a globe.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
Didn't we cover this?
Are you still trying to claim you can't see the edge of a sphere? :-\
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
I said you can't see the edge of your Earth.
You try to use a globe to show an edge but even that shows no edge.
However, we are supposed to be dealing with your big global Earth that you believe you walk upon.
Show me how you see an edge on it?
-
I guess if you say that a cube has six faces, eight corners (vertices) and 12 edges then you could say that a sphere has no edges or vertices. But that is just being extremely pedantic as everyone knows what you mean when we talk about the edge of a circle or sphere.
In Sceptis case it is just a way of avoiding having to admit the horizon is the visible edge of the Earth.
It's not any case of me avoiding. I'm stating what I state because your globe does not offer you an edge.
You trying to justify it having an edge by saying I'm being pedantic, is an effort by you to cling onto something you know, is not feasible.
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
In art, there is a technique of drawing called drawing the negative space between objects and around objects. It uses the left side of your brain.
Place a tennis ball on front of you and draw the negative space around the ball from your perspective.
Now try to tell me, you haven't drawn an edge.
Now apply that to your view of the true horizon which also has an edge from your perspective
Now start walking around that ball.
Done! Now, what was I supposed to observe or learn, while walking around the tennis ball?
That it maintains an edge? Check!
That if I put the tennis ball out in the sunlight, it has a terminator line? Check!
That if I get in real close to that edge, the edge looks straight and flat? Check!
If I rotate myself so I'm looking across the top of the tennis ball from that same close angle, that flat edge is horizontal. Check!
That to scale with the earth moon relationship, 1: 190,000,000 with the tennis ball representing the earth and a nerf ball representing the moon, has the moon about 30 tennis ball diameters away. Check!
If I get down as close as possible to the nerf ball and look at the tennis ball, from that distance, the tennis ball looks about the size the earth looked from all the moon landing photos. Check!
If I bounced the tennis ball on your head, sceptimatic, it might knock some sense into you? Double check! >:D
You're not doing yourself any favours. You're overdoing the attempted ridicule trick and it's backfiring on you.
Calm down a bit and start thinking.
-
You have repeatedly deflected.
No problem.You keep that.
-
The edge is infinite and the view point of a stationary object will see one of those edges - that being the "horizon".
Like how a person cant see as far on the beach vs up on the lighthouse.
Triangles.
Circles.
How can anyone take you seriuisuly on comples fluid dynamics when you cant even comprehend circles and triangles?
You denying the existence of circles and triangles is not the same as refuting their evidence of observed reality.
Try harder and bring up an actual "nu-uh because ...reason" instead of "nu-uh because circles arent real".
Because circles are very much real.
And so are triangles.
Let me know when you have something constructive to say.
-
Sorry, there's no edge.
This is just Sceptimatic being pedantic with words and their meanings. If you hold a tennis ball or indeed any kind of ball in front of you then there is a boundary line around the ball which defines what is part of the ball and what isn't. Visually this boundary line forms a circle obviously. There are no 'edges' on a sphere in the same sense as there are edges on a cube for example which mark the boundaries between the faces. All of the faces of a cube are perpendicular to each other which creates a natural 'edge'.
When we look out towards the horizon over the open sea we are looking at the apparent edge of the Earth. It is apparent because it is not a real, physical edge. We know that because if we start walking towards the horizon, the horizon will remain the same distance from us. We can never physically stand on the horizon. Wherever we are standing would be the apparent horizon line to someone else standing a few miles away. In that case we would both be standing on each others apparent horizon line.
But if Sceptimatic doesn't like using the word edge we could say outline or borderline between sea and sky. Whatever label we wish to attach to it, we all know what we are looking at.
Borderline between sea and sky is exactly why a globe cannot be the case for a theoretical horizon.
A flat Earth in terms of sea and concave (domed) sky makes perfect sense to converge shades of light to dark due to more dense (sea) and less dense (sky) meet at shade (convergence) to the distant visibility of the eye through atmospheric mass.
That convergence is a theoretical line caused by atmospheric shading of light.
Your downward curved globe kills off any horizon in any way shape or form.
Trying to use a physical edge for your globe is (if people think logically) pointless. You cannot bring an edge where there is no edge, for one. You cannot manifest a global line by using a sit down vision of a basket/tennis/football a few metres away from you, unless you use it to try and convince yourself (or others) that this can happen on your supposed global Earth.
-
Dodging the question.
Cutting reveals the 2dimensional circle we ve been trying to tell you.
Circles.
Triangles.
Address thr basicness of kindergarten indoctrination that you cant seem to geasp.
Be sure to get back to me when you have something to say.
-
It was said.
Over and over and over again.
The challenge to you was to draw a circle touching a triangle.
Keep avoiding and dodging this most basic task.
-
It was said.
Over and over and over again.
The challenge to you was to draw a circle touching a triangle.
Keep avoiding and dodging this most basic task.
How about you draw a circle touching a triangle and explain why you're doing it.
-
https://images.app.goo.gl/73w11jNc7VtePNDy6
Horizon on a round ball earth.
Your turn to counter why it doesnt WORK (not that it doesnt exist just because you say so)
And 2.
Provide your own diagram of a horizon at eye level for two different heights.
-
A flat Earth in terms of sea and concave (domed) sky makes perfect sense
How exactly? Putting aside anything else how does the idea of the Earth being flat make any sense at all? How would the Earth have formed flat?
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
Didn't we cover this?
Are you still trying to claim you can't see the edge of a sphere? :-\
(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
I said you can't see the edge of your Earth.
You try to use a globe to show an edge but even that shows no edge.
However, we are supposed to be dealing with your big global Earth that you believe you walk upon.
Show me how you see an edge on it?
Do you not know what edge means?
What is the curved line at the top of the picture. What do you call that?
-
A flat Earth in terms of sea and concave (domed) sky makes perfect sense
How exactly? Putting aside anything else how does the idea of the Earth being flat make any sense at all? How would the Earth have formed flat?
It hasn't formed flat. It's decayed and allowed the liquid soup of that decay to level out withing the concavity.
The sky is within the skin covering it all.
-
Do you not know what edge means?
What is the curved line at the top of the picture. What do you call that?
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't any horizon.
-
Do you not know what edge means?
What is the curved line at the top of the picture. What do you call that?
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't any horizon.
So... you actually don't have a word for what that line is? Seriously? You can't even answer such a simple question?
-
It's decayed and allowed the liquid soup of that decay to level out withing the concavity.
What caused the decay then and what did the liquid soup form from in the first place and what caused it to level out?
The sky is within the skin covering it all.
What causes this sky or skin that you mention to rotate?
-
It's decayed and allowed the liquid soup of that decay to level out withing the concavity.
What caused the decay then and what did the liquid soup form from in the first place and what caused it to level out?
The sky is within the skin covering it all.
What causes this sky or skin that you mention to rotate?
Either pay attention or back out.
-
I am paying attention. I have quoted you sentence by sentence just like you do for my posts. So now I am asking you about these claims of yours. What caused this decay you are talking about and where did the liquid soap come from? How did all this come to level out? What about this concavity? I don't see anything concave when I look around me.
You are making claims without providing any reasoning or explanation behind them whatsoever. If you don't know then just say so instead of getting into a frenzy. I have read all about how conventional physics has modelled the formation of the Earth along with all the other planets from a nebula of dust and gas but I know nothing about how you believe the Earth was formed. Why are you asking me to back out? I can't learn if you won't explain these things.
-
I am paying attention. I have quoted you sentence by sentence just like you do for my posts. So now I am asking you about these claims of yours. What caused this decay you are talking about and where did the liquid soap come from? How did all this come to level out? What about this concavity? I don't see anything concave when I look around me.
You are making claims without providing any reasoning or explanation behind them whatsoever. If you don't know then just say so instead of getting into a frenzy. I have read all about how conventional physics has modelled the formation of the Earth along with all the other planets from a nebula of dust and gas but I know nothing about how you believe the Earth was formed. So tell me rather than just telling me to back out. I can't learn if you won't explain these things.
When I see you taking notice I'll re-engage, I promise.
-
What exactly am I not taking any notice of? I'm just asking you to explain your reasoning behind this decaying and liquid soup theory that's all. Why do I have to ask these questions over and over? Are you trying to avoid them?
I like to know the full details about things. So far all you have told me is something about decay and something producing liquid soup and apparently the sky is some sort of concave dome. Do you mean we are looking at the inside surface of a dome?
It hasn't formed flat.
OK what shape was Earth when it formed then? So this decaying process that you mention caused the Earth to become flat then. How exactly?
-
Ever see how tennis balls are packed?
They come in a tube.
Are you saying that it is impossoble for tennis balls to be contained in a tube because balls dont have edges?
Where's the edges?
In art, there is a technique of drawing called drawing the negative space between objects and around objects. It uses the left side of your brain.
Place a tennis ball on front of you and draw the negative space around the ball from your perspective.
Now try to tell me, you haven't drawn an edge.
Now apply that to your view of the true horizon which also has an edge from your perspective
Now start walking around that ball.
Done! Now, what was I supposed to observe or learn, while walking around the tennis ball?
That it maintains an edge? Check!
That if I put the tennis ball out in the sunlight, it has a terminator line? Check!
That if I get in real close to that edge, the edge looks straight and flat? Check!
If I rotate myself so I'm looking across the top of the tennis ball from that same close angle, that flat edge is horizontal. Check!
That to scale with the earth moon relationship, 1: 190,000,000 with the tennis ball representing the earth and a nerf ball representing the moon, has the moon about 30 tennis ball diameters away. Check!
If I get down as close as possible to the nerf ball and look at the tennis ball, from that distance, the tennis ball looks about the size the earth looked from all the moon landing photos. Check!
If I bounced the tennis ball on your head, sceptimatic, it might knock some sense into you? Double check! >:D
You're not doing yourself any favours. You're overdoing the attempted ridicule trick and it's backfiring on you.
Calm down a bit and start thinking.
Lol! I'm not even trying to ridicule you, I'm just enjoying life and engaging in this hilarious exploration of denialism at its finest! ;D
I'm thinking you need to launch a helium balloon with a go-pro camera, 35 kilometers into the sky, and then get back to us all, with the results, about the shape of the earth you actually live upon.
But, I'm also thinking you're so heavily invested in your alternate earth model, that the prospect of finding out you've been told the truth your entire life, is just too frightening. :-\
You'd have to find a new hobby! :o
What would you do with yourself?
-
What exactly am I not taking any notice of? I'm just asking you to explain your reasoning behind this decaying and liquid soup theory that's all. Why do I have to ask these questions over and over? Are you trying to avoid them?
I like to know the full details about things. So far all you have told me is something about decay and something producing liquid soup and apparently the sky is some sort of concave dome. Do you mean we are looking at the inside surface of a dome?
It hasn't formed flat.
OK what shape was Earth when it formed then? So this decaying process that you mention caused the Earth to become flat then. How exactly?
Here's a little tip.
If you want to know then you ask the questions and try and understand them from my side.
If you don't like the answers then don't go into silly dig mode or you just set yourself back and force me to play tit for tat, which I can't really be bothered to do for too long because it gets boring.
Just pretend you're on your own asking questions and are in no need for shoulder rubs and back pats from your internet forum buddies.
-
Lol! I'm not even trying to ridicule you, I'm just enjoying life and engaging in this hilarious exploration of denialism at its finest! ;D
You are trying. You are trying hard but realising that you have to change tactics because it doesn't work.
I'm waiting for all the rest to come out.
Give it your best shot.
-
I said you can't see the edge of your Earth.
Yes, and you continue to repeat that lie, with no ability to justify it.
You try to use a globe to show an edge but even that shows no edge.
See the boundary between the globe and the surroundings? That is the edge.
Stop playing dumb.
However, we are supposed to be dealing with your big global Earth that you believe you walk upon.
Show me how you see an edge on it?
No. You tell us what magic prevents us from seeing the horizon on a RE, and what replaces this edge.
It's not any case of me avoiding.
Yes it is.
Your position is so pathetic you can't even bring yourself to admit that a round object has an edge, because as soon as you do that means the RE has an edge, which is the horizon, which means the RE has a horizon, and simple math shows it is easily visible from a level view, and your entire house of cards comes crashing down.
This is why you are doing whatever you can to avoid simple questions, because you cannot stand being wrong.
If you weren't avoiding, you would have answered the questions by now.
Borderline between sea and sky is exactly why a globe cannot be the case for a theoretical horizon.
That is your repeatedly lie that you are yet to justify at all.
But simple logic shows that your lie is pure BS.
Simple logic shows that Earth must be round to produce this clear border between the ground/sea and sky.
A flat Earth in terms of sea and concave (domed) sky makes perfect sense to converge shades of light to dark due to more dense (sea) and less dense (sky) meet at shade (convergence) to the distant visibility of the eye through atmospheric mass.
No, it doesn't.
If you are talking about optical convergence, then the shades do not matter at all.
You would simply have a point where you cannot resolve a small distant object. But that is not a horizon, as it doesn't obscure the base or any of the object, it just means you can't resolve it. By using a better optical setup you can then resolve it.
If it was the density of the atmosphere causing an inability to see, then you would have a blur, not a clear line.
We have been over this plenty of times.
Stop playing dumb.
Your downward curved globe kills off any horizon in any way shape or form.
Quite the opposite, it is what can actually explain the horizon.
You cannot bring an edge where there is no edge, for one.
But there is an edge, you just deny it.
Again, a simple photo of a round object like a basketball proves beyond any doubt that you are wrong, that you are blatantly lying to prop up your failed argument and your failed model.
When I see you taking notice I'll re-engage, I promise.
And even more dishonesty.
Why not be honest for once?
When you see him sucking up to you and just accepting whatever BS you say rather than showing any signs of critical thought and ability to see through your BS you will re-engage.
Your promises are worthless, you showed that when you refused to discuss why the RE should have a blur rather than a horizon and instead tried to change the topic and then tried to pretend I was the problem after YOU demanded that I stick to one topic.
Now again, have you got an explanation for why the RE can't have a horizon and what magic replaces the division between the ground/sea and sky that is known as the horizon?
If you want to go down the path of it being a blur, you need to explain why, and do so in a way that means it shouldn't also be a blur for a FE.
-
Yes, and you continue to repeat that lie, with no ability to justify it.
Keep going.
-
Yes, and you continue to repeat that lie, with no ability to justify it.
Keep going.
Until you stop with your lies, I will.
Now again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE RE FROM HAVING A HORIZON?
What visually separates the land/sea and the sky?
If you want to claim it is a blur, then justify that claim in a way which will not require the FE to have a blur as well.
If you can't, then stop repeating the same pathetic lie and accept the fact that the RE does have a horizon.
-
Do you not know what edge means?
What is the curved line at the top of the picture. What do you call that?
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't any horizon.
What word would you use to describe it then?
As far as the word "Horizon" goes, it's defined as "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet." Simple as that. Looking at the image, the globe and its horizontal definition, or "edge", for lack of a better term, forms a visual line separating it from the above background, or "sky", in this demonstration. On a micro scale, it's considered the horizon in the image.
So why "horizon" is such a conundrum for you and why your theory necessitates it to be something else, I don't know. Why does your theory require the horizon to always rise to eye-level regardless of observer elevation? Is that a core necessity for flat earth geometry? If so, that's already been blown up.
Why is it a necessity for you and your theory that a globe earth would never have a horizon? What sort of globe earth geometry are you using to determine that?
-
Yes, and you continue to repeat that lie, with no ability to justify it.
Keep going.
You guys are all typing more than he is... except when it comes to his pleading for "his side" or other irrelevant whining.
Unless he wants to draw a oicture of this dark-light-convergence word salad, he is CLEARLY REFUSING to reveal more information of his denP.
This is done.
How selfish of him.
-
If you want to know then you ask the questions and try and understand them from my side.
I am asking you the questions because I want to know about how the Earth formed and what shape it was when it formed from your side. Up to now though you haven't provided the answers.
-
Until you stop with your lies, I will.
Carry on.
-
Do you not know what edge means?
What is the curved line at the top of the picture. What do you call that?
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't any horizon.
What word would you use to describe it then?
I'd call it a curved blend of shade on a model ball when viewed externally to it.
As far as the word "Horizon" goes, it's defined as "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet."
Simple as that.
Appear to meet. The operative word is in bold.
Looking at the image, the globe and its horizontal definition, or "edge", for lack of a better term, forms a visual line separating it from the above background, or "sky", in this demonstration. On a micro scale, it's considered the horizon in the image.
There is no edge that forms any horizon on your fictional globe.
So why "horizon" is such a conundrum for you and why your theory necessitates it to be something else, I don't know.
It's not a conundrum. It's pretty clear. It's a theoretical line on a level view, by eye.
Why does your theory require the horizon to always rise to eye-level regardless of observer elevation?
It doesn't always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level no matter when or where you look towards the sea and sky. It cannot be anything else.
Is that a core necessity for flat earth geometry?
If so, that's already been blown up.
Level view is level view.
Why is it a necessity for you and your theory that a globe earth would never have a horizon? What sort of globe earth geometry are you using to determine that?
There is no globe for any horizon. It's basically a nothing.
I can't show you anything based on being on a globe because we are not on a globe.
-
Yes, and you continue to repeat that lie, with no ability to justify it.
Keep going.
You guys are all typing more than he is... except when it comes to his pleading for "his side" or other irrelevant whining.
Unless he wants to draw a oicture of this dark-light-convergence word salad, he is CLEARLY REFUSING to reveal more information of his denP.
This is done.
How selfish of him.
You offer nothing. You've been done for long enough and spend far too much time trying to shepherd other into your ways.
You're a game player.
-
If you want to know then you ask the questions and try and understand them from my side.
I am asking you the questions because I want to know about how the Earth formed and what shape it was when it formed from your side. Up to now though you haven't provided the answers.
I provide answers. What I don't provide, are the answers you'd like to see that suit what you've been indoctrinated into.
-
When did you provide any answers to my questions about how the Earth formed and what shape it was when it formed?
Also you insist that you never present your ideas as factual. Now read back all your responses to Stash in reply #3895. Would you read those as 'factual' ? Not once have you said 'In my opinion' or 'I believe'.
Anyway I'm more interested in what shape you think the Earth was when it formed as you have already said it didn't form flat. So what was it then?
It hasn't formed flat. It's decayed and allowed the liquid soup of that decay to level out withing the concavity.
You mention decay. What caused the decay and why did the liquid soup level out?
-
When did you provide any answers to my questions about how the Earth formed and what shape it was when it formed?
Also you insist that you never present your ideas as factual. Now read back all your responses to Stash in reply #3895. Would you read those as 'factual' ? Not once have you said 'In my opinion' or 'I believe'.
Anyway I'm more interested in what shape you think the Earth was when it formed as you have already said it didn't form flat. So what was it then?
It was potentially a growing cell.
What is it now?
Potentially a decaying cell.
All you have to do is to look around you.
-
A growing cell? Where did that come from then and what was this growing cell made from? What caused it to grow and what subsequently caused the decay?
I am looking around me now. And?
-
A growing cell? Where did that come from then and what was this growing cell made from? What caused the decay?
The cell can be part of many umpteen trillions of cells as part of the make up of something....and so on and so on and so on.
I am looking around me now. And?
And nothing. If you can't see what's around you and try to understand it then don't waste any time with me.
-
Those umpteen trillions of cells must have had an origin at some point.
I can see all around me and I see trees, flowers, buildings, people, animals and even some clouds. All made from the same basic building blocks that we call atoms. I have a pretty good understanding of how all of this came into being. What I don't have any understanding of is how you believe it all came into being.
You say we should question everything so that is why I am questioning you about your theory and model. You say the Earth is flat now but didn't form flat. So what caused it to become flat and what shape was it in the first place?
-
Do you not know what edge means?
What is the curved line at the top of the picture. What do you call that?
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't any horizon.
What word would you use to describe it then?
I'd call it a curved blend of shade on a model ball when viewed externally to it.
What do you mean by a "blend of shade"?
As far as the word "Horizon" goes, it's defined as "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet."
Simple as that.
Appear to meet. The operative word is in bold.
Uh, yeah, so what? It's a "line" that appears to you and me visually. So I guess we agree.
Looking at the image, the globe and its horizontal definition, or "edge", for lack of a better term, forms a visual line separating it from the above background, or "sky", in this demonstration. On a micro scale, it's considered the horizon in the image.
There is no edge that forms any horizon on your fictional globe.
Well, there is a "line" that appears to you and me visually. If you don't want to call it an "edge", fine. It's still visually there. And that visual line doesn't care whether it's a flat plane, a globe, a triangle, whatever. You can still see a line. We're looking at the same picture, right? Can you draw a line where the mini-globe stops and the background begins? I can. I don't see why you can't.
So why "horizon" is such a conundrum for you and why your theory necessitates it to be something else, I don't know.
It's not a conundrum. It's pretty clear. It's a theoretical line on a level view, by eye.
Sure, a theoretical line we can see. Cool.
Why does your theory require the horizon to always rise to eye-level regardless of observer elevation?
It doesn't always rise to eye level. It is always at eye level no matter when or where you look towards the sea and sky. It cannot be anything else.
Well, it's been shown, demonstrated over and over again that with observer altitude, the horizon "line" is below eye-level. But that's fine, you'll keep saying it doesn't but visual evidence shows you're wrong and you have no evidence to counter. So that's just that.
Is that a core necessity for flat earth geometry?
If so, that's already been blown up.
Level view is level view.
I don't know what that means. And it doesn't address the question. Does flat earth geometry require this claim that the horizon line must always be at eye-level? I've always been confused as to why FE tends to claim this.
Why is it a necessity for you and your theory that a globe earth would never have a horizon? What sort of globe earth geometry are you using to determine that?
There is no globe for any horizon. It's basically a nothing.
I can't show you anything based on being on a globe because we are not on a globe.
That doesn't address the question. Why does flat earth theory require that on a globe you would never see a horizon line, a simple visual demarkation between land/sea and sky? Why?
-
Those umpteen trillions of cells must have had an origin at some point.
I can see all around me and I see trees, flowers, buildings, people, animals and even some clouds. All made from the same basic building blocks that we call atoms. I have a pretty good understanding of how all of this came into being. What I don't have any understanding of is how you believe it all came into being.
You say we should question everything so that is why I am questioning you about your theory and model. You say the Earth is flat now but didn't form flat. So what caused it to become flat and what shape was it in the first place?
Thats like asking whos god's god?
Irrelevant.
-
Those umpteen trillions of cells must have had an origin at some point.
I can see all around me and I see trees, flowers, buildings, people, animals and even some clouds. All made from the same basic building blocks that we call atoms. I have a pretty good understanding of how all of this came into being. What I don't have any understanding of is how you believe it all came into being.
You say we should question everything so that is why I am questioning you about your theory and model. You say the Earth is flat now but didn't form flat. So what caused it to become flat and what shape was it in the first place?
I've never said the Earth is flat.
I say water is flattish andlevel. I say there's plenty of flatness but equally a lot of concavity.
The issue with you people is, if any theory goes against a globe then everyone who goes against it, supports a flat disc.
It seems to be a default attitude.
-
Why does flat earth theory require that on a globe you would never see a horizon line, a simple visual demarkation between land/sea and sky? Why?
I'm not sure how many times I need to tell you.
Last time.
Your globe offers a downward curve, away from your level sight. This means you cannot have any horizon. You cannot have any horizon.
This also means the Earth is not a globe you supposedly walk upon.
-
You keep saying "it cant" but never say why.
Its been shown to you THORUGH DIAGRAMS that there will be a distinct line between the ball and the sky.
So start explaining why.
Why why why?
Maybe draw a counter diagram showing the faulty logic.
If you cant?
Then stfu
-
Last time.
Your globe offers a downward curve, away from your level sight. This means you cannot have any horizon. You cannot have any horizon.
This also means the Earth is not a globe you supposedly walk upon.
And I'm not sure how many times I need to tell you.
I think you are massively overestimating the rate of downward curve. The fact that we obviously do see a horizon is direct observable evidence that you are wrong, no matter what you say and no matter what you think that straight line that separates the sea or land from the sky in the distance is. You can call that line what ever you want but what it represents remains the same. It is the limit of your direct line of sight of the surface of the Earth... i.e. the horizon.
Just as a reality check, you are a human figure with a height of about 2 metres assuming you are of average height. The Earth is a globe with a circumference of just over 40,000,000 metres. That means with a sight line just 2 metres above the surface you ain't going to see any curve. That also means the ratio of your height to the circumference of the Earth is 0.000005%. And you seriously think the amount of curvature of the Earths surface over the distance we can see directly should prevent you from seeing a horizon do you?!? What we see is actually direct evidence that the Earth is a globe no matter what you want to believe. There is a very, very long line of people standing behind me who would say exactly the same thing if they were asked. Credit to you then if you think you and you alone know differently. At the end of the day that is just your opinion and everyone is entitled to them.
BTW exactly what shape do you think the Earth is because so far you have said it isn't globe and it isn't flat. SO what shape do you think it actually is?!?
Here is a diagram of how things work..
https://edu.co.tz/library/img/new/011819_0452_ADVANCEDGEO12.jpg
You will notice that the angular distance between the stick figure and the horizon point in this diagram is about 45 degrees roughly. That means if you were that height relative to the Earth the horizon would be 1/8 of the Earth circumference away from you. That is about 5,000km away. At that scale you would see curvature and if you looked out straight (tangentially) from where you were standing you would indeed see no horizon because the Earth would be curving away from your line of sight. However at just 2 metres above the surface you most definitely will see the horizon just a few km away.
-
Those umpteen trillions of cells must have had an origin at some point.
I can see all around me and I see trees, flowers, buildings, people, animals and even some clouds. All made from the same basic building blocks that we call atoms. I have a pretty good understanding of how all of this came into being. What I don't have any understanding of is how you believe it all came into being.
You say we should question everything so that is why I am questioning you about your theory and model. You say the Earth is flat now but didn't form flat. So what caused it to become flat and what shape was it in the first place?
I've never said the Earth is flat.
I say water is flattish andlevel. I say there's plenty of flatness but equally a lot of concavity.
The issue with you people is, if any theory goes against a globe then everyone who goes against it, supports a flat disc.
It seems to be a default attitude.
Sceptimatic, if that's the case, quit with your flattish earth arguments. Cells are spherical like the earth, to start with! Instead, you need to then be clear, what aspects of cells you view as common with the Earth?
I would have naturally thought Earth's molten core could be likened to a cell nucleus - comprising the nucleolus, the chromatin, the nuclear envelope, and nuclear pores.
Around the molten core or nucleus, you would have the cytosol, and then the plasma membrane which you would liken to earth's surface which we walk upon.
A fundamental difference is cells have ribosomes, mitochondrion, lyosomes which seem to have no corresponding components in the Earth geosystem.
The energy function behind the Earth and a cell are vastly different.
They may share a similar energy pattern, but a cell's function is to provide structure for a larger body, take in nutrients from food, convert those nutrients to energy, and carry out specialized functions, including replication. The earth may assist in providing structure to our solar system, but replication for one, is not one of Earth's functions.
-
The issue with you people is, if any theory goes against a globe then everyone who goes against it, supports a flat disc.
But why do we need a theory that goes against Earth being a globe given the mountains of evidence that we have which shows it is a globe? Whenever the day arrives when some real data is placed on the table which suggests the Earth is not a globe then that data will be considered on merit.
However if the best the flat Earth people can come up with is 'it looks flat' then that day will never come.
-
Until you stop with your lies, I will.
Carry on.
Again, grow up and address the issue.
What magic prevents the RE from having a horizon?
Why are you completely incapable of answering this simple question?
I provide answers.
But not to the questions that are asked.
Instead you pretend it is a completely different question and try to answer that one.
That is because an honest answer to the questions that were asked show you are wrong.
That is pretty much the same as not providing answers.
At other times you just provide the same old lie which in no way actually answers the question.
And guess what? That means you aren't providing answers.
In order to actually provide an answer you need to deal with the issue raised by the question.
I'm not sure how many times I need to tell you.
Just once, but it actually has to answer the question.
If you just keep repeating the same nonsense which in no way addresses the question, then you haven't told us anything of value.
Your globe offers a downward curve, away from your level sight.
This means that initially perspective will make it appear to rise, but as the part of the globe gets further away, the effect of perspective diminishes and the downwards curve increases and this results in the curvature eventually becoming the dominant effect, which results in Earth lowering in your FOV hiding behind the closer Earth.
The limit is the horizon.
Again, this downwards curve is what causes the horizon.
Again, all shown by a simple diagram you are yet to show a problem with:
(https://i.imgur.com/DPQvJ0R.png)
The purple line is the line to the horizon (and beyond).
The point where the purple line touches the curved Earth is the horizon.
You can see all of Earth between you and this horizon.
But the downwards curve means anything beyond that horizon is obstructed by Earth (unless it is tall enough to be above the purple line).
This horizon is a visual separation of Earth and sky.
Below the horizon you see Earth. Above it you see sky.
Again, deal with the mere existence of the horizon (or lack thereof) before trying to discuss if it will be visible with a level view.
If the RE really doesn't have a horizon, there is no need for you to invoke a level view.
All invoking a level view does is try to escape the fact the RE does have a horizon.
I'd call it a curved blend of shade on a model ball when viewed externally to it.
Why?
Why make it so much more complicated than it needs to be?
There is no blend, it is a clearly defined edge.
Why not just accept that it is an edge?
Appear to meet. The operative word is in bold.
Because in reality, they meet all over the surface of Earth.
When you look down to Earth, you are looking through the "sky".
It appears to meet there because you don't see any more Earth above it and instead just see sky.
There is no edge that forms any horizon on your fictional globe.
You mean in YOUR fictional globe, which makes no sense at all.
Back in reality, with our real globe, which follows simple logic, there is quite clearly an edge, just like in the photos you keep ignoring.
It is always at eye level no matter when or where you look towards the sea and sky. It cannot be anything else.
Again, WHY?
What magic causes it to always be at eye level?
Why do photos clearly prove it is below eye level?
I can't show you anything based on being on a globe
Which would mean you do not understand the globe model.
It also means your claim that the RE would not have a horizon is an outright lie, the claim that all you would see is sky is an outright lie, and so on.
You have claimed many things about what would be observed on a globe. They are things that should be based on being on a globe.
You do not need to be on a particularly shaped Earth in reality to know what things would look like based upon being on that Earth, nor to be able to show what it should look like.
You offer nothing. You've been done for long enough and spend far too much time trying to shepherd other into your ways.
You're a game player.
There you go projecting again.
For example, in this thread, you were done right at the start, yet instead of accept that you were wrong, you keep on playing games, dodging simple questions that show you are wrong.
Even being so desperate you need to lie and claim that round objects don't have edges.
-
You keep saying "it cant" but never say why.
Its been shown to you THORUGH DIAGRAMS that there will be a distinct line between the ball and the sky.
So start explaining why.
Why why why?
Maybe draw a counter diagram showing the faulty logic.
If you cant?
Then stfu
You need to calm down.
-
Last time.
Your globe offers a downward curve, away from your level sight. This means you cannot have any horizon. You cannot have any horizon.
This also means the Earth is not a globe you supposedly walk upon.
And I'm not sure how many times I need to tell you.
I think you are massively overestimating the rate of downward curve. The fact that we obviously do see a horizon is direct observable evidence that you are wrong, no matter what you say and no matter what you think that straight line that separates the sea or land from the sky in the distance is. You can call that line what ever you want but what it represents remains the same. It is the limit of your direct line of sight of the surface of the Earth... i.e. the horizon.
Just as a reality check, you are a human figure with a height of about 2 metres assuming you are of average height. The Earth is a globe with a circumference of just over 40,000,000 metres. That means with a sight line just 2 metres above the surface you ain't going to see any curve. That also means the ratio of your height to the circumference of the Earth is 0.000005%. And you seriously think the amount of curvature of the Earths surface over the distance we can see directly should prevent you from seeing a horizon do you?!? What we see is actually direct evidence that the Earth is a globe no matter what you want to believe. There is a very, very long line of people standing behind me who would say exactly the same thing if they were asked. Credit to you then if you think you and you alone know differently. At the end of the day that is just your opinion and everyone is entitled to them.
BTW exactly what shape do you think the Earth is because so far you have said it isn't globe and it isn't flat. SO what shape do you think it actually is?!?
Here is a diagram of how things work..
https://edu.co.tz/library/img/new/011819_0452_ADVANCEDGEO12.jpg
You will notice that the angular distance between the stick figure and the horizon point in this diagram is about 45 degrees roughly. That means if you were that height relative to the Earth the horizon would be 1/8 of the Earth circumference away from you. That is about 5,000km away. At that scale you would see curvature and if you looked out straight (tangentially) from where you were standing you would indeed see no horizon because the Earth would be curving away from your line of sight. However at just 2 metres above the surface you most definitely will see the horizon just a few km away.
Then stick with what you think is right for you.
I've already explained my stance on this.
-
Sceptimatic, if that's the case, quit with your flattish earth arguments. Cells are spherical like the earth, to start with! Instead, you need to then be clear, what aspects of cells you view as common with the Earth?
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
You see my avatar and I've explained.
-
The issue with you people is, if any theory goes against a globe then everyone who goes against it, supports a flat disc.
But why do we need a theory that goes against Earth being a globe given the mountains of evidence that we have which shows it is a globe? Whenever the day arrives when some real data is placed on the table which suggests the Earth is not a globe then that data will be considered on merit.
However if the best the flat Earth people can come up with is 'it looks flat' then that day will never come.
You don't need a theory. Stick with what you believe and be happy with it.
I don't care what you believe.
-
Until you stop with your lies, I will.
Carry on.
Again, grow up and address the issue.
I'm going to feel silly if you turn out to be a bot.
-
You need to calm down.
No, you need to start justifying your blatant lies.
For example, by actually answering the question you have been avoiding from almost the start of the thread.
Again, what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon?
All logical thought shows it must have a horizon.
Do you have any justification at all for why it shouldn't?
And no, just asserting it would have a blur is not a justification.
A justification needs to explain why the RE wouldn't, but the FE magically can. And that means you would need to explain why the RE has a blur but the FE doesn't.
-
I don't care what you believe.
Fine in that case we are on equal terms then.
-
Sceptimatic, if that's the case, quit with your flattish earth arguments. Cells are spherical like the earth, to start with! Instead, you need to then be clear, what aspects of cells you view as common with the Earth?
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
You see my avatar and I've explained.
I've seen your avatar, and it matches the intelligence level of your arguments. So, now the sea isn't flat, it's flattish. The land isn't flat either, it's also flattish.
"Flattish". Your brain waves are flattish, sceptimatic.
-
Ask him again what he considers atmospheric pressure.
He seems to be avoiding that one.
And for sure he is using a denP definition.
He must be.
Because...
-
Sceptimatic, if that's the case, quit with your flattish earth arguments. Cells are spherical like the earth, to start with! Instead, you need to then be clear, what aspects of cells you view as common with the Earth?
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
You see my avatar and I've explained.
I've seen your avatar, and it matches the intelligence level of your arguments. So, now the sea isn't flat, it's flattish. The land isn't flat either, it's also flattish.
"Flattish". Your brain waves are flattish, sceptimatic.
Bubbles and cells are generally roundish if the pressure applied to them is even all around.
Usually when they are in a fluid.
Because in a fluid, the pressure is generally all around, not unidirectional.
-
You need to calm down.
No, you need to start justifying your blatant lies.
You just can't help it, can you?
-
Sceptimatic, if that's the case, quit with your flattish earth arguments. Cells are spherical like the earth, to start with! Instead, you need to then be clear, what aspects of cells you view as common with the Earth?
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
You see my avatar and I've explained.
I've seen your avatar, and it matches the intelligence level of your arguments. So, now the sea isn't flat, it's flattish. The land isn't flat either, it's also flattish.
"Flattish". Your brain waves are flattish, sceptimatic.
Try and engage your brain. No rush.
-
Ask him again what he considers atmospheric pressure.
He seems to be avoiding that one.
And for sure he is using a denP definition.
He must be.
Because...
Already been explained. Pay attention.
-
You just can't help it, can you?
Help what?
Continually asking you the same question you keep on avoiding since almost the start of this thread because it clearly and simply shows you are wrong?
No not until you actually answer it.
Again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
Again, if you want to appeal to it being a blur you need to explain what causes this blur and why it doesn't happen for the FE.
Try and engage your brain. No rush.
You just can't help yourself can you?
Needing to always throw out insults.
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
-
Ask him again what he considers atmospheric pressure.
He seems to be avoiding that one.
And for sure he is using a denP definition.
He must be.
Because...
Already been explained. Pay attention.
You used the words but never provided a definition
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
-
That diagram is purely the product of some ones imagination. Some one with a very wild and distorted imagination at that. Now explain the natural processes which could actually produce something like that in reality at that scale. Ask anyone who lives south of the equator or indeed anyone who has ever been south of the equator and they will quickly tell you that this diagram does not remotely reflect reality.
It's a fascinating concept but seeming anyone who lives in S America or S Africa will be constantly facing an uphill struggle with an increasingly steep climb as they travel southwards. And not only that but by the time they reach Antarctica they will literally be able to look down on the rest of the world and have a direct view of the north pole! That also means anyone in the arctic will be able to look out across and see the Antarctic.
Also the label at the top of the outer rim, I'm sure that reads 'arctic ocean'... shouldn't that be southern ocean? The outer rim presumably is supposed to represent the region south of the southern tip of S Africa, S America and Tasmania. That is certainly nowhere near the Arctic Ocean. That would be at the centre of this diagram.
And what are those arcing things holding the Sun and Moon? What is that third object directly above the North Pole? A second Sun? The more you study this diagram the more ridiculous it becomes! Who the heck was this 'Orlando Ferguson'? Someone clearly with some serious issues.
OK now I have read up on this Orlando Ferguson character. Someone who apparently lived in South Dakota and produced this 'map' during the last decade of the 19th century. There was far less evidence back then about what the true shape of the Earth is. Things have changed a bit since then of course and both science and technology has progressed and made a lot more evidence available to us. Some people continue to 'believe' that the Earth is flat (or flattish to use Sceptimatics description) though but these are just conspiracy theorists rather than scientists who live in denial of all the evidence that science and technology has made available to us. Including of course, space based images. If you deny or simply ignore the evidence that counters a belief then you can make out that just about anything is possible.
-
Also the label at the top of the outer rim, I'm sure that reads 'arctic ocean'... shouldn't that be southern ocean?
It is the Antarctic ocean.
It seems the T is covered up or missing. But the An part is visible to the left.
The bigger issue is how the "flattish" water fits in.
With water being flat and finding its level, you end up with something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UnsdvG0.png)
In fact, this was provided earlier in this very thread.
To have "flattish" water, you end up with the equatorial regions completely submerged, and the north and south extremes completely dry.
In order to have any hope of matching reality you would need the water to curve to follow that clearly not flat Earth.
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
There's nothing difficult about it from my side but certainly from your global minded side.
-
That diagram is purely the product of some ones imagination. Some one with a very wild and distorted imagination at that. Now explain the natural processes which could actually produce something like that in reality at that scale. Ask anyone who lives south of the equator or indeed anyone who has ever been south of the equator and they will quickly tell you that this diagram does not remotely reflect reality.
It's a fascinating concept but seeming anyone who lives in S America or S Africa will be constantly facing an uphill struggle with an increasingly steep climb as they travel southwards. And not only that but by the time they reach Antarctica they will literally be able to look down on the rest of the world and have a direct view of the north pole! That also means anyone in the arctic will be able to look out across and see the Antarctic.
Also the label at the top of the outer rim, I'm sure that reads 'arctic ocean'... shouldn't that be southern ocean? The outer rim presumably is supposed to represent the region south of the southern tip of S Africa, S America and Tasmania. That is certainly nowhere near the Arctic Ocean. That would be at the centre of this diagram.
And what are those arcing things holding the Sun and Moon? What is that third object directly above the North Pole? A second Sun? The more you study this diagram the more ridiculous it becomes! Who the heck was this 'Orlando Ferguson'? Someone clearly with some serious issues.
OK now I have read up on this Orlando Ferguson character. Someone who apparently lived in South Dakota and produced this 'map' during the last decade of the 19th century. There was far less evidence back then about what the true shape of the Earth is. Things have changed a bit since then of course and both science and technology has progressed and made a lot more evidence available to us. Some people continue to 'believe' that the Earth is flat (or flattish to use Sceptimatics description) though but these are just conspiracy theorists rather than scientists who live in denial of all the evidence that science and technology has made available to us. Including of course, space based images. If you deny or simply ignore the evidence that counters a belief then you can make out that just about anything is possible.
Your denial of it is based entirely on what you're told, not what you have physically seen for yourself.
-
Your denial of it is based entirely on what you're told, not what you have physically seen for yourself.
O come on Sceptimatic, even you surely realise that this particular 'map' doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to reality. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise that.
What are those arching things attached to the Sun and Moon? What is that second 'Sun' on a pole over the north pole?
The denial is on your side not mine.
-
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
You do realise that when it does, it results in the bottom of that bowl/concave indentation being completely submerged, while the top is dry?
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance
No, with that diagram, the gradient is quite significant.
If it wasn't going to be, why such a pronounced curve?
Why not have it be "flattish"?
within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
No, what we see in reality is one very large connected "indentation" filled with water, the various oceans of Earth.
And again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE RE FROM HAVING A HORIZON?
-
Your denial of it is based entirely on what you're told, not what you have physically seen for yourself.
O come on Sceptimatic, even you surely realise that this particular 'map' doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to reality. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise that.
What are those arching things attached to the Sun and Moon? What is that second 'Sun' on a pole over the north pole?
The denial is on your side not mine.
That's not my map. I use it as an explanation as to how I believe Earth is, in shape.
If you'd paid attention you would have known this.
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
There's nothing difficult about it from my side but certainly from your global minded side.
How tkny a gradient?
Is tbis gradient somethjng that can be drawn?
Previously you claimed a globe earth could not be modeled , yet were provided with two 3d simulations thst matche real life photogrpahy, while also claiming startreo cgi was the basis for all space fakery...
Now youre using a mao that is not yours, so you cannot possibly be faulted, yet at the same time jse it as yoyr model for how the earth is shaped, and also now claim there is such a slight gradient that one would not notice the gradient?
Hrmmm.
No contradictions here!
-
That's not my map. I use it as an explanation as to how I believe Earth is, in shape.
If you'd paid attention you would have known this.
You like analogies don't you. If I bought a new car and a friend asked me to send them a photo of it but I hadn't picked it up yet I couldn't send them a photo of my car. But I could find a photo of an identical car or very near identical car and send them that instead.
That is not your map. OK. But you use it to illustrate and to explain what you believe the shape of the Earth is. So if you were to draw your own map then it would be very similar if not identical to this map.
My question is then how did the Earth come to form to be this particular shape and not spherical as are all the other planets?
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
There's nothing difficult about it from my side but certainly from your global minded side.
How tkny a gradient?
Is tbis gradient somethjng that can be drawn?
Previously you claimed a globe earth could not be modeled , yet were provided with two 3d simulations thst matche real life photogrpahy, while also claiming startreo cgi was the basis for all space fakery...
Now youre using a mao that is not yours, so you cannot possibly be faulted, yet at the same time jse it as yoyr model for how the earth is shaped, and also now claim there is such a slight gradient that one would not notice the gradient?
Hrmmm.
No contradictions here!
Calm down a bit and take your time.
-
That's not my map. I use it as an explanation as to how I believe Earth is, in shape.
If you'd paid attention you would have known this.
You like analogies don't you. If I bought a new car and a friend asked me to send them a photo of it but I hadn't picked it up yet I couldn't send them a photo of my car. But I could find a photo of an identical car or very near identical car and send them that instead.
That is not your map. OK. But you use it to illustrate and to explain what you believe the shape of the Earth is. So if you were to draw your own map then it would be very similar if not identical to this map.
My question is then how did the Earth come to form to be this particular shape and not spherical as are all the other planets?
I could've used a manual orange squeezer but I saw that Earth set up and figured I could use that to give people an idea.
If you want to take it as me using that entire set up as my thoughts then do so but you're achieving nothing other than your own self smugness, for whatever reasons.
-
That's not my map. I use it as an explanation as to how I believe Earth is, in shape.
And that Earth is quite clearly not flat, and has no way to have the known oceans match without having the surface of water curve quite a lot.
If you'd paid attention you would have known this.
Now again, going to explain what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon?
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
Yes. (More below)
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
Ironic that you're using pretty much the same terminology/description of what we say regarding the drop of a globe earth: "a tiny gradient over a long distance".
Couple of quick questions:
- Regarding the Ferguson map/model, you believe that the northern hemi-kinda-sphere is convex and the southern hemi-kinda-sphere is concave like as depicted in the image?
- Back to the bowl of water. If water is flat how does the Pacific Ocean stick to the upward convex sloping side of the northern hemi-kinda-sphere yet not cover over the land masses in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere? Additionally, how does the ocean handle the upward and downward slopes. See the light blue ocean area - The dark blue is your bowl analogy:
(https://i.imgur.com/8526W8E.jpg)
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
There's nothing difficult about it from my side but certainly from your global minded side.
You can't be serious! You're yanking everybody's chains, surely?
Make yourself a model of this "earth" out of clay, or whatever, sit it on a flat bench, and pour a cup of water over the top. Have you noticed how all the water travels south over America and Europe, leaving both bone dry, and Australia submerged like the fabled continent of Atlantis? Both the Arctic and Antarctic are devoid of any water on your model. You're saying this mimics reality here on earth?
Come on, man! Wake up to yourself!
-
That's not my map. I use it as an explanation as to how I believe Earth is, in shape.
And that Earth is quite clearly not flat, and has no way to have the known oceans match without having the surface of water curve quite a lot.
If you'd paid attention you would have known this.
Now again, going to explain what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon?
Anyone who thinks water stays on a convex curve has been severely indoctrinated into that belief.
People know it makes zero sense but official lines says otherwise so they follow it.
Any logical person can fill up a bowl or pour water into dug out areas of ground or fill any concave area...not convex.
If you want to put water on a gradient then that gradient has to have indentation to hold it.
You can't have that on a ball and especially a spinning ball like you people believe.
Simple logic that people would be best off using to see the global nonsense for what it is....but...that's entirely up to people to wake themselves up to that.
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
Yes. (More below)
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
Ironic that you're using pretty much the same terminology/description of what we say regarding the drop of a globe earth: "a tiny gradient over a long distance".
Couple of quick questions:
- Regarding the Ferguson map/model, you believe that the northern hemi-kinda-sphere is convex and the southern hemi-kinda-sphere is concave like as depicted in the image?
- Back to the bowl of water. If water is flat how does the Pacific Ocean stick to the upward convex sloping side of the northern hemi-kinda-sphere yet not cover over the land masses in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere? Additionally, how does the ocean handle the upward and downward slopes. See the light blue ocean area - The dark blue is your bowl analogy:
(https://i.imgur.com/8526W8E.jpg)
As explained above.
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
There's nothing difficult about it from my side but certainly from your global minded side.
You can't be serious! You're yanking everybody's chains, surely?
Make yourself a model of this "earth" out of clay, or whatever, sit it on a flat bench, and pour a cup of water over the top. Have you noticed how all the water travels south over America and Europe, leaving both bone dry, and Australia submerged like the fabled continent of Atlantis? Both the Arctic and Antarctic are devoid of any water on your model. You're saying this mimics reality here on earth?
Come on, man! Wake up to yourself!
You are another that just falls into the trap of thinking water is running down a slope leaving it dry and can't grasp indentations on a massive scale.
You just think water in the delve around that slope down to slope up is the be all and end all of that model.
How do you think lake Titicaca stays massively above sea level?
Have a think about it.
Here's a clue. If you walk into it you well walk down into a massive indentation that it sits in.
Now think of all water on Earth and how it sits in indentations.
Now pour more water over your globe and see what happens. Gouge out holes and fill them with water as you're turning the ball. See what happens.
And you're asking me if I'm serious about mine?
You need to have a massive word with yourself, to be fair.
-
Anyone who thinks water stays on a convex curve has been severely indoctrinated into that belief.
There you go with more insults.
There is plenty of evidence showing that water adopts a convex surface. Both on the small scale with droplets, and on the large scale with oceans, such as where an object above the water (i.e. not submerged) has the bottom of it obscured from view, by the water. That shows quite clearly that the surface of water is convex.
Any logical person can fill up a bowl or pour water into dug out areas of ground or fill any concave area...not convex.
But not like you need, and you can even have a convex bulge in the middle of that indentation and it is still fine.
Simple logic that people would be best off using to see the global nonsense for what it is....but...that's entirely up to people to wake themselves up to that.
Simple logic has repeatedly shown that you are wrong, so you need to continually flee from it.
For example, simple logic shows the RE should have a horizon, and a bit of math shows that it is quite close to eye-level.
Yet you continually flee from this logic and math and refuse to explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
The best you have come up with is to just assert it magically has a blur, with no justification for why at all, especially not one which wouldn't also mean the FE has a blur.
How do you think lake Titicaca stays massively above sea level?
By being mostly isolated from the sea, such that it is only small, slow flowing rivers which connect it.
That is quite different to your model, where you have massive oceans which need a sideways surface.
Now pour more water over your globe and see what happens.
Would that be while it is well outside the Roche limit of any other significant body and in free fall?
If not, you are not modelling the RE.
Gouge out holes and fill them with water as you're turning the ball.
Is that turning at the staggering rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, half the speed of a standard analogue clock?
If so, the acceleration is insignificant.
-
Anyone who thinks water stays on a convex curve has been severely indoctrinated into that belief.
There you go with more insults.
Don't be a hypocrite.
-
Anyone who thinks water stays on a convex curve has been severely indoctrinated into that belief.
There you go with more insults.
Don't be a hypocrite.
Follow your own advice.
Edit: my bad, got the threads mixed up.
Are you ever planning on justifying why the RE magically can't have a horizon?
-
Anyone who thinks water stays on a convex curve has been severely indoctrinated into that belief.
There you go with more insults.
Don't be a hypocrite.
Follow your own advice.
Edit: my bad, got the threads mixed up.
Are you ever planning on justifying why the RE magically can't have a horizon?
Already did.
-
Are you ever planning on justifying why the RE magically can't have a horizon?
Already did.
No you didn't.
You baselessly asserted that it would produce a blur, and refused to justify why, especially noting how the RE produces a blur while the FE doesn't.
If you think you did, provide a link to the post where you did, or provide it again.
-
Are you ever planning on justifying why the RE magically can't have a horizon?
Already did.
No you didn't.
You baselessly asserted that it would produce a blur, and refused to justify why, especially noting how the RE produces a blur while the FE doesn't.
If you think you did, provide a link to the post where you did, or provide it again.
Show me where I said your globe would produce a blur?
-
Are you ever planning on justifying why the RE magically can't have a horizon?
Already did.
No you didn't.
You baselessly asserted that it would produce a blur, and refused to justify why, especially noting how the RE produces a blur while the FE doesn't.
If you think you did, provide a link to the post where you did, or provide it again.
Show me where I said your globe would produce a blur?
If you want to change your mind and instead claim that it wont produce a blur, feel free, just tell me what you think it should do, and more importantly WHY!
-
If you want to change your mind and instead claim that it wont produce a blur, feel free, just tell me what you think it should do, and more importantly WHY!
I'd like you to bring up the post.
-
Actually I won't quit with my flattish Earth argument because it is flattish.
The sea is flattish.
Land in many parts are flattish.
If your avatar is anything like your perception of the shape of the Earth then according to you it is both convex and concave (in the southern hemisphere) so the surface actually curves upwards.
Where has that ever been actually observed to the true?
I guess he co-opted the Orlando Ferguson square earth map, simply removing the square bit and all the biblical references. But to your point, if this is his idea of earth, there are lots of interesting things going on - Chief among them, the mix of convex and concave stuff. Wherein the oceans curve down toward the equator from the northern hemi-kinda-sphere then curve back up all the way to the ice wall in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere. I'm not sure how all that roller-coastering fits in with denpressure. Pretty funky all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSb9T31.jpg)
You do realise that water can sit in a bowl, right?
You realise a big body of water can sit in a concave indentation, right?
Yes. (More below)
You can also appreciate that this Earth set up would be such a tiny gradient over a long distance and within this gradient would be many indentations that are filled with water.
Basically what we see.
Ironic that you're using pretty much the same terminology/description of what we say regarding the drop of a globe earth: "a tiny gradient over a long distance".
Couple of quick questions:
- Regarding the Ferguson map/model, you believe that the northern hemi-kinda-sphere is convex and the southern hemi-kinda-sphere is concave like as depicted in the image?
- Back to the bowl of water. If water is flat how does the Pacific Ocean stick to the upward convex sloping side of the northern hemi-kinda-sphere yet not cover over the land masses in the southern hemi-kinda-sphere? Additionally, how does the ocean handle the upward and downward slopes. See the light blue ocean area - The dark blue is your bowl analogy:
(https://i.imgur.com/8526W8E.jpg)
As explained above.
Oh, ofcourse. Hello moat world! Where's Australia in moat world, if it isn't submerged kilometres under the sea?
Good to see you can walk across from England to Canada on moat world, and all water from rainfall floods south into the moat, even though no such water currents have ever been recorded. Everything north of the equator is bone dry, including the sea beds, with thousands of rivers rushing south.....
All things which are contrary to reality as per usual........ :-* :-*
So tell me Mr sceptimatic, do the flying monkeys carry buckets of water from the moat up into the clouds in the northern hemisphere on moat world, to make the rain? Do they sometimes have mid-air collisions with the flying storks delivering babies?
Your delusions are growing worse. There is no ill will from myself or others. Ours are attempts to bring you back to the land of reality, so you can be a fully functioning and contributing member of society. At the moment, you can't be.
-
If you want to change your mind and instead claim that it wont produce a blur, feel free, just tell me what you think it should do, and more importantly WHY!
I'd like you to bring up the post.
I don't really care. I'm sure you would also like for me to just keel over and die.
Other than being used as a pathetic deflection, what purpose does your request serve?
If you believe it will cause a blur, there is no reason for me to bring up the post, just provide the justification for why the RE should have a blur, which wouldn't also apply to the FE.
If you don't think it will cause a blur, then tell us why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
-
Deflect and make jackb fool around looking for an old post....
Nah
Why dont you please tell us what the horizon is, with a picture.
Light on dark on crush in whatever word salad you said last time made no sense.
Simple diagram please of where the light source is, and how it reaches our eyes.
-
Oh, ofcourse. Hello moat world! Where's Australia in moat world, if it isn't submerged kilometres under the sea?
Good to see you can walk across from England to Canada on moat world, and all water from rainfall floods south into the moat, even though no such water currents have ever been recorded. Everything north of the equator is bone dry, including the sea beds, with thousands of rivers rushing south.....
All things which are contrary to reality as per usual........ :-* :-*
So tell me Mr sceptimatic, do the flying monkeys carry buckets of water from the moat up into the clouds in the northern hemisphere on moat world, to make the rain? Do they sometimes have mid-air collisions with the flying storks delivering babies?
Your delusions are growing worse. There is no ill will from myself or others. Ours are attempts to bring you back to the land of reality, so you can be a fully functioning and contributing member of society. At the moment, you can't be.
Paying attention would help you....but, if you decide not to then feel free to come out with more of the same gunk.
-
I don't really care. .
I know that.
-
I don't really care. .
I know that.
And there you go with more dishonest quote mining and delfection.
Again, if you want to assert the RE wouldn't have a blur and instead there is something else, perhaps a horizon, go ahead.
But unless you are going to admit the RE does have a horizon, just like plenty of other round objects you can easily observe, you need to explain WHY!
And that is something you have never done.
Now quit with the pathetic deflections and either explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
-
Now quit with the pathetic deflections.
There's no deflections from my side but plenty from your side.
-
Now quit with the pathetic deflections.
There's no deflections from my side but plenty from your side.
If there was no deflection from your side, you would have already explained why the RE can't have a horizon, or you would have admitted it should have one.
You even use a blatant that you aren't deflecting as a deflection.
Now again, WHY SHOULDN'T THE RE HAVE A HORIZON?
-
Now quit with the pathetic deflections.
There's no deflections from my side but plenty from your side.
If there was no deflection from your side, you would have already explained why the RE can't have a horizon, or you would have admitted it should have one.
You even use a blatant that you aren't deflecting as a deflection.
Now again, WHY SHOULDN'T THE RE HAVE A HORIZON?
I did explain and you thoroughly rejected it as me having not explained.
There's not a lot I can do about that.
-
"Theres no edge becuase thres noedge."
Same as "air pushes down because down is down."
Both great reasons that say nothing.
Draw us a picutre of where your horizon is comong from.
-
"Theres no edge becuase thres noedge."
Same as "air pushes down because down is down."
Both great reasons that say nothing.
Draw us a picutre of where your horizon is comong from.
You.
-
Done
You rejected it on the basis of above.
Your turn to provide an alternate.
-
Done
You rejected it on the basis of above.
Your turn to provide an alternate.
Ok.
-
wowee but not to be unexpected.
that was pathetic.
-
wowee but not to be unexpected.
that was pathetic.
Agreed.
-
stone walling
dodging
and now just blatantly looking for the last word
in this case a contentlessing one worder...
can we end this?
last one back to you dodger mcdogdface
-
Now quit with the pathetic deflections.
There's no deflections from my side but plenty from your side.
If there was no deflection from your side, you would have already explained why the RE can't have a horizon, or you would have admitted it should have one.
You even use a blatant that you aren't deflecting as a deflection.
Now again, WHY SHOULDN'T THE RE HAVE A HORIZON?
I did explain and you thoroughly rejected it as me having not explained.
If you did, then you should easily be able to provide the explanation again or provide a link to where you did before.
The simple fact is that you have not explained.
As you have no explanation and refuse to admit that you are wrong, you resort to these pathetic tactics of just blatantly lying by claiming you have already explained, without being able to provide any evidence of that.
Like I said before, the closest you have come to providing an explanation for why the RE shouldn't have a horizon is by asserting baselessly asserting that it would have a blur instead. You did not provide any justification for why the RE should have a blur but the FE shouldn't.
-
stone walling
dodging
and now just blatantly looking for the last word
in this case a contentlessing one worder...
can we end this?
last one back to you dodger mcdogdface
Course you can end it.
two ways.
Either try and play honest or deck out.
-
Now quit with the pathetic deflections.
There's no deflections from my side but plenty from your side.
If there was no deflection from your side, you would have already explained why the RE can't have a horizon, or you would have admitted it should have one.
You even use a blatant that you aren't deflecting as a deflection.
Now again, WHY SHOULDN'T THE RE HAVE A HORIZON?
I did explain and you thoroughly rejected it as me having not explained.
If you did, then you should easily be able to provide the explanation again or provide a link to where you did before.
The simple fact is that you have not explained.
As you have no explanation and refuse to admit that you are wrong, you resort to these pathetic tactics of just blatantly lying by claiming you have already explained, without being able to provide any evidence of that.
You carry on with this for as long as you like.
Don't start whining when I overlook it.
-
Either try and play honest or deck out.
You are the one who is refusing to play honest here.
Now quit with the pathetic deflections.
There's no deflections from my side but plenty from your side.
If there was no deflection from your side, you would have already explained why the RE can't have a horizon, or you would have admitted it should have one.
You even use a blatant that you aren't deflecting as a deflection.
Now again, WHY SHOULDN'T THE RE HAVE A HORIZON?
I did explain and you thoroughly rejected it as me having not explained.
If you did, then you should easily be able to provide the explanation again or provide a link to where you did before.
The simple fact is that you have not explained.
As you have no explanation and refuse to admit that you are wrong, you resort to these pathetic tactics of just blatantly lying by claiming you have already explained, without being able to provide any evidence of that.
You carry on with this for as long as you like.
Don't start whining when I overlook it.
If I was going to start whining when you overlooked something I would be whining with every post you made.
How about you grow up and start justifying your BS for once?
Again, why should the RE magically not have a horizon?
-
Again, why should the RE magically not have a horizon?
Are you referring to your globe?
If you are then state it's your globe instead of RE.
-
Again, why should the RE magically not have a horizon?
Are you referring to your globe?
If you are then state it's your globe instead of RE.
The RE is the globe.
So there is no need for clarification for any honest person.
Now stop with the deflection and answer the question.
Why shouldn't it have a horizon?
-
The RE is the globe.
So there is no need for clarification for any honest person.
Now stop with the deflection and answer the question.
Why shouldn't it have a horizon?
Maybe use this in future just so I know where you're coming from. You know how you like to twist stuff and then use it at a later date.
I can't be bothered to fall into your little traps.
-
The RE is the globe.
So there is no need for clarification for any honest person.
Now stop with the deflection and answer the question.
Why shouldn't it have a horizon?
Maybe use this in future just so I know where you're coming from. You know how you like to twist stuff and then use it at a later date.
I can't be bothered to fall into your little traps.
The only one trying to twist things here is you. Now quit dodging and answer the question.
Here it is again:
Why should the RE (globe) not have a horizon?
-
What I want to know is why no one across the continent of north America (especially Canada) and most of Europe can see Antarctica. Based on this map which Sceptimatic uses to explain his view of the shape of the world everyone in the northern US and Europe has a direct and clear view of the outer rim of the world which represents Antarctica.
Also what is keeping all the water in the northern Atlantic Ocean because the whole of the northern hemisphere is sloping downwards towards the southern hemisphere. I use the term hemisphere loosely here you understand. According to this map, pretty much the whole of Africa south of the equator and likewise most of S America should be permanently flooded with the water from the oceans in the northern hemisphere. Same applies to pretty much the whole of the continent of Australia. But my partners brother who lives 'down under' swears they have droughts nearly every summer. According to the map the northern half of the world should be far more at risk of drought than the southern half.
Just trying to compare reality with this map and some things just don't add up.
-
What I want to know is why no one across the continent of north America (especially Canada) and most of Europe can see Antarctica. Based on this map which Sceptimatic uses to explain his view of the shape of the world everyone in the northern US and Europe has a direct and clear view of the outer rim of the world which represents Antarctica.
Also what is keeping all the water in the northern Atlantic Ocean because the whole of the northern hemisphere is sloping downwards towards the southern hemisphere. I use the term hemisphere loosely here you understand. According to this map, pretty much the whole of Africa south of the equator and likewise most of S America should be permanently flooded with the water from the oceans in the northern hemisphere. Same applies to pretty much the whole of the continent of Australia. But my partners brother who lives 'down under' swears they have droughts nearly every summer. According to the map the northern half of the world should be far more at risk of drought than the southern half.
Just trying to compare reality with this map and some things just don't add up.
You believe water covers 70% of your spinning globe so why would you even contemplate anything else?
-
You believe water covers 70% of your spinning globe so why would you even contemplate anything else?
I don't think I said I did believe that. I simply asked a few questions about the model or diagram you use. So how does water stay in the northern hemisphere then when it is on a downward facing slope on your map?
The centre part of your diagram is a convex dome so obvious water would flow downwards to try and settle in the concave middle section. So how then does the northern Atlantic or Pacific oceans keep any water? Or indeed the whole of the Arctic Ocean?
If you think of a sphere (globe) the centre of gravity is in the centre of the sphere and so water would be pulled naturally to that centre. Ocean currents are generated by the spinning of the globe.
But how does your map come to be both convex in the middle and concave around the outer section?
-
You believe water covers 70% of your spinning globe so why would you even contemplate anything else?
I don't think I said I did believe that. I simply asked a few questions about the model or diagram you use. So how does water stay in the northern hemisphere then when it is on a downward facing slope on your map?
I'm sure you understand scale and I'm sure you can use your mind to understand a central gradient can be thousands of miles of minor elevation to the centre and the same towards the outer cell.
You should also understand that water within any delve on any slope, would hold, unlike your globe which offers nothing of the sort.
The centre part of your diagram is a convex dome so obvious water would flow downwards to try and settle in the concave middle section. So how then does the northern Atlantic or Pacific oceans keep any water? Or indeed the whole of the Arctic Ocean?
Water would flow downwards from any elevation of a slope allows this to happen, such as melting snow/ice on mountains and such.
It would not if it's held inside an indentation withing that slope.
If you think of a sphere (globe) the centre of gravity is in the centre of the sphere and so water would be pulled naturally to that centre. Ocean currents are generated by the spinning of the globe.
That makes absolutely zero sense by any logical look.
Nothing is pulled and how can the centre of your Earth be pulling everything towards it when you people also argue that any person falling into Earth would stop at the centre and basically float and not go right through to the supposed other side.
Then you argue that the air and water spin in unison with your Earth but now it causes currents in the oceans.
It's just mumbo jumbo along with a supposed moon causing tides but is supposed to be one sixth of Earth so called gravitational pull.
The whole set up is based on fantasy/fictional storylines.
But how does your map come to be both convex in the middle and concave around the outer section?
A decaying cell.
Take a look around you and you can see how everything decays and partly replenishes as things evolve or bacteria grow or die (including us).
-
You should also understand that water within any delve on any slope, would hold, unlike your globe which offers nothing of the sort.
If what you are claiming is correct, that is only inside the delve. You can't try to connect these delves together to cover the slope. Doing so will cause it to drain from the higher one to the lower one.
This means you can't have your big connected oceans.
That is the point you keep on ignoring.
Just like you keep on ignoring simple questions like why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
If you think of a sphere (globe) the centre of gravity is in the centre of the sphere and so water would be pulled naturally to that centre. Ocean currents are generated by the spinning of the globe.
That makes absolutely zero sense by any logical look.
It makes perfect sense to anyone who honestly evaluates it without a hatred of the globe like you do.
Can you explain just what part doesn't make sense?
Without going into semantic BS of push vs pull, especially as you cannot justify your claim that everything is a push at all.
It is quite simple, gravity is a force that results in an object moving towards the centre of mass (or trying to).
That means that the water will try to move towards the centre of Earth, and that means it remains on the globe.
Claims saying otherwise, indicating the water should fall off are killed by the simple question of where should the water go and why?
when you people also argue that any person falling into Earth would stop at the centre and basically float and not go right through to the supposed other side.
Who says they would magically stop?
You sure do love your strawmen.
Now again, why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
-
You believe water covers 70% of your spinning globe so why would you even contemplate anything else?
I don't think I said I did believe that. I simply asked a few questions about the model or diagram you use. So how does water stay in the northern hemisphere then when it is on a downward facing slope on your map?
I'm sure you understand scale and I'm sure you can use your mind to understand a central gradient can be thousands of miles of minor elevation to the centre and the same towards the outer cell.
You should also understand that water within any delve on any slope, would hold, unlike your globe which offers nothing of the sort.
Great!
We re on the right track now talking about scale of things.
Draw this central gradient and have a 6ft person looking level.
What does he see?
Then draw a person on a 100ft tower.
Looking level.
What does he see?
-
That makes absolutely zero sense by any logical look.
It makes perfect sense. Conventional physics states that anything with mass also has an associated gravitational field. Of the four basic forces of nature, gravity is by far the weakest and so we need a lot of mass to produce a noticeable force of gravity.
The Earth is far and away the most massive object in our region of space and so everything else with mass (including us) is pulled towards it. That is the effect that we call weight. Anything with mass also has a centre of mass and in the case of a sphere that centre of mass is the middle of the sphere. So it doesn't matter where on the surface of that sphere we stand we will always be pulled towards the centre.
All matter naturally tries to find a state of equilibrium and so a sphere is natures way of producing the most efficient solid. The smallest surface area for a given volume. Which part of that does not make sense?
-
You believe water covers 70% of your spinning globe so why would you even contemplate anything else?
I don't think I said I did believe that. I simply asked a few questions about the model or diagram you use. So how does water stay in the northern hemisphere then when it is on a downward facing slope on your map?
I'm sure you understand scale and I'm sure you can use your mind to understand a central gradient can be thousands of miles of minor elevation to the centre and the same towards the outer cell.
You should also understand that water within any delve on any slope, would hold, unlike your globe which offers nothing of the sort.
The centre part of your diagram is a convex dome so obvious water would flow downwards to try and settle in the concave middle section. So how then does the northern Atlantic or Pacific oceans keep any water? Or indeed the whole of the Arctic Ocean?
Water would flow downwards from any elevation of a slope allows this to happen, such as melting snow/ice on mountains and such.
It would not if it's held inside an indentation withing that slope.
If you think of a sphere (globe) the centre of gravity is in the centre of the sphere and so water would be pulled naturally to that centre. Ocean currents are generated by the spinning of the globe.
That makes absolutely zero sense by any logical look.
Nothing is pulled and how can the centre of your Earth be pulling everything towards it when you people also argue that any person falling into Earth would stop at the centre and basically float and not go right through to the supposed other side.
Then you argue that the air and water spin in unison with your Earth but now it causes currents in the oceans.
It's just mumbo jumbo along with a supposed moon causing tides but is supposed to be one sixth of Earth so called gravitational pull.
The whole set up is based on fantasy/fictional storylines.
But how does your map come to be both convex in the middle and concave around the outer section?
A decaying cell.
Take a look around you and you can see how everything decays and partly replenishes as things evolve or bacteria grow or die (including us).
Sceptimatic, science has an answer for everything. Unfortunately, flat earthers do not, and neither do cell earthers and moat earthers. You dorks, I love your self entitlement. You think you're entitled to call anything you fail to understand, as mumbo jumbo, or magical.
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
You're level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray you don't hold a drivers licence.
-
I don't think its true to say that science has an answer for everything. At least not yet!
What is true though is that not everyone understands all of the answers that science does propose. I kind of like it when I come across some aspect of physics that I don't fully understand because it means there is potential for me to learn. When we are born into this world we know nothing about it, nor about ourselves. We as therefore reliant on our parents initially to teach us about how the world works. As we grow up we go to school and beyond that some of us go to college and maybe beyond that to university.
All the time we are gaining our own personal experience of the world as well. Through this experience we develop our own intuition or instinct that in turn tells us if something that we are taught in school, college or university doesn't seem to tally up with our experience. At no point though has my own intuition or experience of the world I live in suggested to me that the world is flat. OK, so the tiny part of the world that I can see directly at any one time doesn't offer any visual clue that I live on a big globe. Apart from seeing a horizon in all directions. However I realise that given how big I am against how big the world is, that is not surprising.
In short I realise that my senses alone do not provide me with enough information about the world to form a conclusive picture in my mind about the physical nature of it. I can't see any mountains, oceans, deserts, tropical rainforests, polar ice caps, volcanoes or glaciers from my back garden or local park. But I know that all these features of the world physically exist.
I could live my life in denial, believing that everyone who tells me the Earth is round is for whatever reason lying to me and that all the books on science that I have ever read are likewise deliberately misleading me. But I have enough common sense to realise that that is extremely unlikely and in any case why would so many people lie to me? It is wrong to form an initial pre-conception of the world and then try to make all the evidence I collect about the world fit in with that pre-conception. Rather we should build our perception of the world based on all of the information and evidence we collect during our lifetime. We might not understand what we learn and we might not like what we learn, but that doesn't give us an excuse to declare it as wrong.
-
It's just a saying, solarflatulence. Science does have an answer for everything. Sometimes not the correct answer, and sometimes that answer is refined as time goes by. Sometimes it is discarded for better answers. Sometimes it is vague and other times precise. Generally, every scientific piece fits with other scientific piece. But, science does have an answer for everything.
What do science deniers have answers to? Nothing. All they have are their illogical beliefs, simply because they want to and are entitled to. Sceptimatic isn't the only entitled baby boomer to disgrace this board.
-
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
My level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray I don't ever hold a drivers licence.
Sooo, if you're floating in limbo then how are you being crushed in all directions?
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
-
Sooo, if you're floating in limbo then how are you being crushed in all directions?
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
Notice how he said "maybe"?
He is indicating he doesn't know.
In reality, it depends upon how you are in the centre.
If you are in a void, then there is no net force acting on you, as the pull from Earth all around balances out.
But if you are just stuck in the centre of Earth, with all the mass of Earth around you, then that mass is crushing you.
That isn't because you are being pulled by Earth towards the centre, but because the Earth around you is being pulled into the centre and pushed by the mass of Earth above.
This is just like why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, another thing you can't explain, but the same diagram works here:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
The layer at the top pushing down makes the layer below push down more than just due to gravity acting on it.
This continues all the way down to the centre, where you are crushed under that pressure.
Now again, have you figured out why the RE shouldn't have a horizon yet?
-
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
Your level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray you don't ever hold a drivers licence.
Sooo, if my brain is floating in limbo then how can it be crushed in all directions? From humiliation on all sides.
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
I said maybe you would be crushed in from all directions, as nobody will ever visit the centre of the earth to experience it first hand, wise guy. The general consensus is you will float.
So, do they let moat earthers have drivers licences? How do they teach you blokes not to drive in the moat?
-
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
Your level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray you don't ever hold a drivers licence.
Sooo, if my brain is floating in limbo then how can it be crushed in all directions? From humiliation on all sides.
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
I said maybe you would be crushed in from all directions, as nobody will ever visit the centre of the earth to experience it first hand, wise guy. The general consensus is you will float.
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down.
It's all adherence to official storytelling.
You contradict yourself.
The general consensus, eh?
-
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down.
It's all adherence to official storytelling.
No, it's just not extreme paranoia thinking there is a massive global conspiracy where everyone is lying to you.
Again, there is no contradiction with what he has said.
Now again, what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon?
-
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down
And how have you come to have any clue about what your Earth is after just a few miles down?
-
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down
And how have you come to have any clue about what your Earth is after just a few miles down?
I speculate. I muse. I piece my own jigsaw and come to potentials.
I don't cast them out as fact which is what you people do when you do not have the facts.
-
I speculate. I muse.
And reject all evidence, and ignore when 1 part of your wild speculation directly contradicts another part, or reality.
Now again, care to explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon?
-
I speculate. I muse.
And what do you base your speculations and your musings on? You ALWAYS cast what you think as fact while ridiculing anything else. You tell us what you think we know don't know. Your 'explanations' amount to nothing but claims. Claims that you have absolutely no way of backing up.
-
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
Your level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray you don't ever hold a drivers licence.
Sooo, if my brain is floating in limbo then how can it be crushed in all directions? From humiliation on all sides.
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
I said maybe you would be crushed in from all directions, as nobody will ever visit the centre of the earth to experience it first hand, wise guy. The general consensus is you will float.
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down.
It's all adherence to official storytelling.
You contradict yourself.
The general consensus, eh?
Have you ever been down a mine shaft, or worked for a mining company? It gets hotter the further down you go.
What's your explanation for that? The morlocks have big fires burning in subterranean tunnels, before you fall out the bottom of earth into another cell world?
Go and get a brain scan.
-
So Sceptimatic let me get this straight. You feel that your speculation and musings provide you with stronger evidence of the true shape of the world than all the data from all the experiments and observations from all the laboratories and observatories across the world. Fair enough. Each to our own.
Flat Earth believers are simply denialists. In the sense that they find it acceptable to deny all the mountains of evidence about the Earth being a globe. Yet they consider the single observation of looking out over a lake, and seeing how the surface 'looks flat' as proof that the whole Earth is flat. If only life was that simple!
Whenever anyone asks for a more in depth explanation of anything you believe in all we get is incoherent sentences of random words strung together which actually mean nothing at all. Not exactly the hallmark of a solid, reliable and real alternative approach to science is it.
By the way if you were to make a ball large enough and were then to walk over it totally blindfolded, how would you ever know that you were walking on the surface of a ball? Likewise how would you ever know if you were walking over a flat surface?
-
I speculate. I muse.
And what do you base your speculations and your musings on?
I base my speculations and musings on simple experiments and my very own logic.
-
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
Your level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray you don't ever hold a drivers licence.
Sooo, if my brain is floating in limbo then how can it be crushed in all directions? From humiliation on all sides.
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
I said maybe you would be crushed in from all directions, as nobody will ever visit the centre of the earth to experience it first hand, wise guy. The general consensus is you will float.
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down.
It's all adherence to official storytelling.
You contradict yourself.
The general consensus, eh?
Have you ever been down a mine shaft, or worked for a mining company? It gets hotter the further down you go.
What's your explanation for that? The morlocks have big fires burning in subterranean tunnels, before you fall out the bottom of earth into another cell world?
Go and get a brain scan.
It seems you have never been down a mine shaft.
You probably think you're descending into the centre of your hot globe....right?
Do a bit of physical work and come back with real conclusions if you're going to put out stuff intent on trying to ridicule.
-
I base my speculations and musings on simple experiments and my very own logic.
What 'simple experiments'? What did you do?
-
I base my speculations and musings on simple experiments and my very own logic.
As opposed to the logic everyone else uses, which, unlike your logic, is actually logical.
For example, your "logic" indicates the RE can't have a horizon, while actual logic indicates it should.
Have you figured out what magic should stop the RE from having a horizon yet? If not, are you willing to admit it should yet?
-
So Sceptimatic let me get this straight. You feel that your speculation and musings provide you with stronger evidence of the true shape of the world than all the data from all the experiments and observations from all the laboratories and observatories across the world. Fair enough. Each to our own.
No, it doesn't provide me with a stronger evidence of a true shape of the world. I fully believe it provides me with absolute 100% evidence that we do not walk about on a spinning globe.
The true shape I may never know but my mindset is of Earth as a cell we live in, not on. Which includes the dome membrane, or ice dome of helium/hydrogen, etc.
I've explained all of it.
Flat Earth believers are simply denialists. In the sense that they find it acceptable to deny all the mountains of evidence about the Earth being a globe. Yet they consider the single observation of looking out over a lake, and seeing how the surface 'looks flat' as proof that the whole Earth is flat. If only life was that simple!
Actually you are making that up.
There's much more to knowing Earth is not a globe than just looking over some lake...and you know it, so why are you playing desperate?
Whenever anyone asks for a more in depth explanation of anything you believe in all we get is incoherent sentences of random words strung together which actually mean nothing at all. Not exactly the hallmark of a solid, reliable and real alternative approach to science is it.
It's my approach and you have the bag with jigsaw pieces I've been throwing into it.
Failure to start putting pieces together or setting them out, is down to you.
If you are unwilling to try to do that then you will always come back to this argument.
You're not told to do it. You are under no obligation to do it.
You can spend all your time saying you don't understand where any of what I say, is going.
It's up to you to ask questions if you're interested and it's up to you to get a small grip on my answers, however cryptic they seem to you.
You're more than willing to entertain black holes and sub quarks and gluons etc, but struggle with simple stuff. I can understand that because science has been story told in a lot of ways as merely gobbledygook.
Deliberately set out to try to dazzle us with so called brilliance...and if not, baffle us with bull crap.
You could argue that I'm doing the same thing and that's entirely up to you.
I'm not here to convince you of anything and I'm also not here to personally argue with you over a globe.
You decide that a globe is the reality and take it as personal if someone goes against it, as if it was your very own scientific experiment and conclusion. Most of you do it.
I understand how frustrating that can be for you to have someone like me be steadfast against he globe you adhere to.
Basically the operative actions of people who come to a flat Earth forum is, to ridicule and vehemently push a globe and deny alternates.
I wonder why someone would spend their time doing this when they clearly know that alternative thinkers have all the global narratives at their internet fingertips and are in absolutely no need of being coerced by global believers on a flat Earth forum.
If your purpose was to question stuff you were indoctrinated into, I could well accept the legitimacy of people like yourself being here.
I actually do believe some of you (maybe yourself included) are secretly questioning but hiding behind the official narrative as some sort of defence mechanism just in case you get attacked for daring to try to appear to question.
I believe that's weak but it is what it is with some people.
By the way if you were to make a ball large enough and were then to walk over it totally blindfolded, how would you ever know that you were walking on the surface of a ball? Likewise how would you ever know if you were walking over a flat surface?
If you poured water over that massive ball would it pool into one place or would it start to run off?
You see your logic not only tells you it would run off but any physical experiment will also show it to be the case.
It doesn't matter how big the ball is.
However you prefer to be told that magical forces like gravity can and (in your mind) does seem to hold this water and everything else onto the outer crust of this so called globe you believe we live on.
I can't change your mind on that, that's down to you. You can take what you believe to your life's end and that's fine by me.
I'll continue to piece my own jigsaw which absolutely does not have anything to do with the spinning global narrative we've been spun.
I may not know the reality of what Earth is but I certainly know what it is not.
It is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon....100%.
-
I base my speculations and musings on simple experiments and my very own logic.
What 'simple experiments'? What did you do?
It's well documented what I did. The experiments are too simple for you to even dare to understand, just like the rest who asked me to explain and diagram.
Go and look them up because I'm in no mood to start explaining all over again just for it to be brushed aside in favour of magical explanations that the global narrative nonsense runs on.
-
So Sceptimatic let me get this straight. You feel that your speculation and musings provide you with stronger evidence of the true shape of the world than all the data from all the experiments and observations from all the laboratories and observatories across the world. Fair enough. Each to our own.
No, it doesn't provide me with a stronger evidence of a true shape of the world. I fully believe it provides me with absolute 100% evidence that we do not walk about on a spinning globe.
Only because you seem to have no idea at all as to just what is expected for this spinning globe you live on.
Your repeated strawmanning of the RE, even after it has been explained just where you are going wrong, and your continued avoidance of what should be extremely simple questions shows this is more likely to be a case of you knowing that the evidence indicates Earth is round and you just not liking that.
I've explained all of it.
Pure BS.
You can't even explain your simple claim of the RE allegedly not having a horizon.
Actually you are making that up.
No he isn't, and you are a perfect example of that.
You blatantly lie about the globe to pretend it can't possibly be real, but even the examples you provide often show Earth is round.
There's much more to knowing Earth is not a globe than just looking over some lake
And you know that is pure BS.
When you do, at least if the lake is large enough, you observe the bottom of distant objects obscured by the water, even though the distant object is above water and so are you.
This shows that the water is curving, just like you would expect for a globe.
So this doesn't disprove the globe, it supports it.
See, this is why you are just in denial.
You blatantly reject reality to pretend Earth is flat.
It's my approach and you have the bag with jigsaw pieces I've been throwing into it.
And I've shown how those pieces don't fit together and don't fit with reality.
So it is still down to you.
It's up to you to ask questions if you're interested
And then when you can't answer them, or the answers show you are wrong, you do whatever you can to avoid them.
If you poured water over that massive ball would it pool into one place or would it start to run off?
If it is in free fall, outside the Roche limit of any other more massive body, it would pool.
Just what direction do you think it should run off?
That is a very simple question which destroys your nonsense.
On a large ball, with nothing else around, there is no direction for it to run off.
You see your logic not only tells you it would run off but any physical experiment will also show it to be the case.
And there you go with more blatant lies.
Logic tells us the water wouldn't run off. Instead, it would try to go towards the centre of the ball.
Physical experiments show that in free fall, surface tension is enough to hold water together rather than "falling".
What you are thinking of is no better than holding a plate sideways and showing that the water would run off a flat Earth.
I'll continue to piece my own jigsaw which absolutely does not have anything to do with the spinning global narrative we've been spun.
You mean which does not have anything to do with reality.
Once you admit that it will be a lot better for you.
It is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon....100%.
Then why are you completely incapable of justifying that lie?
You can't even justify your lie that the RE wouldn't have a horizon.
It's well documented what I did.
Yes, like how you measured that water was with uncertainty of both a flat or a RE in your sink.
It is well documented that what you did in no way indicates that Earth is not round.
-
It's well documented what I did. The experiments are too simple for you to even dare to understand, just like the rest who asked me to explain and diagram.
Go and look them up because I'm in no mood to start explaining all over again just for it to be brushed aside in favour of magical explanations that the global narrative nonsense runs on.
OK just point me to where you have outlined your documented descriptions (if indeed they exist on the internet) so I can go and read them. I can't think of anything more simple than that. Otherwise if I had a more sceptical mind I might be tempted into thinking that if you can't or won't do that it is because you have never done that. I am not asking you to explain everything all over again. I'm just asking you to point me to where you explained all these experiments before. The hallmark of a proper experiment is repeatability. So if I know what you did I can repeat them myself and see if I get the same result. Which of course I should do.
I could say I have done simple experiments which prove that unicorns exist and that I have already documented them couldn't I. Just saying you have done simple experiments doesn't prove anything.
There's much more to knowing Earth is not a globe than just looking over some lake
Well that's a bit of a U turn on your part because that's exactly what you said. That's why I used that example as a reference. Maybe you should look back a few pages. You said the fact that water looks level is proof that the Earth is flat.
Look back at your reply #3527 for example: I said
Neither for that matter can you prove (other than to yourself perhaps) that the Earth is not a globe.
You said:
I absolutely can. It's the easiest thing for me. Water level alone is absolute proof, among other stuff.
-
It's well documented what I did. The experiments are too simple for you to even dare to understand, just like the rest who asked me to explain and diagram.
Go and look them up because I'm in no mood to start explaining all over again just for it to be brushed aside in favour of magical explanations that the global narrative nonsense runs on.
OK just point me to where you have outlined your documented descriptions (if indeed they exist on the internet) so I can go and read them. I can't think of anything more simple than that. Otherwise if I had a more sceptical mind I might be tempted into thinking that if you can't or won't do that it is because you have never done that. I am not asking you to explain everything all over again. I'm just asking you to point me to where you explained all these experiments before. The hallmark of a proper experiment is repeatability. So if I know what you did I can repeat them myself and see if I get the same result. Which of course I should do.
I could say I have done simple experiments which prove that unicorns exist and that I have already documented them couldn't I. Just saying you have done simple experiments doesn't prove anything.
Look them up, or don't. I'm not babysitting you.
-
Just give me the reply numbers or copy and paste the links and I will. That's all I'm asking. Ever heard of revision? Where you need to read something over again some time afterwards to refresh your memory? Well I would like to revise your descriptions of your simple experiments so I can refresh my memory.
If you poured water over that massive ball would it pool into one place or would it start to run off?
Depends. If the ball was say an 8,000 mile wide ball of rock isolated in its own region of space then the water would stick to it. If on the other hand that massive ball was in the immediate vicinity of a second, even more massive ball then the water would be pulled towards the more massive ball. As to why... well I wouldn't really expect you to understand the reasons why. So therefore rather than trying to learn why you would just simply give up and turn on your denialist switch.
-
Just give me the reply numbers or copy and paste the links and I will. That's all I'm asking. Ever heard of revision? Where you need to read something over again some time afterwards to refresh your memory? Well I would like to revise your descriptions of your simple experiments so I can refresh my memory.
If you poured water over that massive ball would it pool into one place or would it start to run off?
Depends. If the ball was say an 8,000 mile wide ball of rock isolated in its own region of space then the water would stick to it. If on the other hand that massive ball was in the immediate vicinity of a second, even more massive ball then the water would be pulled towards the more massive ball. As to why... well I wouldn't really expect you to understand the reasons why. So therefore rather than trying to learn why you would just simply give up and turn on your denialist switch.
You wouldn't expect me to know the reasons why, is.... because you don't know the reasons as to why.
You won't admit it because it will make you appear silly for arguing it.
If you feel you can then explain why one ball which is massive can so called, pull another towards it.
Once you do that then tell me why a grain of sand or something as small is not so called, pulled towards a massive boulder?
-
You wouldn't expect me to know the reasons why, is.... because you don't know the reasons as to why.
I make that assertion based on the fact you have given me no reason to believe you would understand the reasons why. I on the other hand have a pretty good idea.
Once you do that then tell me why a grain of sand or something as small is not so called, pulled towards a massive boulder?
Thats easy. What is the boulder sitting on? Technically the grain of sand is being pulled towards a 'massive' boulder. Both the boulder and the grain of sand have mass so a force of gravity exists between them. But the force pulling it towards Earth is infinitely greater. Infinitely is not technically true but the larger force is so much larger that the weaker force is essentially negligible and so can be ignored. In other words the force vector between the grain of sand and the boulder would be so small compared to the force vector between the grain of sand and the Earth that it would render the former essentially undetectable other than through the mathematics.
I can even calculate some figures if you like to show how much bigger it is. We can use the same equation for both the boulder and Earth. Science is good like that you see. What is the mass of the average grain of sand... a few mgs say.. the boulder would be a few tonnes so that is say 10,000kgs and while the Earth is 6 million, million, million, million kg. Say no more!
You won't admit it because it will make you appear silly for arguing it.
I will admit to anything I have evidence to support.
-
I base my speculations and musings on simple experiments and my very own logic.
What 'simple experiments'? What did you do?
It's well documented what I did. The experiments are too simple for you to even dare to understand, just like the rest who asked me to explain and diagram.
Go and look them up because I'm in no mood to start explaining all over again just for it to be brushed aside in favour of magical explanations that the global narrative nonsense runs on.
Post them in the believers pg.
Sando has weelllll documented himself there.
You should document and photo your experiements.
I beleive its also "protected" there.
-
Fine with me. Doesn't matter where they are posted as long as others can read up about them and try them for themselves. Any decent scientist confident in their methods and results will only be too happy to share that sort of information so they can be independently verified.
There was a classic example just recently of when a nova was discovered in the constellation Cassiopeia. As soon as the astronomer who made the original discovery realised what he had found he immediately posted details of the exact location so that other astronomer all over the world could make their own observations and compile and share their own data. That makes it more reliable and reduces the error margins. You can't draw any conclusions about data that has just come from a single source. That is particularly true if that one source just states that they have some data but doesn't go into any more details! Imagine if the original discoverer had just claimed to have discovered a nova in the constellation Cassiopeia but refused to divulge exactly where..
In the same way Sceptimatic says he has done some 'simple experiments' which have shown him beyond any reasonable doubt that his speculations and musings as he describes them about the shape of the Earth are true and real. But it seems he is the only one who knows exactly what those experiments involved. Despite his claims that he has documented them no one seems to be able to find out where. The same applies to the results he got from those simple experiments. Anyone seen those?
Now I don't know what the term Flat Earth Scientist actually means. One who follows Flat Earth Science I guess. But it seems that if you are a Flat Earth Scientist you don't have to share any details of your experiments with anyone else. Very helpful.
-
You wouldn't expect me to know the reasons why, is.... because you don't know the reasons as to why.
No, it is because you continually reject reality with pathetic strawmen.
And conversely, you have no idea how the air magically manages to push things down, in complete defiance of the known laws of physics.
You won't admit it because it will make you appear silly for arguing it.
Well yes it would be quite silly to "admit" such a falsehood.
What would you like us to "admit" next? that magic pixies are real?
We would look pretty silly if we "admitted" that as well.
Once you do that then tell me why a grain of sand or something as small is not so called, pulled towards a massive boulder?
There you go with the same old strawmen.
It is, just by such a tiny amount that you will not notice it, not when you have the much more massive globe pulling it down.
Now again, have you figured out why the RE shouldn't have a horizon?
-
A gravitational field attracts to the centre of a physical object. You are quite right when you say, in the dead centre of the planet, you would be floating in limbo. Or maybe you would be crushed in from all directions.
Your level of incompetence on life is so extraordinarily high I honestly pray you don't ever hold a drivers licence.
Sooo, if my brain is floating in limbo then how can it be crushed in all directions? From humiliation on all sides.
What is causing this crush if the Earth supposedly pulls to the centre?
I said maybe you would be crushed in from all directions, as nobody will ever visit the centre of the earth to experience it first hand, wise guy. The general consensus is you will float.
You have absolutely no clue what your Earth is after just a few miles down.
It's all adherence to official storytelling.
You contradict yourself.
The general consensus, eh?
Have you ever been down a mine shaft, or worked for a mining company? It gets hotter the further down you go.
What's your explanation for that? The morlocks have big fires burning in subterranean tunnels, before you fall out the bottom of earth into another cell world?
Go and get a brain scan.
It seems you have never been down a mine shaft.
You probably think you're descending into the centre of your hot globe....right?
Do a bit of physical work and come back with real conclusions if you're going to put out stuff intent on trying to ridicule.
What makes you think I haven't? Yeah, I do think I'm descending into a hot globe when I go down a deep mine shaft. You should try it sometime. Better still, go and tour an erupting volcano, then get back to us as to what you think molten lava is all about, and where it comes from? The surface of earth has been fully mapped.
Go to your local library and read a book on science every week, and at the end of that week, do your best to refute that book, with your understanding of the earth geosystem. Do it for a whole year. That will be 52 books.
It won't hurt you and couldn't make you any dumber. Give it a go! It would change your life and not cost you a cent.
-
I have been down quite a deep mine shaft. A former coal mine in S Wales call Big Pit. After the pit was closed as a working mine it was later opened to the public as a kind of working museum to the former coal industry.
There are various thermometers placed around the site, including in the life shaft and at the bottom of the pit. You can see the temperature rising as the lift descends into the shaft. At the top it can be the middle of winter and below freezing at the top yet by the time you get down to the mine itself you can be sweating even in short sleeves.
I'd say that's evidence.
-
What makes you think I haven't? Yeah, I do think I'm descending into a hot globe when I go down a deep mine shaft. You should try it sometime. Better still, go and tour an erupting volcano, then get back to us as to what you think molten lava is all about, and where it comes from? The surface of earth has been fully mapped.
You've been to a lot of places. ;)
So your mine shaft is hot as all hell whereas ours are as cold as all hell for most part.
The surface of your Earth has been fully mapped, in your mind because of stories told...and that's it.
But,a s far as we are all told we can't drill more than a few miles into the Earth to gain any knowledge of what's down, so it's based on guesswork and passed out as knowing what the Earth is in it's entirety.
If you want to stick to those stories and recite them as and when the issue comes up...feel free, but remember you are only regurgitating what's put into your mind....nothing more.
Go to your local library and read a book on science every week, and at the end of that week, do your best to refute that book, with your understanding of the earth geosystem.
Do it for a whole year. That will be 52 books.
Ahhhh, which shelf? Fact or fiction?
How do I ascertain, fact?
Do I read 52 books on a fact shelf and know they are 52 books of fact? Or do I have to assume they're all fact?
Do you assume they're all fact?
If I ask you any question about Earth and your space, you can answer.
Why?
You have enough references to give an answer and you think that makes you smart. It means you can parrot and regurgitate.
You could likely go to a star trek convention, or something on those tracks and ask certain people about star trek. I'd bet many would answer your questions without referencing anything otehr than the filing cabinet inside their brain, titled "star trek."
Does this make star trek a fact?
It won't hurt you and couldn't make you any dumber. Give it a go! It would change your life and not cost you a cent.
'll leave that stuff to the likes of yourself.
-
I have been down quite a deep mine shaft. A former coal mine in S Wales call Big Pit. After the pit was closed as a working mine it was later opened to the public as a kind of working museum to the former coal industry.
There are various thermometers placed around the site, including in the life shaft and at the bottom of the pit. You can see the temperature rising as the lift descends into the shaft. At the top it can be the middle of winter and below freezing at the top yet by the time you get down to the mine itself you can be sweating even in short sleeves.
I'd say that's evidence.
Evidence of what?
-
Well its obvious to me and probably everyone else apart from you. I can't help you with your own ignorance or denial issues.
-
If I ask you any question about Earth and your space, you can answer.
Why?
It's called knowledge. Something you gain from spending some time to learn rather than just sticking two fingers up at anything you can't understand.
You have enough references to give an answer and you think that makes you smart. It means you can parrot and regurgitate.
Well smarter than you certainly.
-
But,a s far as we are all told we can't drill more than a few miles into the Earth to gain any knowledge of what's down, so it's based on guesswork
No, it is based upon experiments which don't involve digging down.
Physically going to a location is not the only way to gain knowledge about it.
Now again, care to explain why the RE can't have a horizon?
-
I would be interested to know where Scepti thinks lava and magma comes from. The fact that rock is molten when it reaches the surface from deep underground offers us some information what what conditions are like underneath I would have thought...
What are we supposed to do, stick a long pole into the ground, pull it back up and then touch the end to see if its hot or not?
-
What would be helpful is if he could draw what we see as the "horizon"
Or
If he could identify just what is wrong with ciecles and triangles.
-
Well its obvious to me and probably everyone else apart from you. I can't help you with your own ignorance or denial issues.
It appears you don't know what it's evidence of, this is why you're sidestepping it.
-
What would be helpful is if he could draw what we see as the "horizon"
Or
If he could identify just what is wrong with ciecles and triangles.
It might be wiser if you can identify what you're trying to say.
-
It appears you don't know what it's evidence of, this is why you're sidestepping it.
By all means enlighten me. Sorry for appearing to be so dumb but I simply don't have the same imagination that you do.
-
It appears you don't know what it's evidence of, this is why you're sidestepping it.
By all means enlighten me. Sorry for appearing to be so dumb but I simply don't have the same imagination that you do.
You claim, it's evidence. Evidence of what?
You appear to know and call me for saying I don't. So tell me what the evidence is?
-
Well lets see now. Thermometers in the lift shaft, at the surface and and at the bottom of the pit indicate a rise in temperature as you go downwards. That is evidence I would say that as you go further underground the temperature rises.
What could you attribute that to given that there are no radiators at the bottom of the pit?
Evidence is not about knowing or not knowing. It's about reaching a hypothesis. What we do know is that the temperature rises as you go further and further underground. What is that evidence for? Well it would appear that there is a heat source even further underground.
Next we have to identify what other evidence is available to either support or dis-spell that hypothesis. Our current models for the origin of the Earth include the hypothesis that early in its history the Earth was much hotter than it is today with the heat focused or concentrated in the core where the pressures and densities were greatest. The fact that temperature measurements as you go down into a coal mine show a gradual rise in temperature would seem to be consistent with what we would expect from that model.
-
Well lets see now. Thermometers in the lift shaft, at the surface and and at the bottom of the pit indicate a rise in temperature as you go downwards. That is evidence I would say that as you go further underground the temperature rises.
What could you attribute that to given that there are no radiators at the bottom of the pit?
So, basically you're just assuming it gets hotter the deeper you go and you are of the understanding that we can't seem to drill deeper than a few miles, right?
Admit you have no clue about what is below a few miles.
It's all acceptance on what people tell you, who also have no clue but stories to tell.
If you actually know then explain to me how you know?
-
So, basically you're just assuming it gets hotter the deeper you go
No I'm not assuming. I have measured a consistent rise in temperature as I have gone deeper down the coal mine. So that would indicate a heat source further down (as I have just said).
So can you offer me a logical reason why that trend should not continue the deeper you go?
Lava and magma from volcanoes comes up from deeper down than any coal mine would and that is clearly very hot. So that would also be evidence that the heating trend continues.
-
So, basically you're just assuming it gets hotter the deeper you go
No I'm not assuming. I have measured a consistent rise in temperature as I have gone deeper down the coal mine. So that would indicate a heat source further down (as I have just said).
So can you offer me a logical reason why that trend should not continue the deeper you go?
Lava and magma from volcanoes comes up from deeper down than any coal mine would and that is clearly very hot. So that would also be evidence that the heating trend continues.
How deep was the mine?
-
I must admit I didn't measure it at the time but a quick check on the website tells me 300 ft.
-
I must admit I didn't measure it at the time but a quick check on the website tells me 300 ft.
So, basically you're not collecting data on the deeper you go the more you know about Earth, except for 300 feet at depth of your mine.
A few miles drilling and that's about it for the rest of humanity in knowing what's beyond. Obviously guesswork can ensue but that's all it is .
Feel free to believe what's further down, obviously. I'm simply just saying there's no evidence of what we are told about Earth as in the diagrams to the supposed core, go.
-
Whatever you say buddy... whatever you say. How would you account for the rise in temperature? I'm sure it has got something to do with air or atmospheric pressure as it always does.
-
Whatever you say buddy... whatever you say. How would you account for the rise in temperature? I'm sure it has got something to do with air or atmospheric pressure as it always does.
Just accept you don't know.
-
I must admit I didn't measure it at the time but a quick check on the website tells me 300 ft.
So, basically you're not collecting data on the deeper you go the more you know about Earth, except for 300 feet at depth of your mine.
A few miles drilling and that's about it for the rest of humanity in knowing what's beyond. Obviously guesswork can ensue but that's all it is .
Feel free to believe what's further down, obviously. I'm simply just saying there's no evidence of what we are told about Earth as in the diagrams to the supposed core, go.
Replace solars claims with your claims and then followed by your response.
see any hypocrisy?
None?
No issue?
-
try a search of [ deep borehole ] to see how far we have gone and why we stoped.
-
I must admit I didn't measure it at the time but a quick check on the website tells me 300 ft.
So, basically you're not collecting data on the deeper you go the more you know about Earth, except for 300 feet at depth of your mine.
A few miles drilling and that's about it for the rest of humanity in knowing what's beyond. Obviously guesswork can ensue but that's all it is .
Feel free to believe what's further down, obviously. I'm simply just saying there's no evidence of what we are told about Earth as in the diagrams to the supposed core, go.
The deepest mines are around 4 km deep and are around 150 degrees. They have to be cooled.
When I was 1,500 feet down it was warmer than outside but air was also forced in for ventilation. Plus water would seep in.
-
Just accept you don't know.
According to you I don't know anything. Well if that's what you want to think then fair enough. But that's coming from someone who 'knows' that the Sun and Moon are holographic projections. So I won't take your comments too seriously. You will no doubt insist that you have never presented that as 'fact' but rather just what you believe. But if anyone tries to offer any alternatives you dismiss it as silly nonsense.
So what is your view on why the temperature goes up as you travel down a mine shaft then eh? If I don't know then perhaps you could tell me because you obviously think you know the answer.
-
Obviously guesswork can ensue but that's all it is .
No, it isn't.
Guesswork would be like what you do, where you make up random BS with no regard for the evidence.
Instead what mankind has done with science is use other means to determine what is below.
It is not simply guesswork.
Now quit the pathetic deflection and answer the question you have been avoiding almost from the start of this thread.
What magic prevents the RE from having a horizon?
Your continued deflection shows you likely know you are spouting pure BS.
-
"Guess work"
Guesswork sure fine if you want to say.
These are educated gueswork that result in predictably repeatable results and patterns.
What you got for your "musings"?
Can you tell me how many windings of copper are required to create enough crushing vortex vibrations to make my E motor spin?
-
What makes you think I haven't? Yeah, I do think I'm descending into a hot globe when I go down a deep mine shaft. You should try it sometime. Better still, go and tour an erupting volcano, then get back to us as to what you think molten lava is all about, and where it comes from? The surface of earth has been fully mapped.
You've been to a lot of places. ;)
So your mine shaft is hot as all hell whereas ours are as cold as all hell for most part.
The surface of your Earth has been fully mapped, in your mind because of stories told...and that's it.
But,a s far as we are all told we can't drill more than a few miles into the Earth to gain any knowledge of what's down, so it's based on guesswork and passed out as knowing what the Earth is in it's entirety.
If you want to stick to those stories and recite them as and when the issue comes up...feel free, but remember you are only regurgitating what's put into your mind....nothing more.
Go to your local library and read a book on science every week, and at the end of that week, do your best to refute that book, with your understanding of the earth geosystem.
Do it for a whole year. That will be 52 books.
Ahhhh, which shelf? Fact or fiction?
How do I ascertain, fact?
Do I read 52 books on a fact shelf and know they are 52 books of fact? Or do I have to assume they're all fact?
Do you assume they're all fact?
If I ask you any question about Earth and your space, you can answer.
Why?
You have enough references to give an answer and you think that makes you smart. It means you can parrot and regurgitate.
You could likely go to a star trek convention, or something on those tracks and ask certain people about star trek. I'd bet many would answer your questions without referencing anything otehr than the filing cabinet inside their brain, titled "star trek."
Does this make star trek a fact?
It won't hurt you and couldn't make you any dumber. Give it a go! It would change your life and not cost you a cent.
'll leave that stuff to the likes of yourself.
You see? This might partly all be a cultural barrier. You know I live in Australia in Queensland, but I haven't got a clue where you live. I guess the mines where you live, don't go very deep?
Queensland has a few very deep mine shafts. Mt Isa's copper mine, the enterprise, goes 1.5kms underground. Oh, and the temperature does go up. You can actually do a tour and experience it first hand if you like?
Earth has been fully mapped in my mind and in reality, because I've seen the maps. I've seen the photos. I've seen the videos. There aren't too many places left on earth's surface, people haven't been to, or close to.
I've told you how you can prove the earth's shape to yourself with a helium balloon and go-pro camera, but you're never interested in the experiments I suggest.
Science books are usually categorized in the fact section, sceptimatic. You probably reverse fact and fiction in your mind when you enter a library, I dunno. No, reading those books won't increase your IQ and make you smarter, but they will make you more knowledgeable. They will also activate areas of your brain, you don't usually use.
I'm not asking you to assume the contents of those books are all fact, I'm asking you to read them, and compare them with the world you observe around you. Most science books will give you practical experiments to conduct.
I mean, I take the Mickey out of you quite regularly, but there must have been a time you studied science in school like we each did.
-
It's all acceptance on what people tell you, who also have no clue but stories to tell.
What better information do you have about your world other than it's just what you believe? What evidence can you produce that shows how your 'theory' of the Sun and Moon being holograms is actually correct? Someone who is full of contradictions, someone who denies what you've already claimed when it is pointed out to you how you have changed your mind. Etc etc.
At least what I talk about can be backed up with evidence. Whether you accept it as evidence is irrelevant. Evidence to you is 'does it back up what I believe?' if yes it is evidence if no it is just silly nonsense.
You've seen volcanoes erupting yes? So where does the lava and magma come from that we see spirting out of volcanoes? Where does the heat come from the melts the rock that produces the lava? Given your theories about everything else I can't wait to hear what you think lava is and where it comes from. To everyone else it is evidence that Earth is pretty hot internally. We can see that without having to drill down anywhere.
-
Well lets see now. Thermometers in the lift shaft, at the surface and and at the bottom of the pit indicate a rise in temperature as you go downwards. That is evidence I would say that as you go further underground the temperature rises.
What could you attribute that to given that there are no radiators at the bottom of the pit?
Evidence is not about knowing or not knowing. It's about reaching a hypothesis. What we do know is that the temperature rises as you go further and further underground. What is that evidence for? Well it would appear that there is a heat source even further underground.
Next we have to identify what other evidence is available to either support or dis-spell that hypothesis. Our current models for the origin of the Earth include the hypothesis that early in its history the Earth was much hotter than it is today with the heat focused or concentrated in the core where the pressures and densities were greatest. The fact that temperature measurements as you go down into a coal mine show a gradual rise in temperature would seem to be consistent with what we would expect from that model.
If you want to argue about lift shafts getting warmer where you are, then fair enough.
What you can't prove is your Earth having what the pictures show. It's all massive guesswork.
-
I take the Mickey out of you quite regularly
I hadn't noticed.
-
It's all acceptance on what people tell you, who also have no clue but stories to tell.
What better information do you have about your world other than it's just what you believe? What evidence can you produce that shows how your 'theory' of the Sun and Moon being holograms is actually correct? Someone who is full of contradictions, someone who denies what you've already claimed when it is pointed out to you how you have changed your mind. Etc etc.
At least what I talk about can be backed up with evidence. Whether you accept it as evidence is irrelevant. Evidence to you is 'does it back up what I believe?' if yes it is evidence if no it is just silly nonsense.
You've seen volcanoes erupting yes? So where does the lava and magma come from that we see spirting out of volcanoes? Where does the heat come from the melts the rock that produces the lava? Given your theories about everything else I can't wait to hear what you think lava is and where it comes from. To everyone else it is evidence that Earth is pretty hot internally. We can see that without having to drill down anywhere.
How about you tell me where the lava comes from.
-
How about you just answer the questions I asked rather than trying to deflect all the time? If you don't know then just say so.
You keep on telling us to accept that we don't know this and we don't know that. How do you know what you think you know? What evidence do you use to decide what you say you do know or don't know? This claim you keep making about the Sun and Moon being holograms. Is that something you would say you know or just something you believe? And what evidence do you base that on?
-
How about you just answer the questions I asked rather than trying to deflect all the time? If you don't know then just say so.
I have no issue answering questions as long as you understand that answering them and you refusing to accept them, is not me refusing to answer.
Get your head around that and you'll understand more, even if you never agree.
The same has to apply to you.
You keep on telling us to accept that we don't know this and we don't know that.
I do keep telling you because it's the truth.
You might very well know what the books and authority tell you and be able to recite some of it you absorb into your head but physically you are in the dark with a lot of it.
How do you know what you think you know?
What evidence do you use to decide what you say you do know or don't know? This claim you keep making about the Sun and Moon being holograms. Is that something you would say you know or just something you believe?
And what evidence do you base that on?
It starts from the bottom.
To answer you You'd have to try and see the simple stuff from my side and push aside (for the time being) the stuff you believe of authority.
To go into denial of anything say is to set yourself back to square one. Kabool does it regularly.
Jackblack simple attacks and thinks he's getting somewhere.
JJA is similar.
Don't follow their path...follow your own.
Before you even bother dealing with what I say, understand that I'm answering questions from my side and naturally they go against the side you take....sooooo, the second I answer one question and you immediately go into denial, it means you're simply using your own belief to counteract what I'm saying and losing the purpose of actually asking the question in the first place.
If you want to do the jigsaw then be prepared to put your pieces out from the jumble and try to fit those pieces in from my side.
That's the best advice I can give you other than to say ......or.....just cast me off as a nutter and imbecile and be done with me.
-
OK you asked me where lava comes from. Lets say I answer and say I don't know other than somewhere underground apparently.
We will assume for the time being that all the books I have read by people who have spent their lives extensively studying volcanoes in various parts of the world and all the documentaries I have seen and the geology teacher I had for two years are all lying to me.
I don't consider any of those being part of any 'authority' as you call it. Just individuals who are keen to learn about the world and the environment they live in.
How do you propose I find out where lava comes from?
-
OK you asked me where lava comes from. Lets say I answer and say I don't know. We will assume for the time being that all the books I have read by people who have spent their lives extensively studying volcanoes in various parts of the world and all the documentaries I have seen and the geology teacher I had for two years are all lying to me. I don't consider any of those being part of any 'authority' as you call it. Just individuals who are keen to learn about the world and the environment they live in.
How do you propose I find out where lava comes from?
You're missing my point.
You have every right to believe what you're told. You have every right to believe all you read. And you have every right to feel your absorbed to mind answers are your very own understanding of what you believe of those who study whatever it is that is passed to you through books or verbal...etc.
There's only two ways to find the truth of something.
1.....To be told something from people who physically know the truth according to their own scientific endeavours.
Basically, it means you have the ability to go and check it out without being impeded.
2. You find out for yourself and verify, physically.
Anything else is acceptance of stories told if you are not allowed access to the workings.
Basically you believe on face value, which isn't a bad thing.
After all we basically go with the flow of life which includes lots of face value acceptance...including myself.
However, I have many things which I do not accept and I question them and come to my own musings on potential alternatives....most of which I could not definitively prove to be factual due to the physical nature of finding out would be extremely difficult to almost impossible.....and likely, impossible in some aspects.
So, it comes down to best guesswork from my side and from your side it comes down to your best belief's from what you're told....especially with what we are debating.
My point is very simple.
If you want to try and understand an alternative musing/hypothesis/theory or whatever you want to call it....then you can't tangle it with what you already believe.
You have to place whatever you believe to the side and try and see the alternative, even if you 100% disagree with every aspect of it.
If you don't or can't follow it, then you try a better way and try and coax me into providing better analogies and such.
If you want me to put experiments out for you to do and for you to follow,, then ask but don't expect me to put videos up of me doing them.
I'm just trying to be as honest as I can.
-
However, I have many things which I do not accept and I question them
Why?
Because you don't trust anyone else other than yourself or because they are not telling you what you want to believe?
1.....To be told something from people who physically know the truth according to their own scientific endeavours.
Basically, it means you have the ability to go and check it out without being impeded.
2. You find out for yourself and verify, physically.
So going on that logic then every school teacher should be telling their kids at the end of each lesson 'This is what I am telling you but please don't just take my word for it, go and find out for yourself and verify it as true'. That could get very expensive when it comes to geography lessons!
If you want to try and understand an alternative musing/hypothesis/theory or whatever you want to call it....then you can't tangle it with what you already believe.
You have to place whatever you believe to the side and try and see the alternative, even if you 100% disagree with every aspect of it.
There needs to be a reason for alternative theories in the first place. For me one reason would be that existing theories do not explain adequately what we see or experience in the world. Historically this has happened a lot in science. That is natural progression and an inevitable consequence of evolution.
For the majority of situations in the real world, Newtonian gravity is adequate but in certain situations it isn't. That's what Einstein realised and he came up with general relativity. If you try and work out a problem using Einsteins equations you will come to the same answer as you do if you use Newtons equations.
-
As honestly as you can "2. Find out , physically" let us see some of your tu-tube experiment photos proving a horizon isnt visible.
Draw, on a paper why the GEOMTRICAL representation of a circle and triangle on the round earth model doesnt work (not that it exists or not, but merely on its own goemetric merit of circle-triangle).
Then, please draw your representation of what light and where that light comes from, to reach our eyes, and create this theoretical horizon at eye level. The eye level that can magically adapt at different heights to different vieweers.
-
There's only two ways to find the truth of something.
1.....To be told something from people who physically know the truth according to their own scientific endeavours.
Basically, it means you have the ability to go and check it out without being impeded.
2. You find out for yourself and verify, physically.
So applying this to the shape of the Earth, the vast majority of people would say they physically know that the Earth is a globe based on the data and information that has come about from the collective scientific endeavours of many, many generations. This scientific endeavour has been aided by technology which has itself been developed as a direct result and a direct consequence of this scientific endeavour. A lot of this data and information might be contrary to what flat Earthers believe so they either have to review whether their beliefs are accurate or simply turn to denial and ignorance as a way of side-stepping it.
It is impossible for any one person to personally find out for themselves and physically verify everything that we have learned to date. We simply don't live long enough to do that. So a large part of normal learning must be accepting what we are told by others who have had opportunities to do things or go to places that we ourselves haven't. Or as Sceptimatic puts it:
most of which I could not definitively prove to be factual due to the physical nature of finding out would be extremely difficult to almost impossible.....and likely, impossible in some aspects.
Which I think sums up very nicely why this 'I won't accept it unless I can personally prove it' approach is pretty fruitless.
-
Sceptimatic said, "My point is very simple.
If you want to try and understand an alternative musing/hypothesis/theory or whatever you want to call it....then you can't tangle it with what you already believe.
You have to place whatever you believe to the side and try and see the alternative, even if you 100% disagree with every aspect of it.
If you don't or can't follow it, then you try a better way and try and coax me into providing better analogies and such.
If you want me to put experiments out for you to do and for you to follow,, then ask but don't expect me to put videos up of me doing them.
I'm just trying to be as honest as I can."
Ok, so you're open invitation is to entertain an alternative earth model, which heavily requires the suspension of disbelief. I've been looking hard to see what the advantages are to viewing the world as if the alternative model offered up, is correct.
Can you offer up any advantages?
I mean, a person's frame of mind is unique to the individual. We may empathize with others, but we can never truly understand exactly how another person interprets the world. Or even fully share that experience, even in a relationship with another person.
We can never experience another person's frame of mind, as hard as one might try, if that's what is being asked here. Your ultimate happy place is yours and yours alone, as it is for each of us.
-
However, I have many things which I do not accept and I question them
Why?
Because you don't trust anyone else other than yourself or because they are not telling you what you want to believe?
It's not a case of whoever not telling me what I want to believe. It's about asking myself if they actually know what they're telling me, is factual or just simple following a narrative and accepting it, so I must, in their eyes.
1.....To be told something from people who physically know the truth according to their own scientific endeavours.
Basically, it means you have the ability to go and check it out without being impeded.
2. You find out for yourself and verify, physically.
So going on that logic then every school teacher should be telling their kids at the end of each lesson 'This is what I am telling you but please don't just take my word for it, go and find out for yourself and verify it as true'. That could get very expensive when it comes to geography lessons!
Every school teacher follows a curriculum. To follow a curriculum they must also study it themselves.
They simple teach kids based on that and anything different to that would render exam results as skewed.
I'm sure you're aware of this.
If you want to try and understand an alternative musing/hypothesis/theory or whatever you want to call it....then you can't tangle it with what you already believe.
You have to place whatever you believe to the side and try and see the alternative, even if you 100% disagree with every aspect of it.
There needs to be a reason for alternative theories in the first place. For me one reason would be that existing theories do not explain adequately what we see or experience in the world. Historically this has happened a lot in science. That is natural progression and an inevitable consequence of evolution.
Exactly.
To you it's all fine. To me, it isn't.
For the majority of situations in the real world, Newtonian gravity is adequate but in certain situations it isn't.
Like what situations?
That's what Einstein realised and he came up with general relativity.
Explain general relativity so i know it's real. Nice and simple.
If you try and work out a problem using Einsteins equations you will come to the same answer as you do if you use Newtons equations.
And that is?
-
There's only two ways to find the truth of something.
1.....To be told something from people who physically know the truth according to their own scientific endeavours.
Basically, it means you have the ability to go and check it out without being impeded.
2. You find out for yourself and verify, physically.
So applying this to the shape of the Earth, the vast majority of people would say they physically know that the Earth is a globe based on the data and information that has come about from the collective scientific endeavours of many, many generations. This scientific endeavour has been aided by technology which has itself been developed as a direct result and a direct consequence of this scientific endeavour. A lot of this data and information might be contrary to what flat Earthers believe so they either have to review whether their beliefs are accurate or simply turn to denial and ignorance as a way of side-stepping it.
It is impossible for any one person to personally find out for themselves and physically verify everything that we have learned to date. We simply don't live long enough to do that. So a large part of normal learning must be accepting what we are told by others who have had opportunities to do things or go to places that we ourselves haven't. Or as Sceptimatic puts it:
most of which I could not definitively prove to be factual due to the physical nature of finding out would be extremely difficult to almost impossible.....and likely, impossible in some aspects.
Which I think sums up very nicely why this 'I won't accept it unless I can personally prove it' approach is pretty fruitless.
It's not about finding out everything we're told. It's about verifying one or two things.
When person can state facts by showing facts, that's when it's basically nailed on.
All I see with this global stuff is, storylines, CGI and hollywood-esque type films.
You can argue this but you're only arguing based on following a narrative.
-
Sceptimatic said, "My point is very simple.
If you want to try and understand an alternative musing/hypothesis/theory or whatever you want to call it....then you can't tangle it with what you already believe.
You have to place whatever you believe to the side and try and see the alternative, even if you 100% disagree with every aspect of it.
If you don't or can't follow it, then you try a better way and try and coax me into providing better analogies and such.
If you want me to put experiments out for you to do and for you to follow,, then ask but don't expect me to put videos up of me doing them.
I'm just trying to be as honest as I can."
Ok, so you're open invitation is to entertain an alternative earth model, which heavily requires the suspension of disbelief. I've been looking hard to see what the advantages are to viewing the world as if the alternative model offered up, is correct.
Can you offer up any advantages?
I mean, a person's frame of mind is unique to the individual. We may empathize with others, but we can never truly understand exactly how another person interprets the world. Or even fully share that experience, even in a relationship with another person.
We can never experience another person's frame of mind, as hard as one might try, if that's what is being asked here. Your ultimate happy place is yours and yours alone, as it is for each of us.
Then keep to it and go about your life. Don't let me stop you.
-
I have no issue answering questions as long as you understand that answering them and you refusing to accept them, is not me refusing to answer.
However, you trying to answer a different question or just claiming to have answered without actually answering, isn't actually answering.
Likewise, providing a non-answer, which doesn't address the issue is not answering.
And you certainly seem to have very serious issues with answering simple questions, at least those which show you are wrong.
For example, a simple question about why the RE wouldn't have a horizon, which popped up right near the start of this thread, which you still can't answer.
To answer you You'd have to try and see the simple stuff from my side and push aside (for the time being) the stuff you believe of authority.
Like by asking you simple questions, to clarify your position and have you explain things in reality.
Unfortunately, as soon as that stars showing your claims are wrong, you see this as an attack.
I know I am getting no where with your nonsense because you can't seem to make it go past square 1.
You have been stuck there, right from the start.
I'm just trying to be as honest as I can.
Pure BS.
If you were, you would either clearly explain why you think the RE shouldn't have a horizon, or you would admit that you have no basis for your claim and that you were mistaken to have made it.
This entire thread has been an exercise in dishonesty for you, with you continually misrepresenting the RE and reality, and dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
When person can state facts by showing facts, that's when it's basically nailed on.
All I see with this global stuff is, storylines, CGI and hollywood-esque type films.
You mean by showing facts you dismiss as fake or ignore entirely, because they don't fit your worldview.
Now again, can you explain why the RE doesn't have a horizon, when all logic shows it should?
The only reason this appears as an attack to you, is because you can't answer it and don't want to admit you are wrong.
-
Pure BS.
You're more than entitled to think that.
-
Pure BS.
You're more than entitled to think that.
Yes, for the reasons I have explained, which you have ignored like usual.
Now again, have you figured out why the RE shouldn't have a horizon?
Again, if you were honest you would explain why or admit there is no reason to think that.
-
Again, if you were honest you would explain why or admit there is no reason to think that.
Think what?
-
Now again, have you figured out why the RE shouldn't have a horizon?
Again, if you were honest you would explain why or admit there is no reason to think that.
Think what?
Stop playing dumb.
It is quite obvious what I was referring to.
It was made quite clear in the statement you dishonestly removed, which I have added back, highlighted in red.
Now again, can you justify your claim that the RE, i.e. the globe, should not have a horizon? If not, can you be honest enough to admit you have no basis for your claim?
-
Stop playing dumb.
I'm always playing dumb, according to you, which you're well entitled to think, so why are you telling me to stop, which you're also entitled to say. I'm just asking for a friend.
-
Stop playing dumb.
I'm always playing dumb, according to you, which you're well entitled to think, so why are you telling me to stop, which you're also entitled to say. I'm just asking for a friend.
Because I want you to actually defend your claims.
The real question is why do you continue to play dumb?
Why are you here at all if you just continually play dumb to pretend there is a problem for RE when there is not?
Why don't you be honest for once and admit the RE does have a horizon?
Otherwise, justify your blatant lie that it shouldn't.
-
Because I want you to actually defend your claims.
You just want an argument.
-
Because I want you to actually defend your claims.
You just want an argument.
No, I care about the truth.
So if people make a bold, outrageous claim, I want them to back it up.
If they can, I will accept it.
If they can't, and instead continually deflect, I will keep pushing for a justification.
Again, why are you so against defending your own claims?
Why do you continually refuse to back them up?
Why are you apparently incapable of justifying your claim that the RE would not have a horizon?
-
No, I care about the truth.
So if people make a bold, outrageous claim, I want them to back it up.
I agree. If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
I'm no doing that but I am calling out the global ideals and you are backing them by saying they are facts.
So how about you back them up without using appeals to authority.
-
No, I care about the truth.
So if people make a bold, outrageous claim, I want them to back it up.
I agree. If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
I'm no doing that but I am calling out the global ideals and you are backing them by saying they are facts.
So how about you back them up without using appeals to authority.
Can you provide some examples of how perceiving the earth as a giant cell, is useful? Ok, how has it been useful to you?
-
No, I care about the truth.
So if people make a bold, outrageous claim, I want them to back it up.
I agree. If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
I'm no doing that but I am calling out the global ideals and you are backing them by saying they are facts.
So how about you back them up without using appeals to authority.
Can you provide some examples of how perceiving the earth as a giant cell, is useful? Ok, how has it been useful to you?
I'll let you use your own logic to understand that.
Here's a clue:
If I believe it to be a cell then I believe I live in that cell. I'll let you go to your logical brain and decipher why that would be useful to me.
-
If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
So when you push out a claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon as a fact, as you have done repeatedly, you should back it up.
Unless you would like to explicitly state that you are not giving that out as a fact and instead it is an entirely baseless claim from you?
-
If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
So when you push out a claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon as a fact, as you have done repeatedly, you should back it up.
Unless you would like to explicitly state that you are not giving that out as a fact and instead it is an entirely baseless claim from you?
You should be able to back up your claims but you can't.
-
If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
So when you push out a claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon as a fact, as you have done repeatedly, you should back it up.
Unless you would like to explicitly state that you are not giving that out as a fact and instead it is an entirely baseless claim from you?
You should be able to back up your claims but you can't.
Stop deflecting.
Are you claiming that it is a fact that the RE shouldn't have a horizon, or is this just your baseless claim?
If you are claiming it as a fact, then justify it.
If you are not claiming it as a fact, then admit you are not, by explicitly stating it is not a fact.
-
No, I care about the truth.
So if people make a bold, outrageous claim, I want them to back it up.
I agree. If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
I'm no doing that but I am calling out the global ideals and you are backing them by saying they are facts.
So how about you back them up without using appeals to authority.
Can you provide some examples of how perceiving the earth as a giant cell, is useful? Ok, how has it been useful to you?
I'll let you use your own logic to understand that.
Here's a clue:
If I believe it ot be a cell then I believe I live in that cell. I'll let you go to your logical brain and decipher why that would be useful to me.
I'm not the best when it comes to puzzles. I'm too impatient.
Could you please explain how your perception of living inside a giant cell, is useful to to you? If I take a stab in the dark and guess it's because everything inside a cell which would include each of us, is programmed to perform a specific function for the cell, I just know you are going to tell me I'm wrong.
-
Fair well all... I'm through posting on this website. Wasted enough time.
-
Nothing is ever a complete waste of time, solar wind. Thanks for sticking in there so long!
-
No, I care about the truth.
So if people make a bold, outrageous claim, I want them to back it up.
I agree. If people push out something as being fact they should back it up.
I'm no doing that but I am calling out the global ideals and you are backing them by saying they are facts.
So how about you back them up without using appeals to authority.
Can you provide some examples of how perceiving the earth as a giant cell, is useful? Ok, how has it been useful to you?
I'll let you use your own logic to understand that.
Here's a clue:
If I believe it ot be a cell then I believe I live in that cell. I'll let you go to your logical brain and decipher why that would be useful to me.
I'm not the best when it comes to puzzles. I'm too impatient.
Could you please explain how your perception of living inside a giant cell, is useful to to you? If I take a stab in the dark and guess it's because everything inside a cell which would include each of us, is programmed to perform a specific function for the cell, I just know you are going to tell me I'm wrong.
If you really want to jump right down the rabbit hole then just think of yourself as being one part of a bacterial spread among many like you and you also consisting of cells that are also holding similar.
It's just a case of how small do they go and how big do they grow.
The cell we are in is possibly a tiny one in the grand scheme of things that we will never find out, in terms of what this Earth cell is actually part of.
My best guess is, it's part of more cells like it, holding similar stuff as mentioned.
What do all those make up?
Maybe another huge organism.
I could go on but it doesn't really solve anything from our perspective.
You see, I don't put any of this out as factual but simple experiments and a lot of what we gather about life can be pieced together like a jigsaw to show potential fits and in time, a real potential outline as to what reality can be, in terms of gathered evidence that makes a better fit.
This may be gobbledygook to you and I have no issue with that.
You go with an oblate spheroid in a vacuum with scattered particles, among other spheres among scattered particles and yet this spheroid is doing elliptical orbits around a burning ball of fire with a ball of rock just orbiting the spheroid...and so on and so on and so on....for no apparent reason.
Stuff argued about vacuums creating zero resistance to anything but some amazing force managing to keep everything moving and orbiting in elliptical travel...and so on and so on.
You feel free to accept that. This is what you're taught so, in a way, why wouldn't you think that way?
People can look around and argue about us having houses and building grids for power and factories and what not...and argue that we can't be just a bacterial spread in a cell growth/decay.
It's all about how each individual wants to look at it and how much of a step outside of the box a person is willing to make against peers pushing that person back in.
-
If you really want to jump right down the rabbit hole
In order to do that, you would need to start explaining, and you still haven't explained what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon; unless you are willing to admit that that claim of yours is not factual.
-
If you really want to jump right down the rabbit hole
In order to do that, you would need to start explaining, and you still haven't explained what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon; unless you are willing to admit that that claim of yours is not factual.
What claim?
-
If you really want to jump right down the rabbit hole
In order to do that, you would need to start explaining, and you still haven't explained what magic prevents the RE from having a horizon; unless you are willing to admit that that claim of yours is not factual.
What claim?
The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.
-
Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?
You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.
That's something we share in common.
The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.
I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.
Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.
Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.
If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....
Life then becomes all about function.
-
The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.
Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.
-
Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?
You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.
That's something we share in common.
The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.
I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.
Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.
Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.
If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....
Life then becomes all about function.
I look at Earth as a cell full of cells and at the end of that...outside of that would be another Earth cell and so on and so on, like I said.
Likely connected with no free space, meaning no space like we have been told.
So, basically we massively differ in that mindset but you're very welcome to think what you want and to dish what I think. That's your choice as I have mine.
-
The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.
Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.
Stop with the lies.
You haven't addressed it.
If you had you would easily be able to provide it here again.
The fact you don't, shows you have no way to address it.
You know your claim is not a fact, but don't want to so openly admit that, especially when you have claimed to 100% know the RE doesn't have a horizon.
Now again, ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Don't bother repeating the same lie that you have already addressed it.
-
The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.
Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.
Stop with the lies.
You haven't addressed it.
If you had you would easily be able to provide it here again.
The fact you don't, shows you have no way to address it.
You know your claim is not a fact, but don't want to so openly admit that, especially when you have claimed to 100% know the RE doesn't have a horizon.
Now again, ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Don't bother repeating the same lie that you have already addressed it.
Do you not have better things to do?
-
The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.
Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.
Stop with the lies.
You haven't addressed it.
If you had you would easily be able to provide it here again.
The fact you don't, shows you have no way to address it.
You know your claim is not a fact, but don't want to so openly admit that, especially when you have claimed to 100% know the RE doesn't have a horizon.
Now again, ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Don't bother repeating the same lie that you have already addressed it.
Do you not have better things to do?
Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
-
Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
I've addressed it...you have not.
-
Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
I've addressed it...you have not.
Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yes again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
-
Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
I've addressed it...you have not.
Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yes again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Been explained.
-
Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
I've addressed it...you have not.
Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yes again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Been explained.
Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yet again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
-
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.
-
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.
There you go projecting again.
It has not been explained. That is why I keep asking.
You keep using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid either explaining or admitting you can't.
If you wish to lie and claim it has been explained, provide a link to the post where you have explained it, or provide the explanation again.
Like I said before, you continually repeating the same pathetic deflection/lie by claiming to have explained it, while never providing the explanation, just shows that you CAN'T explain it.
Now grow, stop with the pathetic deflection, and either explain it, admit you can't, or admit that what you are stating is not a fact.
-
Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?
You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.
That's something we share in common.
The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.
I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.
Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.
Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.
If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....
Life then becomes all about function.
I look at Earth as a cell full of cells and at the end of that...outside of that would be another Earth cell and so on and so on, like I said.
Likely connected with no free space, meaning no space like we have been told.
So, basically we massively differ in that mindset but you're very welcome to think what you want and to dish what I think. That's your choice as I have mine.
We do massively differ in that mindset, unfortunately. In my mindset, I can include all the sciences, whereas with your mindset, you must exclude all the sciences.
With my mindset, I can have trust in my fellow man and build on discoveries which have come before me, but with your mindset, you must distrust your fellow man, dismiss what has been said to come before you, and reinvent the wheel.
So long as your decision is not fear based, because fear is soul destroying.
-
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.
There you go projecting again.
It has not been explained. That is why I keep asking.
It has.
-
Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?
You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.
That's something we share in common.
The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.
I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.
Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.
Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.
If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....
Life then becomes all about function.
I look at Earth as a cell full of cells and at the end of that...outside of that would be another Earth cell and so on and so on, like I said.
Likely connected with no free space, meaning no space like we have been told.
So, basically we massively differ in that mindset but you're very welcome to think what you want and to dish what I think. That's your choice as I have mine.
We do massively differ in that mindset, unfortunately. In my mindset, I can include all the sciences, whereas with your mindset, you must exclude all the sciences.
In your mindset you adhere to the stories told and without proof, in terms of what we're arguing.
With my mindset, I can have trust in my fellow man and build on discoveries which have come before me, but with your mindset, you must distrust your fellow man, dismiss what has been said to come before you, and reinvent the wheel.
Yep, you trust the stories and the people telling them.
Nothing wrong with that. It's easier to just go with the flow if that's the type of person you are.
I'm clearly not. I question stuff and what I question I do because I don't think the stories are entirely factual.
As you say, I do distrust certain people.
There's really good story tellers out there. Some rip people off in all ways and walks of life. You know that.
Why is this any different?
So long as your decision is not fear based, because fear is soul destroying.
Fear of what?
-
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.
There you go projecting again.
It has not been explained. That is why I keep asking.
It has.
Repeating the same lie will not magically make it true.
Again, if you had actually explained it, instead of just claiming to have to avoid the fact you can't, then you would be able to either link to the explanation or provide it again.
The fact you do neither shows you haven't already explained it.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and repeatedly blatant lies and actually explain it, or admit you can't, and admit your claim is not factual.
-
Sceptimatic, everything around you tells a story. A story isn't just what comes out of a persons mouth, or what is written in a book, or on a tv presentation.
When you walk into a crime scene, everything in that scene is telling a story about what happened, to solve a crime.
Your own body is telling a story, as to how active or sedentary you are, or what type of food you put into your mouth, and how much. Your house is telling a story about the people living inside it. Your garbage in your garbage bin is telling a big story, for anyone who wants to find out things about sceptimatic.
Our very posts on this board tell a story.
I spent time with an Aboriginal elder some years ago, and I learnt that even rocks tell stories. Types of rocks and stories of where they originated, and how they came to be where they are. Why they might be cracked a certain way. Pressures involved in their formation.
Yes, there are bullshit stories all around you. But you are also surrounded by truths. If you learn to use your senses - your eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste, smell - you can learn to read all the stories being told around you, and be discerning.
If people bullshitting to you in the past, has been a big problem, do a course on lying and body language. Learn about scammers, and learn to identify the differences between a person answering a question with a lie or with the truth.
-
Jack, stop badgering.
-
Sceptimatic, everything around you tells a story. A story isn't just what comes out of a persons mouth, or what is written in a book, or on a tv presentation.
When you walk into a crime scene, everything in that scene is telling a story about what happened, to solve a crime.
Your own body is telling a story, as to how active or sedentary you are, or what type of food you put into your mouth, and how much. Your house is telling a story about the people living inside it. Your garbage in your garbage bin is telling a big story, for anyone who wants to find out things about sceptimatic.
Our very posts on this board tell a story.
I spent time with an Aboriginal elder some years ago, and I learnt that even rocks tell stories. Types of rocks and stories of where they originated, and how they came to be where they are. Why they might be cracked a certain way. Pressures involved in their formation.
Yes, there are bullshit stories all around you. But you are also surrounded by truths. If you learn to use your senses - your eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste, smell - you can learn to read all the stories being told around you, and be discerning.
If people bullshitting to you in the past, has been a big problem, do a course on lying and body language. Learn about scammers, and learn to identify the differences between a person answering a question with a lie or with the truth.
Yu forgot about reading stories and following a belief system based on them.....and then a narrative and a following of that narrative en masse.
This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.
That doesn't mean the person is telling me lies fro their own story. It means they're conveying what I believe to be a set of lies, but in a very honest way.
How do I read that body language?
You're trying to tell me about your truth's based on your adherence to a storyline, of which you accept as being a truth, without actually knowing it to be a truth.
You are passing it onto me and getting offended when I reject it.
I could call you a liar but I'd prefer to say you're conveying a storyline to me that I believe is based on lies...or at best fantasy hypotheticals.
-
This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.
You mean with plenty of evidence and logical arguments to justify it, which you just dismiss as fake or ignore; and with this "story" matching what is observed in every day life.
-
i read a story once, by a guy named sceppy.
Actually more than once, because he loved repeating it over and over.
He liked to repeat a few things but refused to provide a diagram, over and over refused.
Then he laughed at everyone else and said they were fools for believing easily verifiable and repeatable experiments.
He went so far to even say circles and triangles aren't real.
-
Sceptimatic, everything around you tells a story. A story isn't just what comes out of a persons mouth, or what is written in a book, or on a tv presentation.
When you walk into a crime scene, everything in that scene is telling a story about what happened, to solve a crime.
Your own body is telling a story, as to how active or sedentary you are, or what type of food you put into your mouth, and how much. Your house is telling a story about the people living inside it. Your garbage in your garbage bin is telling a big story, for anyone who wants to find out things about sceptimatic.
Our very posts on this board tell a story.
I spent time with an Aboriginal elder some years ago, and I learnt that even rocks tell stories. Types of rocks and stories of where they originated, and how they came to be where they are. Why they might be cracked a certain way. Pressures involved in their formation.
Yes, there are bullshit stories all around you. But you are also surrounded by truths. If you learn to use your senses - your eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste, smell - you can learn to read all the stories being told around you, and be discerning.
If people bullshitting to you in the past, has been a big problem, do a course on lying and body language. Learn about scammers, and learn to identify the differences between a person answering a question with a lie or with the truth.
Yu forgot about reading stories and following a belief system based on them.....and then a narrative and a following of that narrative en masse.
This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.
That doesn't mean the person is telling me lies fro their own story. It means they're conveying what I believe to be a set of lies, but in a very honest way.
How do I read that body language?
You're trying to tell me about your truth's based on your adherence to a storyline, of which you accept as being a truth, without actually knowing it to be a truth.
You are passing it onto me and getting offended when I reject it.
I could call you a liar but I'd prefer to say you're conveying a storyline to me that I believe is based on lies...or at best fantasy hypotheticals.
I heard this story once, about a guy named jesus who died on a cross......great story!
I'm not offended by you rejecting everything I say. I'm not insecure enough to feel offended, and I see you aren't insecure to easily be offended, either. I couldn't care less if you call me a liar, and you're the same. Jack black infers you're a liar with almost every post he makes.
I was giving you an insight into all the different non-verbal stories being told around you, all the time. In my experience, when someone is conveying something which they earnestly think is the truth, but which is a lie, it's usually because of a mistake of fact on their part. A misinterpretation.
How do you read that body language, you ask? Well, you start with their eyes then you observe what they di with their hands. When a person is manufacturing a lie, they will look in the opposite direction to the direction you look when you are remembering. When a person tells a bold faced lie, their pupils tend to dilate, and they tend to touch their nose about the same time. It's a physical response. But there are different types of lies.
-
This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.
You mean with plenty of evidence and logical arguments to justify it, which you just dismiss as fake or ignore; and with this "story" matching what is observed in every day life.
This is the argument.
-
i read a story once, by a guy named sceppy.
Actually more than once, because he loved repeating it over and over.
He liked to repeat a few things but refused to provide a diagram, over and over refused.
Then he laughed at everyone else and said they were fools for believing easily verifiable and repeatable experiments.
He went so far to even say circles and triangles aren't real.
Feel free to make up stuff if it makes you feel better.
-
I heard this story once, about a guy named jesus who died on a cross......great story!
I've heard it all my life and still do from certain people.
I've watched films depicting what happened...etc.
I listen to priests who convey messages from a bible and tell the story in such a way that sells it to a congregation who follow those words and what is behind them.
Is the priest lying? Is the priest absorbed into the story of belief? s the priest just conveying the story as told, like a school teacher under the guide of a curriculum?
This is the issue.
I'm not offended by you rejecting everything I say. I'm not insecure enough to feel offended, and I see you aren't insecure to easily be offended, either.
I stand by my thought process until I can't reason it.
Likewise I stand against the storylines handed out as factual, without proof, told by whoever, for whoever.
I couldn't care less if you call me a liar, and you're the same. Jack black infers you're a liar with almost every post he makes.
I have no need to call you a liar. I simply don't believe what you say where this global stuff is concerned.
You may believe what you're saying or you may question it in your own comfort but convey it when placed n an open situation.
That doesn't make you a liar. It means you follow a set narrative.
We all follow set narratives. It just depends on whether we feel we have to or be ridiculed for refusing.
I was giving you an insight into all the different non-verbal stories being told around you, all the time. In my experience, when someone is conveying something which they earnestly think is the truth, but which is a lie, it's usually because of a mistake of fact on their part. A misinterpretation.
Absolutely. And this is the argument on the whole with all of this.
You can stand at your door arguing with a religious group who are massively well versed in their set up and who do not need to reference a book in front of you to convey their message.
You can stand and argue with them from your side.
Who wins?......No one.
Who is correct?....possibly no one.
What evidence?.....massively circumstantial.
Who is lying?....maybe nobody, deliberately.
How do you read that body language, you ask? Well, you start with their eyes then you observe what they di with their hands. When a person is manufacturing a lie, they will look in the opposite direction to the direction you look when you are remembering. When a person tells a bold faced lie, their pupils tend to dilate, and they tend to touch their nose about the same time. It's a physical response. But there are different types of lies.
Like I said. If a person conveys a message then you can't really shoot the messenger if it turns out to be a lie or a mistake.
However, it's all about morals with a lot of stuff in terms of who tells and sells a story if that story is told to someone from which they do not morally accept it as truth but go on to preach it as a truth.
It's like a salesperson who are given instructions on how to canvass people out of their money. Some believe its moral and can be in many circumstances...but others can be trained in the art of ripping people off, disguised as salesman/woman/ship.
-
This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.
You mean with plenty of evidence and logical arguments to justify it, which you just dismiss as fake or ignore; and with this "story" matching what is observed in every day life.
This is the argument.
No, that is you avoiding the argument.
The argument is that as humans have a FOV, this allows them to easily see the ground.
If you look out level, standing 2 m above ground, regardless of if it is perfectly flat, or curved in accordance with the globe model, you will easily be able to see it due to just how large your FOV is.
Perspective will make the ground appear higher as it gets further away, bringing it into view.
This even applies if you have a quite small FOV, such as from looking through a tube.
With a FOV of 10 degrees, the ground will be inside it within 30 m.
It takes quite some distance for the downwards slope due to the curvature to add up enough to start making things appear lower.
Likewise, the argument is that if you look at a ball, there will be a boundary. On one side of that boundary there will be the ball. On the other, the ball wont be there and instead you only see the surroundings, e.g. the sky. This boundary or edge is known as the horizon, and the globe does have a horizon.
And while this horizon is below level, when you are standing close to the surface, the angle at which it is below level is basically 0. e.g. at 2 m it is 2.7 arc minutes.
And the evidence shows that if you go high enough, the angle is large enough that it can be easily shown that the horizon is below "eye-level", such as with the evidence you dismiss as fake.
I stand by my thought process until I can't reason it.
At which point you then do whatever you can to deflect from your inability to reason it.
-
No, that is you avoiding the argument.
The argument is that as humans have a FOV, this allows them to easily see the ground.
I never said humans don't have a FOV. You decided to make it that I did to suit your argument.
-
Your tu-tubes experiment claims says otherwise.
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?
No contradictions here....
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.
Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.
Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?
(https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.
Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?
No contradictions here....
Not my drawings.
Also try and understand compression over distance.
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
-
Instwad of using your very flawed communication skills, perhaps make your own diagram.
Because all those lines reprsent light rays which we all jnderstood and you seem to have somehow redefined as something else.
-
Instwad of using your very flawed communication skills, perhaps make your own diagram.
Because all those lines reprsent light rays which we all jnderstood and you seem to have somehow redefined as something else.
Drawing a few lines represents light rays do they? Ok.
-
Yes
Yes they do
These arent even abstract cpncepts
Keep failing at basic things like geometry
https://images.app.goo.gl/8eSfPRtRUtMevU7z6
-
100pg later youre only now catching onto this?
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
-
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
-
No, that is you avoiding the argument.
The argument is that as humans have a FOV, this allows them to easily see the ground.
I never said humans don't have a FOV. You decided to make it that I did to suit your argument.
And yet again you ignore the argument and basically everything that is said.
Sure, you never explicitly state that humans don't have a FOV, you just continually ignore what a FOV means and ignore the logical consequence of it to pretend that humans can't see the globe.
Your repeated claims is consistent with a position of no FOV, where you act like merely because Earth is below, it is magically not visible.
The only way to have an absolute claim like that is with no FOV.
As soon as you accept a FOV exists, the claim is no longer absolute and instead depends on several factors, such as the rate of curvature, how large your FOV is and how far above the curve you are.
So it doesn't matter if you don't explicitly state that humans don't have a FOV, as your position is clearly one which completely ignores the fact we do have a FOV.
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
No, you repeatedly rejected it, acting like we would only ever see 1 inch through a 1 inch tube, and then directly contradicted that claim by saying we can see more of a 1 inch object, by pretending that object is compressed.
But that idea of compression is the same as what you have been repeatedly rejecting, an actual FOV.
What you want to pretend is "compression", is merely the fact that we have a FOV, and see based upon angles, instead of linear dimensions.
Like shown here:
(https://i.imgur.com/zeftVOY.png)
The more distant tree isn't more compressed, you just see more of it because your angular FOV corresponds to a larger linear distance at that distance.
You also remain contradictory when you continue to claim you can't see the ground.
Even if you want to pretend it is magical compression rather than an angular FOV, the same applies to the distance to the ground. That distance between your eye-level and the ground would be compressed as well, resulting in the exact same effect as FOV.
This was also provided to you:
(https://i.imgur.com/L7Lgzvc.png)
Where the compressed size of the distance between your eye-level and Earth results in it popping into your FOV.
It also means the "drop" due to the curvature of Earth is compressed, and thus Earth merely curving down is not enough to prevent it from entering your FOV.
-
100pg later youre only now catching onto this?
Catching onto what?
You are back to square one, as per usual.
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
So what if it's compressed, or not compressed, whatever? Doesn't matter. The question is, is the image correct that you can see the ground in front of the tree and perhaps the sky above, if given enough distance between the tube and the tree? You originally said you couldn't. You would only see the 1 inch tube view all the way to the mid trunk of the tree, that's all. Hence your "absolutely" in the first diagram. Now are you saying that yes, the FOV allows you to see the whole tree, with ground and sky? Which is it?
-
What you want to pretend is "compression", is merely the fact that we have a FOV, and see based upon angles, instead of linear dimensions.
Like shown here:
(https://i.imgur.com/zeftVOY.png)
The more distant tree isn't more compressed, you just see more of it because your angular FOV corresponds to a larger linear distance at that distance.
Ahhh right, I see what you're playing at.
You totally overlook the cross hair point of vision and decide to use the FOV as if the tree in the distance stands out like a sore thumb du to it.
Let me try and make this as clear as I have done for long enough.
We were arguing vision through a simple tube with a diameter of about an inch or two.
I told you it was tunnel vision to help with the cross hair focus on any distance object and/or your theoretical horizon line.
I told you (and do reference it by bringing it up) how the light over distance creates a compression of distant objects.
This is because the light that is closer to your eye is greater than the light over distance coming back to your eye...hence why it compresses the bigger picture into that compression back to your eye.
To put it in a nutshell, it's like looking at a focal point (the tree) as it shrinks (to your eye view) as you move away.
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
So what if it's compressed, or not compressed, whatever? Doesn't matter. The question is, is the image correct that you can see the ground in front of the tree and perhaps the sky above, if given enough distance between the tube and the tree? You originally said you couldn't. You would only see the 1 inch tube view all the way to the mid trunk of the tree, that's all. Hence your "absolutely" in the first diagram. Now are you saying that yes, the FOV allows you to see the whole tree, with ground and sky? Which is it?
I already answered this a while ago, have you forgot?
I said you see the tree over distance. You see what light from the object being reflected back but it is compressed, not stood out like you've made it.
You are looking at it from a telescopic view. A wide angled FOV.
Can you remember what the argument was?
Try and remember.
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
So what if it's compressed, or not compressed, whatever? Doesn't matter. The question is, is the image correct that you can see the ground in front of the tree and perhaps the sky above, if given enough distance between the tube and the tree? You originally said you couldn't. You would only see the 1 inch tube view all the way to the mid trunk of the tree, that's all. Hence your "absolutely" in the first diagram. Now are you saying that yes, the FOV allows you to see the whole tree, with ground and sky? Which is it?
I already answered this a while ago, have you forgot?
I said you see the tree over distance. You see what light from the object being reflected back but it is compressed, not stood out like you've made it.
You are looking at it from a telescopic view. A wide angled FOV.
Can you remember what the argument was?
Try and remember.
For the love of god, can you just answer a simple question and settle this once and for all.
Is it this:
A (https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
Or is it this:
B (https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
A or B?
-
Scepti,
None of what you say in your last post makes any sense, to me. I am not trying to be derogatory, it just doesn't explain anything.
Please provide us a diagram or tell us which of the many diagrams provided for you are correct.
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
Why am I wrong to believe this is correct and fully verifiable in reality?
Let's get back to what this was really about.
A simple tube set level over a gradient (downward) and not bringing that gradient into view over distance.
That was the argument which has transferred into twisting and turning, into this carry on.
I answered the tube question or vision question by telling you all its compressed vision over distance due to obscurity of light back to the eye over that distance, wth the light closer to the tube as you back away from the object taking precedence.
Go and do what JJA refused to do.
-
What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
No, that is not what you have been saying.
You have stated that you can't see the ground because it is below the level of the tube. That is completely ignoring FOV/compression.
Most people have no need to discuss your idea of compression, as it is simply explained by FOV.
What you see, is because you have a FOV.
You see more of distant objects, not because they are being compressed, but because at that distance, the angular FOV you have corresponds to a greater height.
What you want to pretend is "compression", is merely the fact that we have a FOV, and see based upon angles, instead of linear dimensions.
Like shown here:
(https://i.imgur.com/zeftVOY.png)
The more distant tree isn't more compressed, you just see more of it because your angular FOV corresponds to a larger linear distance at that distance.
Ahhh right, I see what you're playing at.
I'm not playing at anything. I am clearly explaining why your claims are wrong.
You totally overlook the cross hair point of vision and decide to use the FOV as if the tree in the distance stands out like a sore thumb du to it.
No, I don't.
Even that cross hair will have some angular span, and that means it will be able to obscure a larger object or a larger angular distance the further away that object is.
Let me try and make this as clear as I have done for long enough.
We were arguing vision through a simple tube with a diameter of about an inch or two.
I told you it was tunnel vision to help with the cross hair focus on any distance object and/or your theoretical horizon line.
And as I have told you, even through such a tube, YOU STILL HAVE A FOV!
Your entire argument relies upon ignoring this FOV and instead pretending that we magically see in a straight line only.
To put it in a nutshell, it's like looking at a focal point (the tree) as it shrinks (to your eye view) as you move away.
Which then allows you to see the ground, which you claim shouldn't be possible.
Let's get back to what this was really about.
Fine, lets do that.
On a RE, as humans have a FOV, when they look out level, due to how small the curvature of Earth is, they will easily be able to see Earth, rather than just sky as you claim.
It was your inability to defend your false claim that on a RE you would expect to see nothing but sky with such a view which lead you down this path of twisting and turning to try to avoid reality.
Even a simple tube, set level, will still allow you to see the RE, assuming its FOV is large enough.
But if you get high enough, you can clearly observe the horizon to be below level.
And, even if you try to set it up on a continuous downwards gradient, your ability to see the ground through the tube depends on the FOV and the gradient.
If the FOV is larger than 2 times the gradient, you can still see the gradient.
Go and do what JJA refused to do.
For what point?
For you to dismiss it as fake, like you dismiss every piece of evidence that shows you are wrong as fake?
For you to then throw in more ridiculous requirements and excuses about how you magically aren't wrong?
With you admitting you do not magically only see 1 inch of the tree, and instead you see more, your entire argument falls to pieces.
Your argument relies upon it being impossible to see anything below the level of the tube.
-
Not your draqings, but you agreed to them
Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
So what if it's compressed, or not compressed, whatever? Doesn't matter. The question is, is the image correct that you can see the ground in front of the tree and perhaps the sky above, if given enough distance between the tube and the tree? You originally said you couldn't. You would only see the 1 inch tube view all the way to the mid trunk of the tree, that's all. Hence your "absolutely" in the first diagram. Now are you saying that yes, the FOV allows you to see the whole tree, with ground and sky? Which is it?
I already answered this a while ago, have you forgot?
I said you see the tree over distance. You see what light from the object being reflected back but it is compressed, not stood out like you've made it.
You are looking at it from a telescopic view. A wide angled FOV.
Can you remember what the argument was?
Try and remember.
For the love of god, can you just answer a simple question and settle this once and for all.
Is it this:
A (https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
Or is it this:
B (https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
A or B?
None.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/Q8KJG0j/wronger.jpg)
Compress the visual from that tube by making the tree appear to fit the tube but smaller over distance.
-
None.
Then how about you try drawing what you think is happening?
Or explain what is wrong with what others have provided, such as explaining what stops the blue line from going into the tube?
-
Go and do what JJA refused to do.
So glad I made such a big impact in your life. :)
Bored, he could be talking about any of these. How it's impossible to see the ground through a tube even though I've posted plenty of images looking through a tube. ::)
I even did the calculations for a worst case scenario of looking through the tube near the bottom and you can still see the ground.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2302968#msg2302968
The bottom picture had several PAGES of arguments from sceptimatic that there was no curve in that image. Truly astounding. This thread is a goldmine. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/5u2KDyw.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/PCMviiG.jpg)
-
Compress the visual from that tube by making the tree appear to fit the tube but smaller over distance.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs9nKB8/wrongest.jpg)?
Make the tree smaller.
-
Omg ahahahaa
-
The tree is the tree
Lets try:
Can we bring back the railway tracks?
Or a row of ever closer trees.
-
Make the tree smaller.
No, the tree is 'tree size'. Does the actual physical size of a tree change based on viewing distance?
The physical size does not change but the size to your vision does. And this is what I'm saying.
-
Make the tree smaller.
No, the tree is 'tree size'. Does the actual physical size of a tree change based on viewing distance?
The physical size does not change but the size to your vision does. And this is what I'm saying.
Boreds pictures represent what is seen. Where the limits of the vision and lights are and come from to reach the eyeball.
The field of view in the traditional definition.
-
Maybe this would help
(http://)
As funny as that sketch is, it's the truth.
Have a good think about it while you're laughing at the sketch and me.
-
Maybe this would help
(http://)
As funny as that sketch is, it's the truth.
Have a good think about it while you're laughing at the sketch and me.
And this is a perfect example why I keep coming back here. This is amazing.
-
Make the tree smaller.
No, you are meant to be showing what happens to the light.
How does the light from the top and bottom of the tree make it into the tube.
If the tree needs to be smaller you are claiming the tree physically shrinks, which we know is not the case.
As funny as that sketch is, it's the truth.
Have a good think about it while you're laughing at the sketch and me.
Yet you don't seem to recognise the problem.
The far away cows aren't magically smaller.
They are just far away.
There is no magical compression.
You are rejecting that truth, and instead insisting that the distant trees/cows are somehow smaller, all so you can avoid the fact that you are capable of seeing the ground through that tube.
-
Try this exercise.
Look at building far away
Close one eye
Use your index and thumb to size the top-bottom.
Move your hand back and forth.
Note the distance betweem fingers changes.
This change follows lines, the light rays, same as Boreds picture.
Seriously
Trianlges arent that complicated.
-
Maybe this would help
(http://)
As funny as that sketch is, it's the truth.
Have a good think about it while you're laughing at the sketch and me.
And this is a perfect example why I keep coming back here. This is amazing.
It is amazing if you use your brain.
-
It is amazing if you use your brain.
You should try it some time.
-
Make the tree smaller.
No, you are meant to be showing what happens to the light.
How does the light from the top and bottom of the tree make it into the tube.
If the tree needs to be smaller you are claiming the tree physically shrinks, which we know is not the case.
Ok let's make this simple.
If you walk away from an object, does that object look smaller to your view compared to what it looked like when you were closer.
Just answer that instead of trying to make out I'm saying it is physically smaller.
-
Try this exercise.
Look at building far away
Close one eye
Use your index and thumb to size the top-bottom.
Move your hand back and forth.
Note the distance betweem fingers changes.
This change follows lines, the light rays, same as Boreds picture.
Seriously
Trianlges arent that complicated.
What are you arguing that I'm not telling you?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/hMtq3mr/wow.jpg)
Make the tree smaller.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/hMtq3mr/wow.jpg)
Make the tree smaller.
I think you misunderstand the 'cows small and far' video. By moving the tree from 100 meters away to 200 meters the tree will now appear to be half the size it was previously.
But anyway do you have a point to make by me making the tree smaller? I made these diagrams to try to help understand your nonsense, but it really is just nonsense. Your answers throughout have been inconsistent, and you know this. So it seems that 'What would change your mind' is simply asking a different question as your mind is constantly changing.
Please just answer me one thing:
What does "Compress the visual from that tube by making the tree appear to fit the tube but smaller over distance." mean? I cannot make any sense of this. Does this just mean 'make the tree smaller'?
here
(https://i.ibb.co/QYM8Wg2/pow.jpg)
have at it.
You see that big angled vision like a torch beam you put up from tube to tree...right?
That's you looking wrong.
What you should be focusing on is the reflection back to your eye.
Let's see if you can show me.
-
Or was this closer to it?
(https://i.ibb.co/x3GCjKC/bored.jpg)
You're starting to get somewhere. It just needs tweaking.
-
A little clue would be to think about an array of mirrors from two parallel mirrors.
Have a think on it.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/hMtq3mr/wow.jpg)
Make the tree smaller.
I think you misunderstand the 'cows small and far' video. By moving the tree from 100 meters away to 200 meters the tree will now appear to be half the size it was previously.
But anyway do you have a point to make by me making the tree smaller? I made these diagrams to try to help understand your nonsense, but it really is just nonsense. Your answers throughout have been inconsistent, and you know this. So it seems that 'What would change your mind' is simply asking a different question as your mind is constantly changing.
Please just answer me one thing:
What does "Compress the visual from that tube by making the tree appear to fit the tube but smaller over distance." mean? I cannot make any sense of this. Does this just mean 'make the tree smaller'?
here
(https://i.ibb.co/QYM8Wg2/pow.jpg)
have at it.
You see that big angled vision like a torch beam you put up from tube to tree...right?
That's you looking wrong.
What you should be focusing on is the reflection back to your eye.
Let's see if you can show me.
No.
Let's see if you can show me!
It is not possible to draw a diagram that shows what you want it to show. You haven't decided yet what you want it to show but it can't be drawn. This is why it is nonsense. It makes no sense. It can't be shown with a diagram. It cannot be explained in plain language.
You will make no effort to draw for yourself, as you know you can't actually draw it.
Let's see if you can show me!
A clue is, if you're looking through a tube you see tunnel vision. Your view to your target, in this case, the tree comes into view from distance because the light angles the opposite way, as in, your triangle (theoretical) view is the light closest to your tube end takes up the less compressed vision whereas the tree (target) angles back (theoretical angle) in a compressed sense.
I bet you have no clue what I'm saying....right?
Take a look at the mirror explanation, I gave.
-
Another clue is the train track over distance.
-
Try this exercise.
Look at building far away
Close one eye
Use your index and thumb to size the top-bottom.
Move your hand back and forth.
Note the distance betweem fingers changes.
This change follows lines, the light rays, same as Boreds picture.
Seriously
Trianlges arent that complicated.
What are you arguing that I'm not telling you?
(https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/hMtq3mr/wow.jpg)
Make the tree smaller.
I think you misunderstand the 'cows small and far' video. By moving the tree from 100 meters away to 200 meters the tree will now appear to be half the size it was previously.
But anyway do you have a point to make by me making the tree smaller? I made these diagrams to try to help understand your nonsense, but it really is just nonsense. Your answers throughout have been inconsistent, and you know this. So it seems that 'What would change your mind' is simply asking a different question as your mind is constantly changing.
Please just answer me one thing:
What does "Compress the visual from that tube by making the tree appear to fit the tube but smaller over distance." mean? I cannot make any sense of this. Does this just mean 'make the tree smaller'?
here
(https://i.ibb.co/QYM8Wg2/pow.jpg)
have at it.
You see that big angled vision like a torch beam you put up from tube to tree...right?
That's you looking wrong.
What you should be focusing on is the reflection back to your eye.
Let's see if you can show me.
Bored
Youre looking wrong.
Ahahah
-
Aaahahah
-
This is what you believe
(https://i.ibb.co/hHwwgQN/wanker.jpg)
You will claim that you don't, but you do. This is exactly as you have explained it to be.
No.
.
-
Why, instead of everyone endless guessing wtf you mean, inspite of your consistent misdefining of very common words, draw your own damn picture and remove all doubt.
-
Its been read
It makes no sense
-
This is what you believe
(https://i.ibb.co/hHwwgQN/wanker.jpg)
You will claim that you don't, but you do. This is exactly as you have explained it to be.
No.
.
No, it doesn't make sense, but it is exactly as you explained it.
No, it's not how I explained it.
Do you know what parallel mirrors means in what I said?
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhCXvpxR/download-12.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
And whats your attempt at a point with the mirrors?
-
Ok let's make this simple.
If you walk away from an object, does that object look smaller to your view compared to what it looked like when you were closer.
Just answer that instead of trying to make out I'm saying it is physically smaller.
It subtends a smaller portion of my angular FOV.
This is commonly stated as it appears smaller.
But there is no actual compression, and when viewed and comprehended in context, it is actually just far away.
Not small, far away.
But why not actually make it simple, unlike all the complex nonsense you have been trying to avoid reality?
When you look at a distant tree, through a level tube, how does the light from the bottom of the tree reach your eye?
Does it just go from the bottom of the tree and straight to your eye?
(https://i.ibb.co/hMtq3mr/wow.jpg)
Make the tree smaller.
Why?
It is the tree's physical size.
It shouldn't need to be made smaller.
If you need to make it smaller to argue your point your point is not describing reality.
You should be explaining how the light from the tree reaches the eye.
Or was this closer to it?
(https://i.ibb.co/x3GCjKC/bored.jpg)
You're starting to get somewhere. It just needs tweaking.
And that somewhere is clearly quite disconnected from reality as now the tree is floating in mid air and crushed to a tiny portion of its actual size.
You see that big angled vision like a torch beam you put up from tube to tree...right?
That's you looking wrong.
No, that is just you completely missing the point.
They show the limits of the FOV of the tube.
Light within that region can reach your eye.
Light outside that region would be blocked by the tube.
But here, is this better:
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
No cone, just a line of light coming from the bottom of each tree.
We can even see that the light is the colour of the tree.
And a close up of the tube
(https://i.imgur.com/QZLSmnH.png)
So we can see the light from the distant tree manages to make it inside the tube and reach the eye.
The light from the bottom of the close tree instead hits the bottom of the tube, and as it can't go through the wall of the tube, it doesn't reach the eye.
The ability to see the tree is based on if the light goes into the tube, or hits the wall of the tube.
Doesn't get much simpler than that.
You can even show the mirrors using the same honest method:
(https://i.imgur.com/pDOB8eG.png)
The image from 2 reflections takes up a smaller angular span and thus appears more distant (far away, not smaller).
-
The drawing is 2 dimensional your mirror picture is 3 dimensional. It is retarded to think one applies to the other. You are retarded, so maybe you could show us how it works?
No, it isn't retarded to think one applies to the other. He is trying to do it to pretend the mirrors are smaller.
It is quite easy to do honestly, as I did above.
here it is again (but only 1 set of reflections, rather than loads more:
(https://i.imgur.com/pDOB8eG.png)
But what he provided a picture of shows what he really wants. He wants to pretend the mirrors are some how smaller.
-
And whats your attempt at a point with the mirrors?
If you'd paid attention you'd understand what I was saying.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/0JvW412/mirror.jpg)
Nope.
I'm sure this is you playing games.
Carry on as much as you need to.
Take a look at the mirrors I put out.
-
The drawing is 2 dimensional your mirror picture is 3 dimensional. It is retarded to think one applies to the other. You are retarded, so maybe you could show us how it works?
No, it isn't retarded to think one applies to the other. He is trying to do it to pretend the mirrors are smaller.
It is quite easy to do honestly, as I did above.
here it is again (but only 1 set of reflections, rather than loads more:
(https://i.imgur.com/pDOB8eG.png)
But what he provided a picture of shows what he really wants. He wants to pretend the mirrors are some how smaller.
It's not pretending. It's what the mirrors are by sight.
Each mirror image is compressed into the next to become a vanishing point.
No pretence about it.
-
Yeah, I still don't get it. Where are these mirrors? Where is the tree? The tube? The light from the tree will never get to my eyes if it is just being reflected back and forth between two parallel mirrors.
The mirrors are the analogy of your view to the tree.
Your attempts at ridicule have rendered your thinking mind, void.
-
And whats your attempt at a point with the mirrors?
If you'd paid attention you'd understand what I was saying.
I am paying attention
You agreed to one picture
Then disagreed to it days lster.
Now are cuaght and are now trying to introduce a layer of obscurity to hide your failings.
And
Now that youre caught, you are deflecting and dodging and avoiding the very simple question - when i look at a tree, whst does an infinite reflection of two mirrors have to do with anything?
Why does tu-tubes require a vertical plumb level when aligning horizontally is the "trick"?
Why cant you justify that, in a purely geometric examination, a ciricle and triangle cant form a "horizon" (by conventional defintion, not your wackadookie denP one)?
All very simple questions
-
And whats your attempt at a point with the mirrors?
If you'd paid attention you'd understand what I was saying.
I am paying attention
You agreed to one picture
Then disagreed to it days lster.
Now are cuaght and are now trying to introduce a layer of obscurity to hide your failings.
And
Now that youre caught, you are deflecting and dodging and avoiding the very simple question - when i look at a tree, whst does an infinite reflection of two mirrors have to do with anything?
Why does tu-tubes require a vertical plumb level when aligning horizontally is the "trick"?
Why cant you justify that, in a purely geometric examination, a ciricle and triangle cant form a "horizon" (by conventional defintion, not your wackadookie denP one)?
All very simple questions
I'm not caught out. You lot just put stuff up and then don't grasp what I'm saying.
You use angles and then you used a horizontal and parallel view.
I said that was the one but the view is compressed and you lot then go into all kinds of frenzies.
Tunnel vision and eye view compression of background.
You people are throwing up big fluted torch like views from the tube that go over the tree but the opposite happens and this is where you go wrong, in my opinion and how I believe it works.
-
So all the mirror stuff is just 'things appear smaller when further away'.
And your reasoning is this is because there are mirrors everywhere and not because they make up a smaller section of your overall field of view. And it's not retarded?
Nothing to do with mirrors. The mirrors are how your sight works in seeing close to distant and how your vision is compressed more in the distance against close proximity of surrounding light back to your eyes.
The mirrors merely show an analogy of your view.
It doesn't mean objects just physically change at their origin in themselves. It means your vision is impaired by atmospheric reflection over distance creating a compression in that distance all the way back to your vision, where the light takes precedence.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/WfcwXhp/image.jpg)
Ok I know you're playing games now.
Don't feel annoyed when you're overlooked.
-
We ALL understand that the tree doesnt get smaller.
Unfortunately your extremely poor use of english is causing confusion
On top of that, pictures have been orovided to you which you agree and dont agree which contradict what we understand as reality.
Provide your own diagrams and clear all doubt.
-
We ALL understand that the tree doesnt get smaller.
Unfortunately your extremely poor use of english is causing confusion
On top of that, pictures have been orovided to you which you agree and dont agree which contradict what we understand as reality.
Provide your own diagrams and clear all doubt.
When you have people putting up all kinds of stuff to twist and turn everything then don't be surprised when you end up building your own birds nest of confusion.
-
your vision is impaired by atmospheric reflection over distance creating a compression in that distance all the way back to your vision, where the light takes precedence.
No, my vision is fine.
If your vision is impaired by atmospheric reflection over distance creating a compression in that distance all the way back to your vision, where the light takes precedence, this means you have impaired vision, which means you are retarded.
Feel free to continue in this vein. I'll sit and amuse myself reading it and then totally overlook it until you come back nastier and nastier when you can't gain traction in your alt.
-
We ALL understand that the tree doesnt get smaller.
Unfortunately your extremely poor use of english is causing confusion
On top of that, pictures have been orovided to you which you agree and dont agree which contradict what we understand as reality.
Provide your own diagrams and clear all doubt.
When you have people putting up all kinds of stuff to twist and turn everything then don't be surprised when you end up building your own birds nest of confusion.
Draw your own picture then
-
(https://i.ibb.co/wh8QFY4/retarded.jpg)
Aahaha
-
The drawing is 2 dimensional your mirror picture is 3 dimensional. It is retarded to think one applies to the other. You are retarded, so maybe you could show us how it works?
No, it isn't retarded to think one applies to the other. He is trying to do it to pretend the mirrors are smaller.
It is quite easy to do honestly, as I did above.
here it is again (but only 1 set of reflections, rather than loads more:
(https://i.imgur.com/pDOB8eG.png)
But what he provided a picture of shows what he really wants. He wants to pretend the mirrors are some how smaller.
It's not pretending. It's what the mirrors are by sight.
Each mirror image is compressed into the next to become a vanishing point.
Call it whatever you want, it is still you making up excuses to ignore the point.
Notice how with my diagram, the mirror is not magically smaller.
Instead you have the light reflect between the mirrors to take up a smaller angular span?
Something similar happens with the tree as it gets further away, where it takes up a smaller angular span.
And like I have pointed out repeatedly, the same thing happens with the distance between your eye-level and the ground. As the ground is further away, the same distance takes up a smaller angular span.
Again, a simple diagram showing the light which has reflected off the tree and is going towards the eye:
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
No need for any magically compressed tree.
Just simple lines, showing the path of light.
You use angles and then you used a horizontal and parallel view.
I said that was the one but the view is compressed and you lot then go into all kinds of frenzies.
Because you are contradicting yourself.
If it is parallel, that means all you see is that portion of the tree.
I have provided diagram showing how the light gets from the bottom of the tree to the eye. It doesn't magically get compressed.
This shows this "fluted" view you keep rejecting.
This is all so you can maintain your rejection of reality, where you reject that the light from the ground can still go into the tube, as it comes up from below; while not sounding complete insane by saying you would only see 1 inch of the tree.
The problem is it is a direct contradiction.
That "fluted torch like views" that you continually reject are simply the limits from which the light can come in.
Again, if you think we are wrong, draw a diagram, or explain what magic stops the light coming up from below.
When you have people putting up all kinds of stuff to twist and turn everything then don't be surprised when you end up building your own birds nest of confusion.
Have you considered stop putting up all that nonsense which you twist and turn to try to prop up your failed model and failed claims?
Then perhaps people would be less confused.
You can hardly fault others when you repeatedly contradict yourself.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
-
Now all you have to do is to look at what is perceived from that picture instead of us looking at it from a side view.
The clue is in those mirrors.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
Wow
WOW!
You realise the tree represents the actaul tree and SHOULD be full size.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
Now all you have to do is explain how it works for a tree more than 1 inch tall that is on the ground and not floating in the air.
Use mirrors to explain it.
The result is the same as this
(https://i.ibb.co/StzXGjD/wrong.jpg)
You were getting there and then lost it.
Put more effort in.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
Wow
WOW!
You realise the tree represents the actaul tree and SHOULD be full size.
The tree is physically always full size.
The distant vision of it compresses that size.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
Wow
WOW!
You realise the tree represents the actaul tree and SHOULD be full size.
The tree is physically always full size.
The distant vision of it compresses that size.
No sht.
This is amazing.
-
Don't just insult me penguin. Explain it. Tells why the tree physically shrinks. Tell me how the to pictures are different.
(https://i.ibb.co/zSBPHSG/spaz.jpg)
If two people look at the same tree from different distances how does the tree know what size to be?
It doesn't. The vision of each person dictates the compression of the tree from their respective distances.
It has nothing to do with changing the tree itself.
Pretty scary you ask this mind.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
Wow
WOW!
You realise the tree represents the actaul tree and SHOULD be full size.
The tree is physically always full size.
The distant vision of it compresses that size.
No sht.
This is amazing.
At least you now get it.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/xYFD9sR/tree.jpg)
All the trees are the same size.
Now you're getting it.
-
Maybe this would help
(http://)
As funny as that sketch is, it's the truth.
Have a good think about it while you're laughing at the sketch and me.
And this is a perfect example why I keep coming back here. This is amazing.
It is amazing if you use your brain.
Watching you take a parody seriously is more fun.
-
Sceppy must be a computer ai
-
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
-
(https://i.ibb.co/qCRYDWB/cock.jpg)
No they're not.
Compression sees to that.
-
After all the dodging and by having someone else do all the work. We finally have an understanding of how sceppy thinks we see, through a tube at the least. We can plainly see that it is wrong. He can plainly see that it is wrong. I don't think sceppy really believes it but he sees it as a dodge for being able to see the ground, but for that to work we are back to flying trees.
or
Not flying trees, at all.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
you said bingo to this picture
then used your words to contradict.
time to provide your own picture
-
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolphysics.co.uk%2Fage11-14%2FLight%2Ftext%2FPinhole_camera%2Findex.html&psig=AOvVaw1ERI34OazfIkx6vg-yQ4mH&ust=1617723888023000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJjk55655-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF
bored's gone off the edge... (or the theoretical dark on light reflecting crush of haze or something...)
let's refocus on pinholes.
as opposed to glory holes.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
you said bingo to this picture
then used your words to contradict.
time to provide your own picture
Because the parallel and even sight is correct if viewed from the side.
What your eyes perceive is the converging effect, like looking down a funnel but that not being the reality.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/vhCD8k4/last.jpg)
Note that the gradient is extremely steep. Close to 45 degrees but the strange scaling atmospheric reflection over distance creating a compression in that distance all the way back to your vision, where the light takes precedence makes it appear less.
This would not be the case.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/qCRYDWB/cock.jpg)
No they're not.
Compression sees to that.
They very much look parallel and I certainly drew them parallel.
Nothing wrong with that apart from you having the tube high off the ground and the tree high off the ground.
-
Eyes
Eyes!!!!
How do you believe eyeballs work!!!!????
-
fluted compression of reflected vision - aka cross eyed
aahaha
sorry bored, you're surrounded by assholes
haha
-
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolphysics.co.uk%2Fage11-14%2FLight%2Ftext%2FPinhole_camera%2Findex.html&psig=AOvVaw1ERI34OazfIkx6vg-yQ4mH&ust=1617723888023000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJjk55655-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF
bored's gone off the edge... (or the theoretical dark on light reflecting crush of haze or something...)
let's refocus on pinholes.
as opposed to glory holes.
we know he doesn't believe spaceballs exist are are CGI nonsense.
is sceppy of the opinion (OPINION) that EYEballs don't exist?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
And a pure fantasy with no connection to reality.
Why is the tree floating in mid air?
Why is it tiny?
If you want to say you are just showing the visual compression, then why hasn't the distance from the eye line to the ground been compressed?
Again, this is a more honest representation if you want to play this game:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
Notice how the ground curves up as well?
Or do you need it coloured and set up like the previous ones?
(https://i.imgur.com/98k7JgK.png)
Showing how the more distant something is, the smaller it appears.
INCLUDING THE DISTANCE FROM YOUR EYE LINE TO THE GROUND!
Again, YOU CAN SEE THE GROUND!
As for what you see instead of the side view, that would be like on the right side of that image (bound between the purple lines).
You see the tree and the ground.
It has nothing to do with changing the tree itself.
Pretty scary you ask this mind.
No, the "scary" part is you thinking that in order to accurate represent it from a side view and show what is happening you need to shrink the tree.
But we both know why that is. Doing it honestly would mean admitting that you can see the ground, and you can't have that.
I already provided how to explain it all honestly.
The further away an object is, the smaller an angle it will subtend, all based upon the light following straight lines from the object to the eye.
There is no need to shrink the tree.
I could even do it with 2 different observers instead of 2 different trees.
(https://i.ibb.co/qCRYDWB/cock.jpg)
No they're not.
Now you are starting to get it.
Because they aren't parallel, it means they are actually "fluted" like you keep dismissing.
Try drawing the side view diagram, properly too scale showing just how far apart those lines are.
Not flying trees, at all.
So you admit you can see the ground at the base of the tree through the tube?
You admit you can see the ground, even though it is BELOW the tube?
Because the parallel and even sight is correct if viewed from the side.
No, the parallel is correct when viewed from the front, where instead of lines, they appear as points, where the points subtend a particular angle.
When viewed from the side, as a side on view like what has been shown to you repeatedly, they are not parallel.
Instead they diverge.
What your eyes perceive is the converging effect, like looking down a funnel but that not being the reality.
Yes, just like in the diagrams repeatedly provided to you. But you seem to want to force that convergence into reality rather than it merely being a visual effect.
By demanding the tree is drawn small instead of its actual size, you are trying to make that convergence part of reality.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
And a pure fantasy with no connection to reality.
Why is the tree floating in mid air?
Why is it tiny?
If you want to say you are just showing the visual compression, then why hasn't the distance from the eye line to the ground been compressed?
Again, this is a more honest representation if you want to play this game:
(https://i.imgur.com/UkNoQmQ.png)
Notice how the ground curves up as well?
Or do you need it coloured and set up like the previous ones?
(https://i.imgur.com/98k7JgK.png)
Showing how the more distant something is, the smaller it appears.
INCLUDING THE DISTANCE FROM YOUR EYE LINE TO THE GROUND!
Again, YOU CAN SEE THE GROUND!
As for what you see instead of the side view, that would be like on the right side of that image (bound between the purple lines).
You see the tree and the ground.
It has nothing to do with changing the tree itself.
Pretty scary you ask this mind.
No, the "scary" part is you thinking that in order to accurate represent it from a side view and show what is happening you need to shrink the tree.
But we both know why that is. Doing it honestly would mean admitting that you can see the ground, and you can't have that.
I already provided how to explain it all honestly.
The further away an object is, the smaller an angle it will subtend, all based upon the light following straight lines from the object to the eye.
There is no need to shrink the tree.
I could even do it with 2 different observers instead of 2 different trees.
(https://i.ibb.co/qCRYDWB/cock.jpg)
No they're not.
Now you are starting to get it.
Because they aren't parallel, it means they are actually "fluted" like you keep dismissing.
Try drawing the side view diagram, properly too scale showing just how far apart those lines are.
Not flying trees, at all.
So you admit you can see the ground at the base of the tree through the tube?
You admit you can see the ground, even though it is BELOW the tube?
Because the parallel and even sight is correct if viewed from the side.
No, the parallel is correct when viewed from the front, where instead of lines, they appear as points, where the points subtend a particular angle.
When viewed from the side, as a side on view like what has been shown to you repeatedly, they are not parallel.
Instead they diverge.
What your eyes perceive is the converging effect, like looking down a funnel but that not being the reality.
Yes, just like in the diagrams repeatedly provided to you. But you seem to want to force that convergence into reality rather than it merely being a visual effect.
By demanding the tree is drawn small instead of its actual size, you are trying to make that convergence part of reality.
If you pay attention, I asked that bored alt to lower the tree and tube.
The lines are ok for a side view but the front view from the tube creates a different set up, meaning it creates a convergence to the object itself, meaning you look down a perceived funnel vision even though you're looking through a real tunnel vision.
Basically the distance is compressed by vision, not physically, obviously.
-
If you pay attention, I asked that bored alt to lower the tree and tube.
No you didn't you lying little bitch.
Nothing wrong with that apart from you having the tube high off the ground and the tree high off the ground.
That is just you having a sook, it's not you asking me to do anything.
and my reply was
How can you judge how high the tube is. If scale was a thing then the tube is only 1 inch high and the tree needs to be 30 feet in the air or it will be below your line of sight.
If this doesn't make sense then your model doesn't make sense.
So how high do you think the tube is? What if we wanted to draw it to scale so we could be sure? You will have to do that one for your self penguin
You're not interested. You said so.
You're here to create trouble. You said so.
Let me know when you want to join in.
-
If you pay attention, I asked that bored alt to lower the tree and tube.
Which is just avoiding the problem.
The lines are ok for a side view
Then why continue to object?
Why not just accept it and move on.
you look down a perceived funnel vision even though you're looking through a real tunnel vision.
No, you look through a real funnel vision which is perceived as a tunnel vision.
In reality, you have a FOV which subtends some angle.
That is the funnel vision you seem to hate so much.
But regardless of what fancy words you want to try to wrap it up in, you can see the ground.
That is what all this has been about remember?
Who really cares if it is a real funnel vision or just perceived.
The fact remains, you CAN see the ground, even though it is below the tube.
So are you going to just admit that and move on?
-
If you pay attention, I asked that bored alt to lower the tree and tube.
The lines are ok for a side view but the front view from the tube creates a different set up, meaning it creates a convergence to the object itself, meaning you look down a perceived funnel vision even though you're looking through a real tunnel vision.
Basically the distance is compressed by vision, not physically, obviously.
"By visionn not.physically"
Obviously
And obviously everyone but you understood the pictures original intent that by physically, it was showing what was phsuically able to see by drawing the rays of light and distance and field of view.
Obviously.... just not to you.
-
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolphysics.co.uk%2Fage11-14%2FLight%2Ftext%2FPinhole_camera%2Findex.html&psig=AOvVaw1ERI34OazfIkx6vg-yQ4mH&ust=1617723888023000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJjk55655-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF
bored's gone off the edge... (or the theoretical dark on light reflecting crush of haze or something...)
let's refocus on pinholes.
as opposed to glory holes.
we know he doesn't believe spaceballs exist are are CGI nonsense.
is sceppy of the opinion (OPINION) that EYEballs don't exist?
And HERE it is if you wanted to represent what is seen by the eye, this will give you your answer to go along with jackBs angular-distance graph.
Youve responded several times to other peopl.
Why
Why is the pinhole being ignored?
Address this.
-
Sure , I have proven that you are retarded wrong. I have proven that you lie. I have made you change your mind, even if only from one wrong to another.
So you can ignore me all you want.
And every time I try to call you a C-U-N-T the forum changes it to penguin. And I would never call you a penguin you dopey penguin.
My mind hasn't changed. My mind has been firm.
Yo and your pals' attempts to twist things to go your way is all well and good but it means nothing to me in terms of how I know what I'm saying.
-
The lines are ok for a side view
Then why continue to object?
I didn't object to the lines from the side view.
Trying to twist it all does you no favours.
-
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolphysics.co.uk%2Fage11-14%2FLight%2Ftext%2FPinhole_camera%2Findex.html&psig=AOvVaw1ERI34OazfIkx6vg-yQ4mH&ust=1617723888023000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJjk55655-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF
bored's gone off the edge... (or the theoretical dark on light reflecting crush of haze or something...)
let's refocus on pinholes.
as opposed to glory holes.
we know he doesn't believe spaceballs exist are are CGI nonsense.
is sceppy of the opinion (OPINION) that EYEballs don't exist?
And HERE it is if you wanted to represent what is seen by the eye, this will give you your answer to go along with jackBs angular-distance graph.
Youve responded several times to other peopl.
Why
Why is the pinhole being ignored?
Address this.
Explain the pinhole in your own words to tell me what's happening.
-
I did
And provided a picture
What was the confusion or is this a distraction deflection?
present an actual point.
-
My mind hasn't changed. My mind has been firm.
Yo and your pals' attempts to twist things to go your way is all well and good but it means nothing to me in terms of how I know what I'm saying.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs9nKB8/wrongest.jpg)?
Make the tree smaller.
MAKE THE TREE SMALLER HOW?
WHY DON"T YOU MAKE IT SMALLER AND HSOW US WANT YOU WANT TO COMMUNICATE
YOU"RE CONFUSING EVERYONE WITH POOR/ LACK OF COMMUINICATION SKILL
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
For the love of god, can you just answer a simple question and settle this once and for all.
Is it this:
A (https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
Or is it this:
B (https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
A or B?
None.
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
NONE? or ABSOLUTELY?
you do know what the two words mean?
Ok so what is it then?
Draw your picture
learn to communicate
because you're definitely changing your story.
-
I did
And provided a picture
What was the confusion or is this a distraction deflection?
present an actual point.
Explain the pinhole in your own words to tell me what's happening.
-
My mind hasn't changed. My mind has been firm.
Yo and your pals' attempts to twist things to go your way is all well and good but it means nothing to me in terms of how I know what I'm saying.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs9nKB8/wrongest.jpg)?
Make the tree smaller.
MAKE THE TREE SMALLER HOW?
WHY DON"T YOU MAKE IT SMALLER AND HSOW US WANT YOU WANT TO COMMUNICATE
YOU"RE CONFUSING EVERYONE WITH POOR/ LACK OF COMMUINICATION SKILL
So now I'm utterly confused. Do you agree with this:
For the love of god, can you just answer a simple question and settle this once and for all.
Is it this:
A (https://i.imgur.com/bt44Ktj.jpg)
Or is it this:
B (https://i.imgur.com/xlXoFqE.jpg)
A or B?
None.
Way back on page 62 was this :-
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
NONE? or ABSOLUTELY?
you do know what the two words mean?
Ok so what is it then?
Draw your picture
learn to communicate
because you're definitely changing your story.
My story isn't changing. You people all throwing n your posts are what's turning it into a twist fest for you all.
I've explained it but you lot seem to look past it.
Do the jigsaw.
-
those are literally pictures taht you are agreeing and disagreeing to.
pictures
no twisting pictures
now your understanding of how pictures work is up for debate, but pictrues on their own merit given the same misunderstanding for both, should result in the same agree/disagreement.
yet you still fail to maintain any sense of consistency.
keep on failing.
-
I did
And provided a picture
What was the confusion or is this a distraction deflection?
present an actual point.
Explain the pinhole in your own words to tell me what's happening.
amazing
you deleted the very first post in the spammed reply where i actually used words
along with the picture
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolphysics.co.uk%2Fage11-14%2FLight%2Ftext%2FPinhole_camera%2Findex.html&psig=AOvVaw1ERI34OazfIkx6vg-yQ4mH&ust=1617723888023000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJjk55655-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF
bored's gone off the edge... (or the theoretical dark on light reflecting crush of haze or something...)
let's refocus on pinholes.
as opposed to glory holes.
we know he doesn't believe spaceballs exist are are CGI nonsense.
is sceppy of the opinion (OPINION) that EYEballs don't exist?
And HERE it is if you wanted to represent what is seen by the eye, this will give you your answer to go along with jackBs angular-distance graph.
Youve responded several times to other peopl.
Why
Why is the pinhole being ignored?
Address this.
Explain the pinhole in your own words to tell me what's happening.
here's teh whole thing again.
here's the words
quit fking about and address an actual point.
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
-
I did
And provided a picture
What was the confusion or is this a distraction deflection?
present an actual point.
Explain the pinhole in your own words to tell me what's happening.
amazing
you deleted the very first post in the spammed reply where i actually used words
along with the picture
Ok i think i got it
https://images.app.goo.gl/nWrCq3VrZ2MpKda27
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolphysics.co.uk%2Fage11-14%2FLight%2Ftext%2FPinhole_camera%2Findex.html&psig=AOvVaw1ERI34OazfIkx6vg-yQ4mH&ust=1617723888023000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJjk55655-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF
bored's gone off the edge... (or the theoretical dark on light reflecting crush of haze or something...)
let's refocus on pinholes.
as opposed to glory holes.
we know he doesn't believe spaceballs exist are are CGI nonsense.
is sceppy of the opinion (OPINION) that EYEballs don't exist?
And HERE it is if you wanted to represent what is seen by the eye, this will give you your answer to go along with jackBs angular-distance graph.
Youve responded several times to other peopl.
Why
Why is the pinhole being ignored?
Address this.
Explain the pinhole in your own words to tell me what's happening.
here's teh whole thing again.
here's the words
quit fking about and address an actual point.
Pin hole cameras
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
This is worded and diagrammed.
Cant possibly find fault with this...
Oh man so excited
Explain the pinhole camera and what it actually does.
In your own words.
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
-
Do the jigsaw.
Ever tried doing a jigsaw without having any idea what the completed picture should look like. Only to realise that all the jigsaw pieces are taken from different pictures at random.
Based on his cobstant dodging, i doubt sceppy has ever tried anything himself
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
-
Do the jigsaw.
Ever tried doing a jigsaw without having any idea what the completed picture should look like. Only to realise that all the jigsaw pieces are taken from different pictures at random.
Only piece the one's that match and fit.
Your way is the very reason you struggle.
-
Do the jigsaw.
Ever tried doing a jigsaw without having any idea what the completed picture should look like. Only to realise that all the jigsaw pieces are taken from different pictures at random.
Based on his cobstant dodging, i doubt sceppy has ever tried anything himself
The stuff I've tred is exactly the same stuff that anyone can try and for very little to no outlay depending on experiment.
I seriously do not believe any of you have even attempted to do any.
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
-
Yo and your pals' attempts to twist things to go your way
The only one trying to twist things here is you.
You have been doing this for so long it isn't funny.
You went down this path of tubes, claiming you cannot see the ground through such tubes because it is below the tube.
You did this by appealing to a magical tunnel vision where the light comes in parallel. Not just that being visual, but actually, physically coming in parallel as is required to stop light from the ground getting in.
But now you have effectively admitted that is purely visual and you CAN see the ground and things like a tree through the tube.
You accept that the ground near the tree is visible.
That means you can see the ground even though it is below.
So this entire exercise has been an entirely pointless exercise in trying to twist whatever you can to pretend you are correct, and you have defeated yourself.
And as Kabool has shown, you have been reducing to directly contradicting yourself to avoid this complete failure of yours.
My story isn't changing.
Stop lying. It has quite clearly be shown that it is changing.
You need to keep changing it to pretend your position has any connection to reality.
So again, why not just accept the fact that your initial claim on this was wrong and move on?
If not, care to explain how we can't see the ground that is below the tube, even though you have admitted we can?
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
-
My story isn't changing.
Stop lying. It has quite clearly be shown that it is changing.
You need to keep changing it to pretend your position has any connection to reality.
My story isn't changing.
You people keep coming at me with different scenarios and I'm merely edging you towards what I'm saying rather than get entwined in the twisting nature of the posts, between the posse.
-
So we understand it but see where the concept cannot be viable :-
You obviously don't understand it otherwise you would not have drawn so many pictures.
-
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
I thought he did.
The light comes in at an angle, goes through the pinhole, continues at that angle and hits the screen.
It doesn't all magically come in parallel to the pinhole.
My story isn't changing.
Ignoring it wont magically mean you haven't.
You people keep coming at me with different scenarios
Yes, to show you the problem with what you claim, and then instead of accepting that you are wrong, you just contradict yourself by changing your story to address the other scenario.
Again, this comes back to doing your jigsaw. You don't seem to want to. Instead you only seem to want to look at once piece at a time, because as soon as you start trying to look at multiple pieces it becomes quite apparent that they don't fit together.
Now again, why don't you just admit that you can see the ground even though it is below the tube so we can move on?
If you don't want to accept that, explain just where we see this magical floating tree?
If you were honest and not actually changing your story, you would have no problem admitting the fact we can see the ground even though it is below the tube.
-
Do you understand Santa? Do you have to believe in Santa to understand who/what he is?
Do you know who or what he is?
-
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
I thought he did.
The light comes in at an angle, goes through the pinhole, continues at that angle and hits the screen.
It doesn't all magically come in parallel to the pinhole.
So you're talking about refracted light, right?
-
So you're talking about refracted light, right?
No. We are talking about light going in straight lines.
That should be clear with what I said.
Stop playing dumb and deal with that fact.
Again, are you going to admit that you can see the ground, even though it is below the "level" of the tube?
If not, are you going to admit that you can see parts of the tree that are below the "level" of the tube?
If not, will you at least be somewhat honest and decent for once and clearly state your position that it is impossible to see anything that is below the level of the tube?
-
Haha
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
-
So you're talking about refracted light, right?
No. We are talking about light going in straight lines.
That should be clear with what I said.
Stop playing dumb and deal with that fact.
Again, are you going to admit that you can see the ground, even though it is below the "level" of the tube?
If not, are you going to admit that you can see parts of the tree that are below the "level" of the tube?
If not, will you at least be somewhat honest and decent for once and clearly state your position that it is impossible to see anything that is below the level of the tube?
It's you that's twisting stuff, not me.
I stated my stance with the level sight from a tube over a gradient.
This was the argument.
I've yet to see a legitimate rebuttal.
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/M6t6ptB/2.png)
You're right that I don't understand, gonna need more sponge mirror atmosphere density compression to make this one work. It's gotta be magnets? air
Not atmospherically tight.
Everything has porosity.
It's just a case of which molecular structure can penetrate.
This is the key.
But the tree is upside down.
Not flying trees, at all.
It's up to you if you want to put a tree upside down but that's not what you observe. And this is key.
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
the "image" yes, not the tree, and not the field of view.
do YOU accept the actual tree is still the same size and the representation of the diagram shows a full sized tree, at distance XX, and the light rays being the arrowed lines, and the gap between the arrowed is the "field of view"?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/M6t6ptB/2.png)
You're right that I don't understand, gonna need more sponge mirror atmosphere density compression to make this one work. It's gotta be magnets? air
Not atmospherically tight.
Everything has porosity.
It's just a case of which molecular structure can penetrate.
This is the key.
But the tree is upside down.
Not flying trees, at all.
It's up to you if you want to put a tree upside down but that's not what you observe. And this is key.
although this particular diagram is incorrect, as a joke, the "captured" image is going to be inverted.
your brain flips it.
wel...normal people with normal brains have it flipped.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/does-your-brain-really-have-the-power-to-see-the-world-5905180
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
the "image" yes, not the tree, and not the field of view.
do YOU accept the tree is still the same size and the representation of the diagram shows a full sized tree, at distance XX, and the light rays being the arrowed lines, and the gap between the arrowed is the "field of view"?
The tree is naturally the same size in it's own physical form. Why even argue that.
What I saying is, it is compressed to your vision over distance.
That's all I've been saying, so what's the issue?
-
It's you that's twisting stuff, not me.
No, it is entirely you.
You wanted to claim we can't see the horizon for a RE.
As part of that, you wanted to pretend we cannot see anything below level, and repeatedly asserted that if you look through a level tube you can't see the ground because it is below the tube.
Your argument, and even the stance you have just made, requires that to be an absolute; that if something is below the tube, regardless of how far below, YOU CANNOT SEE IT!
As soon as you don't have that absolute, and instead your ability to see the object depends upon how far away it is and how far below the tube it is, then your argument fails.
That is because you can then have the ground get far enough away, but not too far below, such that it is visible, and thus your ability to see it depends upon your FOV, and the factors of the ground.
I stated my stance with the level sight from a tube over a gradient.
I've yet to see a legitimate rebuttal.
Because you choose to ignore these rebuttal and continually twist and spout garbage.
All it takes to rebut that claim is this simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
This diagram, clearly shows that your ability to see such a downwards gradient through a level tube depends upon the FOV of that tube and the gradient.
Like I said, the only way you can pretend this doesn't apply is if you claim that you don't have a FOV, and that you cannot see anything below the tube.
So because you cannot honestly justify your argument you continually twist and turn.
You pretend that you can't see anything at all below the tube, appealing to a magical tunnel vision, even entirely accepting a diagram which in no way depicts reality. But then when it comes to looking at a distant object, that claim comes back to bite you in the arse, where in order to be consistent you would need to claim that if you look through a distant object, like a tree, through a 1 inch tube you only see 1 inch of the object. But because that is so obviously BS, you need to twist and turn to pretend that it is now magically compressed, effectively that you CAN see objects below the tube and thus that your argument is pure garbage.
Rather than accept that you are wrong, and that to try to defend your indefensible position you need to contradict yourself, you just want to try to keep the 2 issues separate so you can pretend there is no problem and likewise you refuse to address extremely simple question which show this contradiction.
The tree is naturally the same size in it's own physical form. Why even argue that.
Because that is key to your contradiction.
By accepting that the tree is the same physical size, it means accepting that a side view is something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
The light comes from the bottom of the tree, travels in a straight line, and enters the tube (for the distant tree).
This means the light from below the level of the tube can get into the tube and reach your eye.
That means the light from objects like the ground, can still go into the tube and reach your eye, even if it is below the tube.
This means you can see the ground even if it is below the tube.
It means you either have this side view, where you show things with their actual size and light travels in a straight line:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
Or you have this side view, where you show things as their "compressed" size for a particular viewer:
(https://i.imgur.com/98k7JgK.png)
Either way, YOU CAN SEE THE GROUND! and that means your claim is wrong.
Your problem is that you want to pretend the tree is compressed, but that the distance between the "eye-level" and the ground isn't, which would require a floating tree.
Now stop with all the twisting and put your 2 jigsaw pieces together.
Either accept we can see things below the level of the tube, including the ground; or claim we can only see 1 inch of the tree, and the rest is either above or below the level of the tube and thus not visible.
-
your brain must be on loop and reached the limits of its AI programming.
these are my words as noted by my awesome typos.
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Can you explain the pinhole camera in your own words.
Just explain why it happens due to this pinhole camera eye ball.
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You threw it out so at least explain what exactly is supposed to be happening.
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
the "image" yes, not the tree, and not the field of view.
do YOU accept the tree is still the same size and the representation of the diagram shows a full sized tree, at distance XX, and the light rays being the arrowed lines, and the gap between the arrowed is the "field of view"?
The tree is naturally the same size in it's own physical form. Why even argue that.
What I saying is, it is compressed to your vision over distance.
That's all I've been saying, so what's the issue?
Because you say the most ridiculous things.
No one knows what your intention is.
We "know" what youve been saying.
The porblem is it makes no sense because you refuse to use english properly.
Please repeat what i said in your own words so we have a rosetta stone and baseline to move this forward.
You repeating the same word salad used before has no meaning until we can translate it to english.
Does a pinhole accruately describe the diagrams (the correct ones) by Bored?
Does a pinhole show how eyss percieve close = large and far = small?
-
You wanted to claim we can't see the horizon for a RE.
I massively stand by that. You would never have any horizon on your so called globe.
-
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
[/quote]
the "image" yes, not the tree, and not the field of view.
[/quote] Is the tree in the image?
If it is then it is compressed by sight like the image. As part of that image.
We "know" what youve been saying.
The porblem is it makes no sense because you refuse to use english properly.
Does a pinhole accruately describe the diagrams (the correct ones) by Bored?
Does a pinhole show how eyss percieve close = large and far = small?
You've still to describe why you're using a pinhole.
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/427bVkD/3.png)
Explain it in your own words.
-
This is what we believe.
(https://i.ibb.co/N78t6xt/4.png)
You need one of these to be true, or you risk contradicting yourself.
(https://i.ibb.co/RQjKzdD/7.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/QKg2ZzD/6.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/427bVkD/3.png)
Forget your upside down images and concentrate on what you actually see from your tube/tunnel vision.
-
Forget your upside down images and concentrate on what you actually see from your tube/tunnel vision.
Do you need to give a different explanation for why a pinhole projection works? Shouldn't the same explanation work, It does for my version.
A level tube giving tunnel vision, looking over distance captures the image in that distance as compressed to the eye view.
If you want to show me the pinhole version then explain it in that context.
-
You wanted to claim we can't see the horizon for a RE.
I massively stand by that. You would never have any horizon on your so called globe.
And there you go ignoring everything else.
That is your baseless assertion that you wouldn't see the horizon.
But we aren't discussing that now, you had your chance for that.
We are discussing the view through a level tube.
An extremely simple question was asked, a question which cuts right to the heart of your contradiction, your twisting and manipulation.
Can you see something that is below the level of the tube if it is far enough away?
This is where you directly contradict yourself.
You claim you cannot possibly see the ground on the globe or a downwards slope, and even to an extent admitted it for a hypothetical FE, all because that ground is BELOW the level of the tube.
You claim that it being below is enough to hide it.
This relies upon it being an absolute, that merely being below the level of the tube will hide it and thus nothing below the level of the tube will be visible.
As soon as you make it not absolute, and instead dependent on distance or some other fact, it means that it is potentially possible to see the ground through the tube, even on a RE or a downwards slope.
But then when it comes to the tree, you claim you can see more than just the 1 inch, which means you can see part of the tree BELOW the tube.
But you can't have it both ways.
Either you can see things below the level of the tube and thus can see the tree and the ground; or you can't, and thus only see 1 physical inch of that tree. Not your magical compressed inch, a physical inch, as if you went up to the tree and looked through the tube at point blank range.
So which is it?
-
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
Is the tree in the image?
If it is then it is compressed by sight like the image. As part of that image.
We "know" what youve been saying.
The porblem is it makes no sense because you refuse to use english properly.
Does a pinhole accruately describe the diagrams (the correct ones) by Bored?
Does a pinhole show how eyss percieve close = large and far = small?
You've still to describe why you're using a pinhole.
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
Your eyeball is a version of a pinhole you dolt.
It was said very clearly and specifically.
Your eyeball works
Like
A
Pinhole camera
Your compressing vision is explained by how a pinhole camera works.
Not how your word salad says.
But simply by how a pinhole works.
The tube and your tunnel vision do not compress vision.
Your pinhole eyeball compresses vision.
The tube, as pointed out in manymany (we re on pg 142 now and boreds ref was from pg60something) times now is that the tube limits field of view.
Youre arguing triangles again.
Basic triangles.
Quit repeating your nonsense compressing vision and say yes or no that your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
-
You wanted to claim we can't see the horizon for a RE.
I massively stand by that. You would never have any horizon on your so called globe.
And there you go ignoring everything else.
That is your baseless assertion that you wouldn't see the horizon.
But we aren't discussing that now, you had your chance for that.
Then don't change it up. Stick to one thing. And...as for having my chance. I'll do what I feel I need to do, as and when.
We are discussing the view through a level tube.
Then let's discuss it and only it.
A view through a level tube.
Let's see you stay on that path.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/s6ZRV08/aa.jpg)
Your internet friends are starting to get bored with you.
-
Your eyeball is a version of a pinhole you dolt.
It was said very clearly and specifically.
Your eyeball works
Like
A
Pinhole camera
Your compressing vision is explained by how a pinhole camera works.
Not how your word salad says.
But simply by how a pinhole works.
Then explain how the pinhole works as your eye.
That's what I was asking but you overlooked it as per usual and go to square one, like always.
The tube and your tunnel vision do not compress vision.
Your pinhole eyeball compresses vision.
You seem to be getting there.
The tube, as pointed out in manymany (we re on pg 142 now and boreds ref was from pg60something) times now is that the tube limits field of view.
Youre arguing triangles again.
Basic triangles.
Quit repeating your nonsense compressing vision and say yes or no that your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
One minute you appear to be getting a grip and then you go into start again mode.
Put some real effort in.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/s6ZRV08/aa.jpg)
Your internet friends are starting to get bored with you.
I know you need to dodge this one. You claim JJA faked his pictures by tilting the tube. He could have only done that if the tube can be tilted. Your theory for a level tube doesn't work for tilted tubes?
I have no clue what you're trying to say.
-
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
You and your tubes. ::)
A tube and a pinhole are topologically identical, that's why.
-
this is amazing
AMAZING!
-
Your eyeball is a version of a pinhole you dolt.
It was said very clearly and specifically.
Your eyeball works
Like
A
Pinhole camera
Your compressing vision is explained by how a pinhole camera works.
Not how your word salad says.
But simply by how a pinhole works.
Then explain how the pinhole works as your eye.
That's what I was asking but you overlooked it as per usual and go to square one, like always.
The tube and your tunnel vision do not compress vision.
Your pinhole eyeball compresses vision.
You seem to be getting there.
The tube, as pointed out in manymany (we re on pg 142 now and boreds ref was from pg60something) times now is that the tube limits field of view.
Youre arguing triangles again.
Basic triangles.
Quit repeating your nonsense compressing vision and say yes or no that your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
One minute you appear to be getting a grip and then you go into start again mode.
Put some real effort in.
YOUR EYEBALL IS A PIN HOLE CAMERA
EYEBALL
PINHOLE
https://images.app.goo.gl/Wk8xhFgCWQJL9zycA
-
I have no clue what you're trying to say.
So many of your claims rely on 'through a level tube' vision as if this is the only way anything can be viewed. What fundamental property of tubes makes them always seek there level?
My argument was due to a level tube.
This is where the argument needs to be argued against but it's been changed and twisted into this mish mash.
-
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
You and your tubes. ::)
A tube and a pinhole are topologically identical, that's why.
Then explain it all and let's get some clarity.
-
Your eyeball is a version of a pinhole you dolt.
It was said very clearly and specifically.
Your eyeball works
Like
A
Pinhole camera
Your compressing vision is explained by how a pinhole camera works.
Not how your word salad says.
But simply by how a pinhole works.
Then explain how the pinhole works as your eye.
That's what I was asking but you overlooked it as per usual and go to square one, like always.
The tube and your tunnel vision do not compress vision.
Your pinhole eyeball compresses vision.
You seem to be getting there.
The tube, as pointed out in manymany (we re on pg 142 now and boreds ref was from pg60something) times now is that the tube limits field of view.
Youre arguing triangles again.
Basic triangles.
Quit repeating your nonsense compressing vision and say yes or no that your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
One minute you appear to be getting a grip and then you go into start again mode.
Put some real effort in.
YOUR EYEBALL IS A PIN HOLE CAMERA
EYEBALL
PINHOLE
https://images.app.goo.gl/Wk8xhFgCWQJL9zycA
Explain what is happening in your own words.
I have a level tube looking out at 6 feet in height into the distance.
The farther away I move the more a distant object visually compresses to fit the tube.
I explained this so now you tell me what your vision is.
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
-
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
You and your tubes. ::)
A tube and a pinhole are topologically identical, that's why.
Then explain it all and let's get some clarity.
I just did. Do you not understand what 'topologically identical' means?
-
bored, can you add an eyeball-pinhole AFTER the tu-tube?
-
Then don't change it up. Stick to one thing.
At which point you just do whatever you can to avoid it, typically just ignoring the simple questions, like you are doing now.
We are discussing the view through a level tube.
Then let's discuss it and only it.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
Again, if the answer is yes, this means your argument that you can't see the ground because it is below is false.
In reality it would be if the ground is far enough away, but not far enough down, you can see it, and thus you actually need to do the math to show you can't. The math I already did and showed you can.
If the answer is no, that means you cannot see any part of the tree that is below the tube. That means you can only see 1 inch of the tree through a 1 inch tube.
So which is it?
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
Correct, the tube is not my eyeball. My eye ball is at the back of the dark tube, looking through that tube like looking through a dark tunnel.
Tunnel vision on the level, in his case.
From the other end of that tunnel is the biggest amount of light.
Let's call this the start of the light tunnel.
You see the biggest part of your view at the very start f that end dark tunnel to the very start of the attached light tunnel.
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
All that's happened is, compression due to more dense matter/molecule build, horizontally to the target, creating a sort of back to front telescopic return mindset.
As if you were looking through the front to back of a scope.
-
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
You and your tubes. ::)
A tube and a pinhole are topologically identical, that's why.
Then explain it all and let's get some clarity.
I just did. Do you not understand what 'topologically identical' means?
Explain the tube and explain the pinhole.
Can't you do it without looking it up and coming back with nothing?
-
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
-
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
You are confusing reality and visual again.
What you see visually, is as if it is just a small dot, with light coming in straight towards you.
But what happens in reality, is a cone.
The easiest way to tell is that the further away an object is, the more you can see of it.
If it truly was equal, then you would see an equal amount of the object, regardless of distance.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the true that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
Correct, the tube is not my eyeball. My eye ball is at the back of the dark tube, looking through that tube like looking through a dark tunnel.
Tunnel vision on the level, in his case.
From the other end of that tunnel is the biggest amount of light.
Let's call this the start of the light tunnel.
You see the biggest part of your view at the very start f that end dark tunnel to the very start of the attached light tunnel.
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
All that's happened is, compression due to more dense matter/molecule build, horizontally to the target, creating a sort of back to front telescopic return mindset.
As if you were looking through the front to back of a scope.
No
The pinhole camera is your eye and is why far looks small and close looks big.
Angles
Triangles
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
-
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
You and your tubes. ::)
A tube and a pinhole are topologically identical, that's why.
Then explain it all and let's get some clarity.
I just did. Do you not understand what 'topologically identical' means?
Explain the tube and explain the pinhole.
Can't you do it without looking it up and coming back with nothing?
You have to actually ask a question if you want an answer. Explain the tube? Why don't you tell me what you need explained about a tube.
Did you not look up 'topologically identical'? Just Google it and read it. If you still don't understand, ask about what part confuses you.
Topologically identical isn't a hard concept, you can put in a LITTLE work here, can't you? That is if you are honestly and legitimately interested in learning.
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
Correct, the tube is not my eyeball. My eye ball is at the back of the dark tube, looking through that tube like looking through a dark tunnel.
Tunnel vision on the level, in his case.
From the other end of that tunnel is the biggest amount of light.
Let's call this the start of the light tunnel.
You see the biggest part of your view at the very start f that end dark tunnel to the very start of the attached light tunnel.
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
All that's happened is, compression due to more dense matter/molecule build, horizontally to the target, creating a sort of back to front telescopic return mindset.
As if you were looking through the front to back of a scope.
No
The pinhole camera is your eye and is why far looks small and close looks big.
Angles
Triangles
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
Not sure why you keep mentioning triangles.
-
I'm using a tube, like I started off with.
Level.
Tunnel vision to the object.
So, out of that can you tell me where your pinhole comes into it.
You and your tubes. ::)
A tube and a pinhole are topologically identical, that's why.
Then explain it all and let's get some clarity.
I just did. Do you not understand what 'topologically identical' means?
Explain the tube and explain the pinhole.
Can't you do it without looking it up and coming back with nothing?
You have to actually ask a question if you want an answer. Explain the tube? Why don't you tell me what you need explained about a tube.
Did you not look up 'topologically identical'? Just Google it and read it. If you still don't understand, ask about what part confuses you.
Topologically identical isn't a hard concept, you can put in a LITTLE work here, can't you? That is if you are honestly and legitimately interested in learning.
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
Unless you've got some truth's to tell and show then you are reliant on the stories handed to you that you have not verified as a truth.
That's not learning, that's reliance and parroting.
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
Correct, the tube is not my eyeball. My eye ball is at the back of the dark tube, looking through that tube like looking through a dark tunnel.
Tunnel vision on the level, in his case.
From the other end of that tunnel is the biggest amount of light.
Let's call this the start of the light tunnel.
You see the biggest part of your view at the very start f that end dark tunnel to the very start of the attached light tunnel.
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
All that's happened is, compression due to more dense matter/molecule build, horizontally to the target, creating a sort of back to front telescopic return mindset.
As if you were looking through the front to back of a scope.
No
The pinhole camera is your eye and is why far looks small and close looks big.
Angles
Triangles
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
Not sure why you keep mentioning triangles.
if you looked at the image of a pinhole camera you would know why I and jackB keeps mentioning triangles (angles).
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
Correct, the tube is not my eyeball. My eye ball is at the back of the dark tube, looking through that tube like looking through a dark tunnel.
Tunnel vision on the level, in his case.
From the other end of that tunnel is the biggest amount of light.
Let's call this the start of the light tunnel.
You see the biggest part of your view at the very start f that end dark tunnel to the very start of the attached light tunnel.
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
All that's happened is, compression due to more dense matter/molecule build, horizontally to the target, creating a sort of back to front telescopic return mindset.
As if you were looking through the front to back of a scope.
No
The pinhole camera is your eye and is why far looks small and close looks big.
Angles
Triangles
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
Not sure why you keep mentioning triangles.
at the same time,
your poor attempt to deflect reveals yet again you are a POS.
answer the questions so we can understand denP better and move forward.
unless moving forward is not what your intent is... which is funny when you scoff that i'm "always returning to the beginning".
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
-
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
You mean as long as whatever you are "learning" matches the BS you think is true, whereas if it shows you are wrong, you will reject it and aren't interested in learning at all?
For example, you have no interest in learning that your claim that you can't see the ground is wrong. So you continually dodge questions made to help you learn, by showing the contradiction in your position.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
-
You have to actually ask a question if you want an answer. Explain the tube? Why don't you tell me what you need explained about a tube.
Did you not look up 'topologically identical'? Just Google it and read it. If you still don't understand, ask about what part confuses you.
Topologically identical isn't a hard concept, you can put in a LITTLE work here, can't you? That is if you are honestly and legitimately interested in learning.
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
Unless you've got some truth's to tell and show then you are reliant on the stories handed to you that you have not verified as a truth.
That's not learning, that's reliance and parroting.
So you have what, decided that 'topologically identical' is a concept that isn't based on truth and refuse to even try to understand it? Because I mentioned it?
You haven't shown the capability or interest in learning a single thing in any of these discussions. This is just the latest example. Even basic math concepts scare you just because a 'round earther' brought them up.
Will you stop eating donuts and drinking from coffee mugs if I tell you those are topologically identical as well? Evil global donuts...
-
the compression happens at the pinhole WHERE YOUR EYEBALL IS.
the tube is exterior to YOUR EYEBALL (AKA THE PINHOLE).
the tube has nothing to do with how compression of light happens, becuase the tube is not your EYEBALL, and people with or without the tube still see the tree of the same angular size.
because
THE TUBE
IS NOT
YOUR
EYEBALL
Correct, the tube is not my eyeball. My eye ball is at the back of the dark tube, looking through that tube like looking through a dark tunnel.
Tunnel vision on the level, in his case.
From the other end of that tunnel is the biggest amount of light.
Let's call this the start of the light tunnel.
You see the biggest part of your view at the very start f that end dark tunnel to the very start of the attached light tunnel.
What you see at the end of it is the smallest return of light because it gives the appearance of a cone effect but in reality it is equal.
All that's happened is, compression due to more dense matter/molecule build, horizontally to the target, creating a sort of back to front telescopic return mindset.
As if you were looking through the front to back of a scope.
No
The pinhole camera is your eye and is why far looks small and close looks big.
Angles
Triangles
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
Not sure why you keep mentioning triangles.
if you looked at the image of a pinhole camera you would know why I and jackB keeps mentioning triangles (angles).
I'm still waiting for a worded explanation from your own words.
Tell me what you think is going on and why.
-
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Nope.
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
I've said many a time that your vision converges to a point.
It's the entire purpose as to why we have a vanishing point.
-
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
You mean as long as whatever you are "learning" matches the BS you think is true, whereas if it shows you are wrong, you will reject it and aren't interested in learning at all?
For example, you have no interest in learning that your claim that you can't see the ground is wrong. So you continually dodge questions made to help you learn, by showing the contradiction in your position.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
What are you trying to show with this picture and using a tube that is clearly not on the level?
-
You haven't shown the capability or interest in learning a single thing in any of these discussions. This is just the latest example. Even basic math concepts scare you just because a 'round earther' brought them up.
No, not at all. Nothing like that scares me.
If I saw an inkling of potential truth in the stuff I'm arguing, I wouldn't be arguing against it.
You people do very little to aid that, in fact you people serve to steer people away from the global narrative just by the way you go on.
You got all excited when you thought you could dupe me with the tube experiment.
When I asked for further clarification by you, you went into a frenzy and refused.
Let's put it this way.
If I was doing it and I believed I'd done it legit and you asked me to clarify with little added extras to verify, I'd be only too willing to shut you up.
You don't seem very willing to shut me up yet go into spasms about me being wrong.
All you're doing is verifying that I'm correct.
Since then it's been a mish mash of all kinds of attempts to sway from the original set up.
You have the equipment which costs little to nothing. You have the gradient.
What's stopping you shutting me up?
-
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
You mean as long as whatever you are "learning" matches the BS you think is true, whereas if it shows you are wrong, you will reject it and aren't interested in learning at all?
For example, you have no interest in learning that your claim that you can't see the ground is wrong. So you continually dodge questions made to help you learn, by showing the contradiction in your position.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
What are you trying to show with this picture and using a tube that is clearly not on the level?
That has already been explained to you.
The tube in this picture is level.
I am asking if you can see the parts of the tree that are below level, providing the lines clearly showing how the light would need to come up from below.
Now how about you stop with the deflection and just answer the question?
You state that even if an object is far enough away horizontally, it can't be seen if it is below the tube.
Are you going to commit to this and state that you cannot see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
-
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
You mean as long as whatever you are "learning" matches the BS you think is true, whereas if it shows you are wrong, you will reject it and aren't interested in learning at all?
For example, you have no interest in learning that your claim that you can't see the ground is wrong. So you continually dodge questions made to help you learn, by showing the contradiction in your position.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
What are you trying to show with this picture and using a tube that is clearly not on the level?
That has already been explained to you.
The tube in this picture is level.
I am asking if you can see the parts of the tree that are below level, providing the lines clearly showing how the light would need to come up from below.
Now how about you stop with the deflection and just answer the question?
You state that even if an object is far enough away horizontally, it can't be seen if it is below the tube.
Are you going to commit to this and state that you cannot see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
-
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
Why would it not happen, when everything you've told us so far shows that it would.
Not with that picture.
You've tried to play so many silly games with pictures, you've lost the plot. But then again you're bored and are not bothered, plus you're here to cause trouble.
That's correct, right?
-
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
You mean as long as whatever you are "learning" matches the BS you think is true, whereas if it shows you are wrong, you will reject it and aren't interested in learning at all?
For example, you have no interest in learning that your claim that you can't see the ground is wrong. So you continually dodge questions made to help you learn, by showing the contradiction in your position.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
What are you trying to show with this picture and using a tube that is clearly not on the level?
That has already been explained to you.
The tube in this picture is level.
I am asking if you can see the parts of the tree that are below level, providing the lines clearly showing how the light would need to come up from below.
Now how about you stop with the deflection and just answer the question?
You state that even if an object is far enough away horizontally, it can't be seen if it is below the tube.
Are you going to commit to this and state that you cannot see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
Again, just directly answer the question.
Forget about the lines in the image as they are just to show the bottom of the tree is below the level of the tube.
The bottom of the tree is BELOW the level of the tube.
So do you claim that because it is below the level of the tube it cannot be seen, regardless of how far away it is?
-
Why do you keep saying i havent explained the pinhole?
I have used manybwords along with the diagramwhat part of my word description confuses you?
-
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
If it's a pinhole, do you accept that the image seen through it has to be compressed?
the "image" yes, not the tree, and not the field of view.
do YOU accept the actual tree is still the same size and the representation of the diagram shows a full sized tree, at distance XX, and the light rays being the arrowed lines, and the gap between the arrowed is the "field of view"?
-
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Nope.
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
I've said many a time that your vision converges to a point.
It's the entire purpose as to why we have a vanishing point.
If you dont need a tube, then why aee you saying the tube compresses the fluted viaion reflection and prevents you from seeing the far away foot of jackbs tree?
Vision converges BECAUSE your eye is a pinhole camera
Yes or no?
-
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
Why would it not happen, when everything you've told us so far shows that it would.
Not with that picture.
You've tried to play so many silly games with pictures, you've lost the plot. But then again you're bored and are not bothered, plus you're here to cause trouble.
That's correct, right?
I'm bored too. But, can you elaborate on how eyesight works in your world? I'm not really following but am guessing you'll ask me to suspend my disbelief yet again, right?
-
Yes, It's causing you no end of trouble having your lies and contradictions pointed out to everyone.
Absolutely no trouble at all for me. You carry on with whatever takes your fancy.
-
Why do you keep saying i havent explained the pinhole?
I have used manybwords along with the diagramwhat part of my word description confuses you?
Because you haven't explained anything.
You looked up pinhole and slung it out there.
Let's see you describe what you're saying.
Explain it all.
-
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Nope.
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
I've said many a time that your vision converges to a point.
It's the entire purpose as to why we have a vanishing point.
If you dont need a tube, then why aee you saying the tube compresses the fluted viaion reflection and prevents you from seeing the far away foot of jackbs tree?
Vision converges BECAUSE your eye is a pinhole camera
Yes or no?
Do you accept the picture compresses to your vision?
-
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
Why would it not happen, when everything you've told us so far shows that it would.
Not with that picture.
You've tried to play so many silly games with pictures, you've lost the plot. But then again you're bored and are not bothered, plus you're here to cause trouble.
That's correct, right?
I'm bored too. But, can you elaborate on how eyesight works in your world? I'm not really following but am guessing you'll ask me to suspend my disbelief yet again, right?
I won't ask you do do anything.
Do what you feel is right for you.
-
I'm bored too. But, can you elaborate on how eyesight works in your world? I'm not really following but am guessing you'll ask me to suspend my disbelief yet again, right?
He believes this
(https://i.ibb.co/2tyg12H/bbb.jpg)
But doesn't want it shown as a picture, because it appears retarded. This is how it has to be if we follow his description.
(https://i.ibb.co/RbzRck1/spaz.jpg)
Bingo.
+
I've said many a time that your vision converges to a point.
It's the entire purpose as to why we have a vanishing point.
Put the tree inside the far end of the triangle instead of out of it.
-
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
Why would it not happen, when everything you've told us so far shows that it would.
Not with that picture.
You've tried to play so many silly games with pictures, you've lost the plot. But then again you're bored and are not bothered, plus you're here to cause trouble.
That's correct, right?
I'm bored too. But, can you elaborate on how eyesight works in your world? I'm not really following but am guessing you'll ask me to suspend my disbelief yet again, right?
I won't ask you do do anything.
Do what you feel is right for you.
Do you even accept the image of the tree is inverted at the back of your retina and your brain turns it correct way up? You do know this, right?
-
You haven't shown the capability or interest in learning a single thing in any of these discussions. This is just the latest example. Even basic math concepts scare you just because a 'round earther' brought them up.
No, not at all. Nothing like that scares me.
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself. I haven't see you learn a single fact or idea in any of these discussions, all you do is deny, deny, deny.
What's stopping you shutting me up?
The fact that you have shown you will blanket deny anything we do, and that you won't even show us how you want your experiment run because you're too afraid to perform it.
I could fly you here, show you my setup, let you look through the tube with your own eyes and you would still claim I was somehow lying and faking because it wouldn't show you what you expect.
I do experiments here if they are fun to do, I'm not your monkey, I have zero obligation to add whatever gears and magnets and plumb bobs you demand and whine about. You want them done 'right' then do them yourself. Oh yeah... you can't. Not my problem.
-
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Nope.
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
I've said many a time that your vision converges to a point.
It's the entire purpose as to why we have a vanishing point.
If you dont need a tube, then why aee you saying the tube compresses the fluted viaion reflection and prevents you from seeing the far away foot of jackbs tree?
Vision converges BECAUSE your eye is a pinhole camera
Yes or no?
Do you accept the picture compresses to your vision?
Deflection
It is very clearly stated
- The eyeball is a pinhole camera
yes or no?
It has nothing to do with appealing to an authority or copypaste.
It is or it isnt.
The pinhole accurately shows how sight-distance-things-far-look-small all work.
Yes no?
-
Absolutely no trouble at all for me.
It seems like quite substantial trouble, as you still refuse to address a simple question directly, and need to dodge it as much as possible as it gets right to the heart of your contradiction.
Do you know why the tree was brought up in the first place?
To expose the insanity of your position.
But rather than accept that and admit you were wrong, you just outright contradict yourself.
Again, your entire argument is based upon not being able to see anything that is below the level of the tube.
You have explicitly confirmed this in 2 ways.
First by saying that the image provided of the tunnel vision is absolutely correct.
This was done in this post of yours:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
You (in the quote chain in that post) rejected the angular FOV provided by me which would allow you to see things below the level of the tube, and replaced it by this magic tunnel vision of yours.
Note that in this side view, which you agreed with absolutely, the distance between the straight line, level through the tube, and the ground, does not change, so this image is not showing any compression.
Again, you rely on this to claim you cannot see the ground, as it is below the tube.
This means it is showing what is in reality, not the visual compression you want to appeal to. If you did want to appeal to visual compression you would accept the angular FOV, or want it modified to show the visual compression. Both result in you being able to see objects below the tube.
Again, appealing to the "visual compression" would result in an image like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/98k7JgK.png)
This shows the "side" view of what you visually see.
This image makes up part of your FOV. But the tube blocks the top and bottom portion, including extending off the top and bottom of the image.
This tube appears as a region of darkness at the top and bottom.
Then as the distance from you increases, everything gets smaller.
This includes the distance to the ground. That means after enough distance horizontally, the distance from your eye line to the ground has compressed enough to fit into the tube and you can see the ground.
Because of this, a tree was brought up, as were other objects.
Where your insanity indicates that if you look at any object through a 1 inch tube, you will only see 1 inch of that distant object, regardless of how far away it is, as you can't see anything below the tube (and likewise, above or to the side, all you can see is the tiny region in that tube).
But you know that is pure insanity, so you reject it.
As soon as a tree is put in, you magically want it to change.
Now you magically want to be able to see things below the tube.
You directly contradict yourself, appealing to all sorts of nonsense.
The other reason the tree was brought up was because IT IS ON THE GROUND! If you can see all the tree, you can see the ground.
But again, you want to pretend we can't because the ground is below the tube, and instead have a magically compressed floating tree.
But you can't have it both ways. Either you can see objects below the tube, at least if it is far enough away (unless you want to add your own requirements) and thus you can see the bottom of the tree and the ground; or you can't see objects below the tube at all and thus you cannot see the bottom of the tree or the ground.
This is why I am asking such simple and direct questions, which deserve an explicit answer.
So can you see the bottom of the tree, even though it is below the level of the tube?
The only way to honestly and completely address this extremely simple question is to either:
state that because the bottom of the tree is below the level of the tube it is not visible; or
state that even though the bottom is below, you can still see it and thus can see things below the tube.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/j4sBb20/bbb.jpg)
You need to explain how the tree doesn't appear to fly if you cannot see the ground below it?
What distance?
-
Do you even accept the image of the tree is inverted at the back of your retina and your brain turns it correct way up? You do know this, right?
We don't need to argue inverted.
-
I'm always interested in learning, as long as what I'm learning is based on the truth or a theory that tries to garner a truth.
You mean as long as whatever you are "learning" matches the BS you think is true, whereas if it shows you are wrong, you will reject it and aren't interested in learning at all?
For example, you have no interest in learning that your claim that you can't see the ground is wrong. So you continually dodge questions made to help you learn, by showing the contradiction in your position.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Then how do you see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
For example, in this diagram, do you see the bottom of the distant tree, even though it is well below the level of the tube?
(https://i.imgur.com/N1Gyagj.png)
In fact, can you see any part of it outside the 2 parallel black lines marking the height of the tube?
What are you trying to show with this picture and using a tube that is clearly not on the level?
That has already been explained to you.
The tube in this picture is level.
I am asking if you can see the parts of the tree that are below level, providing the lines clearly showing how the light would need to come up from below.
Now how about you stop with the deflection and just answer the question?
You state that even if an object is far enough away horizontally, it can't be seen if it is below the tube.
Are you going to commit to this and state that you cannot see any part of the tree that is below the tube?
Like I said before, what you're showing would not happen.
Again, just directly answer the question.
Forget about the lines in the image as they are just to show the bottom of the tree is below the level of the tube.
The bottom of the tree is BELOW the level of the tube.
So do you claim that because it is below the level of the tube it cannot be seen, regardless of how far away it is?
Get your telescope mind away from the argument and we can re-engage.
-
Are you of the opinion that you NEED a level tu-tube to compress light to see far aqay things?
Nope.
Are you of the opinion that your eye is NOT a pinhole and your eye is NOT how you see?
I've said many a time that your vision converges to a point.
It's the entire purpose as to why we have a vanishing point.
If you dont need a tube, then why aee you saying the tube compresses the fluted viaion reflection and prevents you from seeing the far away foot of jackbs tree?
Vision converges BECAUSE your eye is a pinhole camera
Yes or no?
I'm not saying the tube compresses anything.
I'm saying your reflected light back to your eye is compressed over distance.
Your tube is simply a tunnel you are looking through.
Get telescopes out of your mind.
-
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself. I haven't see you learn a single fact or idea in any of these discussions, all you do is deny, deny, deny.
I have no need to fool anyone.
Argue the points or stay away from replying to me if you think what you think.
It should be easy to do but it seems hard for people like you.
-
It is very clearly stated
- The eyeball is a pinhole camera
The pinhole accurately shows how sight-distance-things-far-look-small all work.
Yes no?
Explain it all to me, in your own words, please.
Nice and simple so I'm under no illusions.
-
It seems like quite substantial trouble
It seems troubling for you lot.
I'm one against many and I'm easily dealing with it.
Even bored has had to change names to re-enter to back you lot up.
No, I'm definitely not struggling.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/6gnKDk7/a1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/30mcPsD/a2.jpg)
The tube itself.
You're thinking on scopes.
-
There is no scale to the picture. The distance is just a little further than where the tree would be filling the height of your image through the tube.
Start with this view through the tube.
(https://i.ibb.co/8XT4qsP/tube.jpg)
*Shown assuming the ground cannot be seen
Then move back further until you get this view
(https://i.ibb.co/WFkkVrB/tubefar.jpg)
*Again not showing the ground as we are waiting for your answer on whether you think it can been seen or not.
Rough math for a 10 inch long tube gives 400 feet.
Yep, this is what you'd see through the tube.
The object (tree) becomes compressed over distance but not by angles.
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
-
Again, just directly answer the question.
Forget about the lines in the image as they are just to show the bottom of the tree is below the level of the tube.
The bottom of the tree is BELOW the level of the tube.
So do you claim that because it is below the level of the tube it cannot be seen, regardless of how far away it is?
Get your telescope mind away from the argument and we can re-engage.
There is no telescope mind here.
Just a simple tube and a simple question.
Stop using that as an excuse to dismiss the question which exposes your contradiction.
Telescopes and the like have nothing at all to do with your claim.
Again, you have stated that you CANNOT see anything below the level of the tube.
Are you now going to be consistent and answer if you can see any part of the tree that is BELOW the level of the tube?
I'm one against many and I'm easily dealing with it.
You aren't dealing with anything. You are just burying your head in the sand and ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
You are struggling so badly, you can't even answer a simple question.
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
So you admit we can see the ground, even though it is BELOW the tube?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
That was the entire reason the tree was brought up, because you claimed the ground could not be seen through the level tube.
So are you now admitting that claim was wrong and that we can see the ground through a level tree?
-
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself. I haven't see you learn a single fact or idea in any of these discussions, all you do is deny, deny, deny.
I have no need to fool anyone.
Argue the points or stay away from replying to me if you think what you think.
It should be easy to do but it seems hard for people like you.
It's hard to argue the facts when you don't produce any. Where is your experiment to show us how it works?
The only thing hard to do it seems, is you carrying out your own experiment. It's easy for you to claim everyone else is 'duping' you when you can't even perform the experiment yourself to double-check that you're actually right. Wouldn't it be funny if you actually did try it and got the same results as everyone else?
Would you admit it or... just avoid the subject and dodge and evade. Suspiciously like what you are doing.
-
It is very clearly stated
- The eyeball is a pinhole camera
The pinhole accurately shows how sight-distance-things-far-look-small all work.
Yes no?
Explain it all to me, in your own words, please.
Nice and simple so I'm under no illusions.
This is amazing.
Its been explained.
For tye 5th time -
What part of it confuses you?
Either state a part that needs clarification or admit youre pathetic and this is your goto deflection
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
Holycrap?
Was this done in PM?
And he is bringing this as his own evidnece afainst his claims.
Amazing!
See how nice it is to have a picutre to clarfiy your word salad?
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
Holycrap?
Was this done in PM?
And he is bringing this as his own evidnece afainst his claims.
Amazing!
See how nice it is to have a picutre to clarfiy your word salad?
Scepti finally agrees that we can see the ground. And it only took 144 pages.
-
That was the entire reason the tree was brought up, because you claimed the ground could not be seen through the level tube.
So are you now admitting that claim was wrong and that we can see the ground through a level tree?
No, it wasn't.
I never claimed the ground couldn't be seen.
I claimed the ground would not be seen on a gradient which was massively turned into what it is now.
I said the object over distance would be visually compressed.
It's you people who keep twisting it into what you want.
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Why you've used this is a mystery.
This is why I mention how you lot twist things.
You came in under your bored name to try and aid in twisting it all and all you lot do is make it all harder for yourselves.
Is your other name banned?
-
It also means that we would see this :-
(https://i.ibb.co/98pNdgt/jja.jpg)
If the tube was much higher.
You wouldn't see the ground if this was your set up.
-
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself. I haven't see you learn a single fact or idea in any of these discussions, all you do is deny, deny, deny.
I have no need to fool anyone.
Argue the points or stay away from replying to me if you think what you think.
It should be easy to do but it seems hard for people like you.
It's hard to argue the facts when you don't produce any. Where is your experiment to show us how it works?
The only thing hard to do it seems, is you carrying out your own experiment. It's easy for you to claim everyone else is 'duping' you when you can't even perform the experiment yourself to double-check that you're actually right. Wouldn't it be funny if you actually did try it and got the same results as everyone else?
Would you admit it or... just avoid the subject and dodge and evade. Suspiciously like what you are doing.
You had every opportunity to show your side and you bottled it when called out.
-
It is very clearly stated
- The eyeball is a pinhole camera
The pinhole accurately shows how sight-distance-things-far-look-small all work.
Yes no?
Explain it all to me, in your own words, please.
Nice and simple so I'm under no illusions.
This is amazing.
Its been explained.
For tye 5th time -
What part of it confuses you?
Either state a part that needs clarification or admit youre pathetic and this is your goto deflection
How about explaining it from your own words, nice and simple.
Tell me what happens.
Have you done the experiments to show what happens?
If so explain them to me.
It seems you are deflecting.
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
Holycrap?
Was this done in PM?
And he is bringing this as his own evidnece afainst his claims.
Amazing!
See how nice it is to have a picutre to clarfiy your word salad?
Why would I have an issue with that picture?
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
No issue. You have finally answered the question of 'can we see the ground below the tree?'.
I never had any issue with it in the first place.
Holycrap?
Was this done in PM?
And he is bringing this as his own evidnece afainst his claims.
Amazing!
See how nice it is to have a picutre to clarfiy your word salad?
Scepti finally agrees that we can see the ground. And it only took 144 pages.
I never denied it in this instance.
My stance is still 100% firm.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
-
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself. I haven't see you learn a single fact or idea in any of these discussions, all you do is deny, deny, deny.
I have no need to fool anyone.
Argue the points or stay away from replying to me if you think what you think.
It should be easy to do but it seems hard for people like you.
It's hard to argue the facts when you don't produce any. Where is your experiment to show us how it works?
The only thing hard to do it seems, is you carrying out your own experiment. It's easy for you to claim everyone else is 'duping' you when you can't even perform the experiment yourself to double-check that you're actually right. Wouldn't it be funny if you actually did try it and got the same results as everyone else?
Would you admit it or... just avoid the subject and dodge and evade. Suspiciously like what you are doing.
You had every opportunity to show your side and you bottled it when called out.
I showed my side, several times and it proved you wrong. You never showed your side, even when called out, like now. Why? What are you afraid of showing? That your own experiment proves you wrong?
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
If there is no issue, how are these real life images different than the one above?
(https://i.imgur.com/rmM67AO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Gv7MPgM.jpg)
-
I like how you added a tree overtop the literal other trees.
Hhaa
-
I never claimed the ground couldn't be seen.
Yes, you did.
You claimed that because the ground is below the level of the tube, it can't be seen.
I then you a simple question, to clarify this, and this was your response:
Good. Discuss it. Answer the extremely simple question you were asked:
If an object is far enough away horizontally, can you see it even though it is below the tube?
No.
Here you are directly confirming that you believe/claim that an object below the the tube cannot be seen.
And here is another quote from you:
As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.
Correct.
Where you admit that your claim indicates you shouldn't see the ground through a level tube even if it was flat.
Again, this is because your argument relies upon it being an absolute.
Your argument is that because the ground is below, it can't be seen.
As soon as you admit that you can see things below a level tube, your argument for why you can't see the ground on a slope falls apart.
This is because you CAN see objects below you, which, as explained to you repeatedly, and which you repeatedly ignored, YOU HAVE 2 COMPETING EFFECTS.
One effect is that the ground is physically getting lower.
The other is that "visual compression" making it appear higher.
So the question then becomes which one wins.
Simple math easily allows us to determine that, but you seem to hate that math.
So why don't you try explaining just why we can't see the ground through a level tube on a RE or on a downwards slope.
Remember, you have now admitted that you can see the ground even though it is BELOW a level tube, so that is NOT a justification. You need more. You need to show that the downwards slope can overcome the "visual compression".
You had every opportunity to show your side
And he did, and clearly demonstrated you were wrong.
Your turn now.
-
This is why I mention how you lot twist things.
You came in under your bored name to try and aid in twisting it all and all you lot do is make it all harder for yourselves.
Is your other name banned?
Make it harder for what? Harder to understand your nonsense? I don't care about understanding your nonsense, you don't even understand your own nonsense. It is quite obviously retarded.
I have pointed out where you have contradicted yourself once again, so it's you that is twisting things.
There's no contradictions.
-
I showed my side, several times and it proved you wrong. You never showed your side, even when called out, like now. Why? What are you afraid of showing? That your own experiment proves you wrong?
I know what I know and you tried to dupe people with your set up.
I called you out on it and handed you a better set up where you would have serious trouble trying the dupe and guess what?
Yep, you bottled it just like I suspected you would.
-
It also means that we would see this :-
(https://i.ibb.co/98pNdgt/jja.jpg)
If the tube was much higher.
You wouldn't see the ground if this was your set up.
Explain why, without contradicting yourself.
You'd have to be looking up a hill.
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
If there is no issue, how are these real life images different than the one above?
(https://i.imgur.com/rmM67AO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Gv7MPgM.jpg)
So, you decided to place a tree inside his tube and that solves the downward gradient issue, for you, right?
You people make me laugh.
-
I never claimed the ground couldn't be seen.
Yes, you did.
You claimed that because the ground is below the level of the tube, it can't be seen.
If it was on a global Earth, yes.
-
And if we can see the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/S6Yc5w4/tubed.jpg)
Yep, what's the issue?
If there is no issue, how are these real life images different than the one above?
(https://i.imgur.com/rmM67AO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Gv7MPgM.jpg)
So, you decided to place a tree inside his tube and that solves the downward gradient issue, for you, right?
You people make me laugh.
There is no "downward gradient issue". Flat earth, globe earth...Doesn't matter. We're talking about a couple, few inches here, at best. You're that deluded to think there is an issue? Now that's laughable.
For some severely bizarre reason you think a globe earth peels off right below the bottom edge of the tube and the tree just hovers. I mean c'mon, you've been at this for what, like a dozen years, and you still have no idea how this globe earth stuff you've been railing against is supposed to work? Talk about indoctrinated. And/or lazy, and/or inept, and/or, most likely, just trolling away.
Learn what it is that you actually disagree with and form an argument based upon that. It's absurd that after all this time you have no idea what you're even denying.
-
For some severely bizarre reason you think a globe earth peels off right below the bottom edge of the tube and the tree just hovers. I mean c'mon, you've been at this for what, like a dozen years, and you still have no idea how this globe earth stuff you've been railing against is supposed to work? Talk about indoctrinated. And/or lazy, and/or inept, and/or, most likely, just trolling away.
Learn what it is that you actually disagree with and form an argument based upon that. It's absurd that after all this time you have no idea what you're even denying.
You are arguing for something that does not exist, in my honest opinion.
I absolutely refute anything to do with your global Earth mindset because I am 100% sure that the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
I know all about the magical fantasy of the globe you believe in and I'm putting forward simple arguments that show it to be the nonsense it is.
Of course you don't accept stuff. Of course you'll think I'm unable to grasp that fantasy because I rally against is.
Nothing you people have said has any bearing on the truth of a globe. You know it and I know it and so do most of the others.
However the narrative suggests otherwise. The one you follow, unconditionally. At least on a forum like this where you believe you have some kind of bragging right, backed up by a posse of similar indoctrinated mindsets.
I'm just giving my honest opinion.
-
For some severely bizarre reason you think a globe earth peels off right below the bottom edge of the tube and the tree just hovers. I mean c'mon, you've been at this for what, like a dozen years, and you still have no idea how this globe earth stuff you've been railing against is supposed to work? Talk about indoctrinated. And/or lazy, and/or inept, and/or, most likely, just trolling away.
Learn what it is that you actually disagree with and form an argument based upon that. It's absurd that after all this time you have no idea what you're even denying.
You are arguing for something that does not exist, in my honest opinion.
That doesn't matter, it's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether you think something exists or not, you obligation in this discussion is to at least try an understand the bare minimum of what the opposing side offers. We try with your side, over and over and over again, we try. Albeit, we only have you in the world to rely on to figure out what your side is and you suck at conveying it as evidenced by a dozen years of zero people buying into your musings. At least we have outside sources.
But it seems you don't even have a rudimentary notion about how the other side purports to work. You just make up shit like in a globe world the earth just peels off immediately and curves away below your feet like a cliff. Do you even know what the Globe perspective claims as the size of the earth? Or are you just pretending not to know? (I'm pretty sure the latter) I understand that you loath the notion of a globe earth, but acting like a child who hates it sooo much you can't even address what you're against is just plain weird.
I absolutely refute anything to do with your global Earth mindset because I am 100% sure that the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Good for you. But your crazed self-indoctrinated refusal has left you in a position where you can't even argue for your side. Because you make up these things that you rail against that aren't even part of the pantheon of the thing you rail against. You're clouded distaste for what you don't believe, so much so, like a religeous zealot. Sure, we all foist our notions about a globe earth on your notions, but at a minimum, we're trying to fit reality to it, mostly to refute it, but also to understand it. And so far, every time, reality rears its ugly head and your carbonite projecting dome covered crystal membrane world just doesn't present itself as such, as in reality. No evidence of any of it, no experiments of any of it, just your musings. All fine and good, but just musings. Zero evidence.
I know all about the magical fantasy of the globe you believe in and I'm putting forward simple arguments that show it to be the nonsense it is.
Apparently you don't. Otherwise that you would know that in globe thinking, the earth does not just peel away from your feet so you wouldn't be able to see the ground through a simple bloody tube. Thinking that couldn't be more asinine. It's such a strange and bizarre hill for you to die on when simple reality evidence you refuse to present that anyone could, and has shown, immediately shows you're wrong. Bizarre. Only a troll would keep this argument up for 100 pages.
Of course you don't accept stuff. Of course you'll think I'm unable to grasp that fantasy because I rally against is.
Nothing you people have said has any bearing on the truth of a globe. You know it and I know it and so do most of the others.
Hilarious. I'll leave it at that.
However the narrative suggests otherwise. The one you follow, unconditionally. At least on a forum like this where you believe you have some kind of bragging right, backed up by a posse of similar indoctrinated mindsets.
Hmmm, unconditionally? None of us would be here if it were unconditional. A starting point for sure, but a place like this makes one question a lot of things, research a lot of things, personally confirm or deny a lot of things. You're not as special as you would like to believe. You should take a breather from such narcissism. It's unhealthy and makes you believe you know what goes through the minds of other people when you really have no idea.
I'm just giving my honest opinion.
Understood. But maybe just back away from the the holier than thou you're all indoctrinated sheep thing and maybe take in for a moment that yes, biases are at the forefront, so is yours, but that doesn't mean no one is trying to learn something, understand something that may be foreign, even if they argue against it. We are no more indoctrinated than you are.
-
I never claimed the ground couldn't be seen.
Yes, you did.
You claimed that because the ground is below the level of the tube, it can't be seen.
If it was on a global Earth, yes.
I see you ignored the rest of my post where I clearly pointed out how you claimed it applied regardless, even on a FE.
So there you go ignoring all the contradictions again.
Guess what? Ignoring them wont magically make them disappear.
Again, the only justification you could provide for why it shouldn't be visible is was because it was below the tube.
As soon as you admit you can see objects that are below the tube, your argument falls apart as you no longer have ANY justification for why you can't see the ground even if it is on a downwards slope or a RE.
Again, you now have 2 competing effects. One makes the ground physically lower and thus would make it appear lower, while the other makes it appear higher.
Unless you can actually show that one beats the other, you cannot say if the ground is visible.
So again, can you explain why the ground shouldn't be visible on a RE?
Remember, now that you have admitted you can see things below the tube, it being below the tube is not enough.
Can you justify your baseless claim, or can you just continue to repeat it?
Nothing you people have said has any bearing on the truth of a globe. You know it and I know it and so do most of the others.
No, you don't know it. You just continually spout BS like you always do.
What has been said cuts directly to the BS you spout to attack the globe and exposes as irrational, illogical, and blatantly false BS!
You have no justification at all for why the ground shouldn't be seen on a globe.
I'm just giving my honest opinion.
No you are not. You are repeatedly lying about the globe, using whatever dishonest BS you can. You are not merely stating opinions but claiming facts which have been shown to be incorrect repeatedly. That means you are not just giving an opinion, you are blatantly lying.
In addition you contradict yourself and then just ignore those contradictions showing your stance here is anything but honest.
All because of your irrational hatred of the globe.
Also, as soon as you state something as 100% certain, you are no longer stating it as your opinion, but as a fact, even if you claim it is an opinion. If you don't want to claim it as a fact, don't try to claim you are 100% certain.
For example, you could say something more like:
"While I have no idea at all if Earth is a globe or not, and have no rational argument against it, I BELIEVE it isn't a globe"
That way you would be stating your opinion, rather than falsely claiming a blatant lie as a fact.
There's no contradictions.
Except those pointed out to you wish you continue to ignore or pretend you never said.
I know what I know and you tried to dupe people with your set up.
You mean you know you are wrong, so you had to come up with an excuse to dismiss his set up, which is also why you never provide evidence of your own as you know it will show you are wrong?
I called you out on it and handed you a better set up
Which he then did, and you again dismissed it as fake, making it clear you have no interest in ever accepting it and instead will continue to just dismiss it.
Your "better set up" in no way makes it harder for someone to dupe. All it does is add in needless complications due to the difficulty of aligning the tubes and makes the FOV smaller.
Remember, you claimed a kitchen roll tube was all that was needed, not a tube effectively 10 feet long.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
-
The 'honest" opinion of a proven dishonest troll. Sounds quite worthless,
I'm pleased you think like that because that's my mindset of you.
-
The 'honest" opinion of a proven dishonest troll. Sounds quite worthless,
I'm pleased you think like that because that's my mindset of you.
It is the mindset of anyone who has honestly analysed what you have stated.
Again, why do you claim the ground is not visible through a level tube when looking down a slope or when looking on a RE?
Remember, you have admitted that you CAN see what is below the tube, so the ground merely being below is not enough.
-
I showed my side, several times and it proved you wrong. You never showed your side, even when called out, like now. Why? What are you afraid of showing? That your own experiment proves you wrong?
I know what I know and you tried to dupe people with your set up.
I called you out on it and handed you a better set up where you would have serious trouble trying the dupe and guess what?
Yep, you bottled it just like I suspected you would.
You know what you know, so don't need to actually... look through a tube. Because you 'know' what you will see. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? :-\
Why don't you try your own experiment and show us what YOU see. Look through a tube, it's NOT hard.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
-
You are arguing for something that does not exist, in my honest opinion.
That doesn't matter, it's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether you think something exists or not, you obligation in this discussion is to at least try an understand the bare minimum of what the opposing side offers.
I definitely do try but you have to remember that I was once an adherent to your globe model and by questioning it, I'm at this point.
You have to ask yourself why I got to this point if you're serious about understanding varying points.
We try with your side, over and over and over again, we try. Albeit, we only have you in the world to rely on to figure out what your side is and you suck at conveying it as evidenced by a dozen years of zero people buying into your musings.
You try for a little bit then it comes down to digs and then the old troll comes out, then all the rest of the gunk.
I simply play tit for tat in some cases because I feel the replies are worthless in terms of effort.
At least we have outside sources.
Outside sources are only relevant if those sources are based on truth; something which you can appeal to but cannot truthfully stand by as a knowing set of truth's.
If you can then let's see what you have.
But it seems you don't even have a rudimentary notion about how the other side purports to work. You just make up shit like in a globe world the earth just peels off immediately and curves away below your feet like a cliff.
I don't make that up. You've just done it.
You go with a globe. You also go with 8 inches per mile squared or thereabouts.
This suggests a downward curve, always.
This means my level view through a tube would mean your Earth curves away from me, downwards from your level vision by 8 inches for the first mile and then nearly 3 feet for the second mile and 6 feet for the third mile.
Just 3 miles means you lose 6 feet of vision of your so called global ground from that level start.
So, regardless of whether you mention peeling off like a cliff, it simply would create extreme measurable distance to ground over a few miles, as shown.
It doesn't work and the only way you people can try and make it work is by using a global skim to target which would mean you would have to angle your view to the target and also bend that vision if reflection back to your eye.
It's nonsensical but it answers the conundrum by use of fiction.
Among many things, this one destroys the global notion.
So when you ask why you wouldn't see distant objects, this is exactly why.
The fact that we do see distant objects tells us that the Earth is absolutely 100% not a globe we supposedly walk/sail upon.
-
Do you even know what the Globe perspective claims as the size of the earth? Or are you just pretending not to know? (I'm pretty sure the latter) I understand that you loath the notion of a globe earth, but acting like a child who hates it sooo much you can't even address what you're against is just plain weird.
If you think I'm acting like a child then that's your mindset.
You might need to ask yourself and your posse, who are acting child like to make you wonder why I seem to be from your side.
I absolutely refute anything to do with your global Earth mindset because I am 100% sure that the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Good for you. But your crazed self-indoctrinated refusal has left you in a position where you can't even argue for your side.
Because you make up these things that you rail against that aren't even part of the pantheon of the thing you rail against. You're clouded distaste for what you don't believe, so much so, like a religeous zealot.
To be fair it's people like you that act like that.
You see you lot attack the laternates to your religious belief's because you treat them as your facts due to adherence to those you buy into as factual tutors and simply use it as your comfortable reliance and go to regurgitation when the model comes under scrutiny.
As for me. I give out my musings/theories/hypotheses as just that.
I do not pass them off as factual but I do stand behind what I say until someone can prove it wrong or come up with a better potential.
Some have their own potentials and I respect that. It may not be for me but mine may not be for them.
You people throw what you read for mainstream, out as your weapon of choice to supposedly scupper any alternate but you do not have the facts. You have a faith system that comes off as you facts...and here you are calling me a religious zealot. Look in your mirror.
Sure, we all foist our notions about a globe earth on your notions, but at a minimum, we're trying to fit reality to it, mostly to refute it, but also to understand it.
Clearly you aren't.
Your modus operandi, among other with your mindset, is to destroy all conflicts against the global system...the one you adhere to like a limpet.
You start off pretending you understand stuff and then go into attack mode and back to square one.
Kabool is the worst of the lot.
If you really wanted to understand it, you would do so but I feel you're too weak minded and basically wary of looking like you do because you know you will be attacked yourself from the usual suspects.
I genuinely believe that and I think people like yourself waste your own time arguing, armed with a silver platter full of references to throw out without much effort.
And so far, every time, reality rears its ugly head and your carbonite projecting dome covered crystal membrane world just doesn't present itself as such, as in reality. No evidence of any of it, no experiments of any of it, just your musings. All fine and good, but just musings. Zero evidence.
It depends on what experiments mean to you.
I've done plenty but they mean nothing because you don't accept simple stuff, like low pressure and how it works and instead choosing vacuums with random scattered particles just banging into each other and what not, with empty space between them.
You don't allow yourself 5 minutes to actually question your side. It is what they say it is and you are in awe, so that's that. Basically.
I know all about the magical fantasy of the globe you believe in and I'm putting forward simple arguments that show it to be the nonsense it is.
Apparently you don't. Otherwise that you would know that in globe thinking, the earth does not just peel away from your feet so you wouldn't be able to see the ground through a simple bloody tube. Thinking that couldn't be more asinine. It's such a strange and bizarre hill for you to die on when simple reality evidence you refuse to present that anyone could, and has shown, immediately shows you're wrong. Bizarre. Only a troll would keep this argument up for 100 pages.
The same simple tube destroys your globe. It's as simple as that.
Of course you don't accept stuff. Of course you'll think I'm unable to grasp that fantasy because I rally against is.
Nothing you people have said has any bearing on the truth of a globe. You know it and I know it and so do most of the others.
Hilarious. I'll leave it at that.
You'll need to because there's nothing you can prove in terms of your belief in a globe you think you walk upon.
However the narrative suggests otherwise. The one you follow, unconditionally. At least on a forum like this where you believe you have some kind of bragging right, backed up by a posse of similar indoctrinated mindsets.
Hmmm, unconditionally? None of us would be here if it were unconditional.
Most of you are, so, what now?
Don't tell me you're here to learn something alternate to what you firmly believe.
There's a few among you that I believe would love to rally against the globe, even if it starts off as being a devil's advocate stance.
I believe fear of being attacked stops some from daring to take that stance on a forum.
I include you in that.
Smokey tested the water until he was attacked and went back into his shell.
A starting point for sure, but a place like this makes one question a lot of things, research a lot of things, personally confirm or deny a lot of things. You're not as special as you would like to believe. You should take a breather from such narcissism. It's unhealthy and makes you believe you know what goes through the minds of other people when you really have no idea.
I think we all do that.
I even have you down as wearing a clint Eastwood spaghetti western hat and actually smoking half a cigar whilst wearing white socks and flip flops.
I'm sure you'll have me down as Peter Lorre or something.
Just kidding by the way....but...we all do like to think we've got the gist of the opponent or correspondent whether faced or faceless.
I'm just giving my honest opinion.
Understood. But maybe just back away from the the holier than thou you're all indoctrinated sheep thing and maybe take in for a moment that yes, biases are at the forefront, so is yours, but that doesn't mean no one is trying to learn something, understand something that may be foreign, even if they argue against it. We are no more indoctrinated than you are.
As soon as you people do so, I'll be sure to follow.
Remember I deal with many of you lot and your digs are basically back patting follow on's.
I only have myself to retort to those which makes me appear like I'm the bad wolf.
The problem you people have is in not being able to play your own set of rules.
Try it sometime and see what happens, or carry on playing the silly games and see what happens.
Tit for tat but the issue should be, using the brain.
-
i'm the worst of the lot eh?
keep dodding the very simple a basic concept of an eyeball and how a pinhole accurately shows why close = big and far = small due to the changing angle and the captured image size on the retina.
keep asking for words.
words that i keep using.
keep dodging and replying back with word salads of nonsense.
VERY SIMPLY
IS YOUR EYEBALL A PINHOLE CAMERA?
DOES THIS EXPLAIN HOW VISION WORKS?
-
The 'honest" opinion of a proven dishonest troll. Sounds quite worthless,
I'm pleased you think like that because that's my mindset of you.
It is the mindset of anyone who has honestly analysed what you have stated.
Again, why do you claim the ground is not visible through a level tube when looking down a slope or when looking on a RE?
Remember, you have admitted that you CAN see what is below the tube, so the ground merely being below is not enough.
I've stated many times how you wouldn't see the ground on your globe.
Just standing with a 6 foot level view you're already at the 3 mile distance right there.
So basically your first mile from that point is squared from 6 feet which means your drop is now nearly 11 feet from that point at just one mile.
And you think that, although you see no ground/water immediately below the end of your tube, you'll suddenly see it as the ground/water drops even further up to nearly 11 feet in one mile?
This is why the globe is fantasy.
There's no horizon and definitely no ground seen.
Soooo, we are living on/in something different to a globe.
It's all about fine tuning what exactly that is.
-
I showed my side, several times and it proved you wrong. You never showed your side, even when called out, like now. Why? What are you afraid of showing? That your own experiment proves you wrong?
I know what I know and you tried to dupe people with your set up.
I called you out on it and handed you a better set up where you would have serious trouble trying the dupe and guess what?
Yep, you bottled it just like I suspected you would.
You know what you know, so don't need to actually... look through a tube. Because you 'know' what you will see. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? :-\
Why don't you try your own experiment and show us what YOU see. Look through a tube, it's NOT hard.
I know what I know because I've done the very same experiment you did. That why I know you tried to play a dupe and I called you out on it.
Anyone can do it and prove that I'm correct.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
-
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
You can't explain it unless you copy and paste it.
That's all you have.
There's no effort from you...at all.
-
You go with a globe. You also go with 8 inches per mile squared or thereabouts.
This suggests a downward curve, always.
This means my level view through a tube would mean your Earth curves away from me, downwards from your level vision by 8 inches for the first mile and then nearly 3 feet for the second mile and 6 feet for the third mile.
Just 3 miles means you lose 6 feet of vision of your so called global ground from that level start.
And also means that the tree image we have been discussing, at 400ft away will only be 0.046 inch lower on the globe than it would be on a flat plane. You are asking us to believe that this fraction of an inch is enough to stop us seeing the ground(that would also be just 0.046 inch lower). That sounds retarded, so we don't believe you. And you are entirely incapable of showing evidence or even logical reasoning why this would be the case, so we don't believe you.
Did you read this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2312375#msg2312375
You're already 6 feet higher than the ground, so do your calculations again for your globe.
-
i'm the worst of the lot eh?
Yep, I'd say so.
You start off ok then revert right back to square one and your attempted abuse comes right with it.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
-
You're already 6 feet higher than the ground, so do your calculations again for your globe.
The 6 feet higher doesn't matter at all to the ground. The ground drops away :-
400ft / 5280ft = 0.076 miles
0.076 ^ 2 = 0.0057 miles squared
0.0057 * 8 inches = 0.046 inches drop over 400ft
So the base of the tree is 0.046 inches lower your feet when you are standing at the tube.
Once again you are trying to use you not understanding something as meaning it is not possible.
I don't think you're quite getting me.
Let's try again.
If you believe you live on a globe then you have to accept the 8 inches per mile squared.
first mile is 8 inches drop.
Second mile is 2x8x2=32 inch drop.
Third mile is 8x3x3=72 inches, or 6 feet.
Fourth mile would be 8x4x4= 128 inches or 10 feet 8 inches.
This 4th mile would be equivalent to the 1 mile away from a 6 feet high level tube.
Bearing in mind from a standing start at 6 feet above sea level, you would not see the ground directly below the tube end, so don't even think about seeing it over distance as your globe curves down.
You people are arguing it from a flat Earth (water) point of view but believe it's from a global point of view, which you can clearly see it cannot be.
Simple stuff is all it takes.
-
I showed my side, several times and it proved you wrong. You never showed your side, even when called out, like now. Why? What are you afraid of showing? That your own experiment proves you wrong?
I know what I know and you tried to dupe people with your set up.
I called you out on it and handed you a better set up where you would have serious trouble trying the dupe and guess what?
Yep, you bottled it just like I suspected you would.
You know what you know, so don't need to actually... look through a tube. Because you 'know' what you will see. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? :-\
Why don't you try your own experiment and show us what YOU see. Look through a tube, it's NOT hard.
I know what I know because I've done the very same experiment you did. That why I know you tried to play a dupe and I called you out on it.
Anyone can do it and prove that I'm correct.
LOL.
Anyone can do it... except you apparently.
You didn't do your experiment and you know it, that's why you refuse to post any photographs of it. If you really performed it like you claimed, where is your evidence? Why won't you show it? What are you hiding? You bottled it, didn't you.
-
This 4th mile would be equivalent to the 1 mile away from a 6 feet high level tube.
No, it has the same value (6 foot) at 3 miles, but has no logical equivalence. You're desperately trying to build another strawman.
It is the ground that drops away, your height above it has absolutely no effect on that.
What I've said is correct going by your global mindset.
-
You didn't do your experiment and you know it, that's why you refuse to post any photographs of it. If you really performed it like you claimed, where is your evidence? Why won't you show it? What are you hiding? You bottled it, didn't you.
The experiment was so simple to do.
You did the same experiment except you dipped your tube after pretending to show a level on top of it.
I know you did this because I did the same kind of experiment, only with a real level tube over a downward gradient.
-
You didn't do your experiment and you know it, that's why you refuse to post any photographs of it. If you really performed it like you claimed, where is your evidence? Why won't you show it? What are you hiding? You bottled it, didn't you.
The experiment was so simple to do.
You did the same experiment except you dipped your tube after pretending to show a level on top of it.
I know you did this because I did the same kind of experiment, only with a real level tube over a downward gradient.
You mean you say you did the experiment but won't show anyone. I think you won't show anyone the photos because they don't exist, as you never actually performed the experiment. You just 'know' what it should look like, right?
Pics or it didn't happen. ;D
-
You didn't do your experiment and you know it, that's why you refuse to post any photographs of it. If you really performed it like you claimed, where is your evidence? Why won't you show it? What are you hiding? You bottled it, didn't you.
The experiment was so simple to do.
You did the same experiment except you dipped your tube after pretending to show a level on top of it.
I know you did this because I did the same kind of experiment, only with a real level tube over a downward gradient.
You mean you say you did the experiment but won't show anyone. I think you won't show anyone the photos because they don't exist, as you never actually performed the experiment. You just 'know' what it should look like, right?
Pics or it didn't happen. ;D
Legitimate people can verify it for themselves. That obviously doesn't include you.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
-
You didn't do your experiment and you know it, that's why you refuse to post any photographs of it. If you really performed it like you claimed, where is your evidence? Why won't you show it? What are you hiding? You bottled it, didn't you.
The experiment was so simple to do.
You did the same experiment except you dipped your tube after pretending to show a level on top of it.
I know you did this because I did the same kind of experiment, only with a real level tube over a downward gradient.
You mean you say you did the experiment but won't show anyone. I think you won't show anyone the photos because they don't exist, as you never actually performed the experiment. You just 'know' what it should look like, right?
Pics or it didn't happen. ;D
Legitimate people can verify it for themselves. That obviously doesn't include you.
Or you, since you can't even post any pictures of your 'supposed' experiment that you totally did, but won't show because reasons.
Suuuuuure.
And the dog ate your homework.
-
Do you even accept the image of the tree is inverted at the back of your retina and your brain turns it correct way up? You do know this, right?
We don't need to argue inverted.
Well, hallelujah! That's one less argument to worry about.
I see you're all back discussing tubes again.
Explain for me, Sceptimatic, how light compresses. You seem to have expert secret knowledge on this. I want to know.
-
Do you even accept the image of the tree is inverted at the back of your retina and your brain turns it correct way up? You do know this, right?
We don't need to argue inverted.
Well, hallelujah! That's one less argument to worry about.
I see you're all back discussing tubes again.
Explain for me, Sceptimatic, how light compresses. You seem to have expert secret knowledge on this. I want to know.
that's a good question.
how?
what possible mechanism explains it.
hrmmm...
-
Sceptimatic, surely you jest! I've just read all your recent replies!
Myself and the others, don't like to see well meaning folk like yourself, hoodwinked by flat earth disinformation propaganda. It's our civic duty to reach out to you and pull you back from the edge of madness!
How many times have I told you the truth never changes? That philosophy has served me well in my career, and it's something you're never too old to adopt.
If the truth is the Earth is a globe, it doesn't matter what argument you come up with against it, the Earth is still a globe.
I have a globe of Earth in my lounge room. I know it's scale. I know how to use a calculator and a measuring tape. I have used it to test known distances where I have travelled. It is accurate. Earth is a globe. No flat earth model has a hope in hell of duplicating that accuracy - ever.
Sceptimatic, you're not an idiot. You're an intelligent person. When are you going to give up on this poisonous dream of yours?
-
I've stated many times how you wouldn't see the ground on your globe.
And that justification was that it is below the tube, which you have now admitted is not good enough.
Remember, that was the entire point of the tree, to show that you CAN see objects which are below the tube.
That means your "justification" does not hold.
Just standing with a 6 foot level view you're already at the 3 mile distance right there.
So basically your first mile from that point is squared from 6 feet which means your drop is now nearly 11 feet from that point at just one mile.
No, that isn't how it works at all.
The ground drops 8 inches per mile squared.
So from that straight line 6 feet above Earth, at 1 mile the distance grows by 8 inches, so it is now 6 ft 8 inches.
Do you need a diagram to show this?
It doesn't magically mean that the ground directly below you is 3 miles away.
It is still directly below you.
That first mile still only drops by 8 inches, not by 4 and 2/3 feet.
Your height above the ground has no bearing at all on the 8 inches.
It doesn't matter if you are directly on the ground, 6 feet above it or 100 km above it, the ground only drops by 8 inches in that first mile.
That means it goes from 0 to 8, or from 6 ft to 6 ft 8 inches, or from 100 km to 100 km + 8 inches.
And you think that, although you see no ground/water immediately below the end of your tube, you'll suddenly see it as the ground/water drops even further up to nearly 11 feet in one mile?
You mean drops to 6 ft and 8 inches.
Again, you have already admitted that even though you see no ground/water that is directly below the tube, you "suddenly" see it when it is far enough away.
You accept that we can see trees which are 10s of feet tall through this level tube. Just why wouldn't be able to see the ground, even if it was 11 ft below?
Again, simple math has shown that with a 10 degree FOV, you can see the ground after less than 30 m, from this 2 m high view.
Just what do you think the "compressed size" of an 8 inch object is that is 1 mile away?
How about a 6 ft and 8 inches at the same 1 mile?
How about your exaggerated and incorrect 11 ft at 1 mile?
Just how far does the height need to be to not be visible through your 1 inch tube?
Unless you actually have a justification for what the threshold is, you have no argument as you have admitted we can see things below the tube.
If you would like an example of just what a justification like that might be, here is an example:
If you have a 1 inch diameter tube, with a length of 10 inches, it has a slope from the middle of the tube at 1 end (where your eye would be) to the bottom of the tube at the other, of 1 part in 20. (0.5 in 10). This means for a distance of x, you will be able to see a height of x/20 below your line of sight. e.g. at the end of the tube, 10 inches away, you can see an object 10/20 = 0.5 inches below the line of sight, i.e. the bottom of the tube.
After 1 mile, that would amount to 1 20th of a mile. That is 264 ft.
That means as long as the ground is no more than 264 ft below your "level line of sight", and nothing obstructs the view (like a close by wall or tree), you can see it.
That means your 11 ft is basically nothing.
11 ft is only a small portion of the 264 ft needed to prevent it from being visible.
This is why the globe is fantasy.
So the globe is fantasy because you don't understand basic math.
There's no horizon and definitely no ground seen.
Soooo, we are living on/in something different to a globe.
Again, that is your outright lie, refuted by simple math and logic.
You are yet to address those refutations, and all you can do to try to justify them is spout more outright lies and contradict yourself.
You have no justification at all for why there should not be any horizon nor why the ground shouldn't be seen.
You lost the only chance you had when you accepted you can see parts of the tree even though they are below the level of the tube.
-
You try for a little bit then it comes down to digs and then the old troll comes out, then all the rest of the gunk.
No, you play along for a bit until going any further would mean admitting you are wrong, then you do whatever you can to dodge.
I don't make that up. You've just done it.
No you do make it up, pretending Earth is tiny ball.
This means my level view through a tube would mean your Earth curves away from me, downwards from your level vision by 8 inches for the first mile
Meanwhile, perspective/convergence/whatever you want to call it, would "compress" 2 m into less than an inch over a few 10s of m.
At this scale, the downwards curve of Earth is irrelevant.
It is only when you reach the horizon that the downwards curve starts beating perspective.
So, regardless of whether you mention peeling off like a cliff, it simply would create extreme measurable distance to ground over a few miles, as shown.
No, not as shown, as baselessly asserted.
We went over this before.
Over 1 mile the drop is 1 part in 7920. That is basically nothing.
It is not enough to magically make it vanish from your view.
Over 2 miles it is 1 part in 3960, again, basically nothing and not enough to hide it from your view.
It is nothing like what you try to pretend it is.
Just what do you think the "compressed size" of 8 inches is at 1 mile? What do you think it is for 3 feet at 2 miles? What about 6 feet at 3 miles?
The fact that we do see distant objects tells us that the Earth is absolutely 100% not a globe we supposedly walk/sail upon.
No, the fact we do see distant objects, but as the distance increases they are start to be obscured by Earth, from the bottom up, shows with almost certainty, that Earth is a globe.
You might need to ask yourself and your posse, who are acting child like to make you wonder why I seem to be from your side.
It is you, because you continually dodge extremely simple questions which show you are wrong, continually assert pure garbage, continually contradict yourself, outright lie and claim you have explained things you haven't, outright lie and you didn't contradict yourself when you did, make ridiculous demands for evidence, and then just dismiss the evidence provided as fake and provide more ridiculous demands and just ignore things which show you are wrong which you can't dismiss as fake, all while being 100% incapable of justifying any of your ridiculous outright lies about Earth, and then when challenged, you just pretend that what you are claiming with 100% certainty is merely your opinion rather than a fact so you don't need to back it up.
So it is quite clear who is acting like a child here.
I do not pass them off as factual
Again, when you state that you know something 100%, that is passing it of as a fact, not merely opinion.
You have continually done this with claims about the RE and how vision works and so on, even though those claims have been refuted repeatedly are you are entirely incapable of justifying them.
You stand by your outright lies even after people have proven them wrong and/or provided something significantly better, all because of your irrational hatred of the globe.
Your modus operandi, among other with your mindset, is to destroy all conflicts against the global system.
No, you are conflating the global system with the truth and reality.
Our modus operandi would be to destroy conflicts with reality.
If the nonsense you are spouting contradicts reality, it will be pointed out that it does.
Because, unlike your nonsense, the globe actually matches reality, you see this as trying to destroy things that go against the globe.
But if you bothered hollistically looking at what we have done here, you will see plenty of us actually point out faults with arguments in support of the globe, because those arguments are not based upon facts.
This means it isn't things which go against the globe that we object to, but things which go against reality, truth and reason, like your nonsense.
You start off pretending you understand stuff and then go into attack mode and back to square one.
Again, we aren't going back to square 1, you never leave it.
You never leave it, because as soon as you try, a massive contradiction pops up in your model and you just insult and claim we don't understand, simply because your model doesn't work.
For example, you repeatedly contradicted yourself regarding if we can or can't see an object below a level tube, and now you are still claiming a RE is magically invisible, with no justification at all.
If you really wanted to understand it, you would do so
And we do, and then show contradictions inside it, or contradictions between it and reality.
This is not us not understanding, this is us understanding and realising your claims are wrong.
Like how we brought up the tree to show your claim that you magically can't see things below a level tube because it gives you magic tunnel is completely wrong.
I've done plenty but they mean nothing
Because you continually refuse to provide them.
you don't accept simple stuff, like low pressure and how it works
You means we do accept how it works, and just don't agree with you, with your insane claims contradicted by evidence and backed up by none.
You don't allow yourself 5 minutes to actually question your side.
Yes we do.
Our side having answers doesn't mean we don't question it.
Meanwhile you don't allow questioning your side, as that shows the problems and your claims fall apart.
The same simple tube destroys your globe. It's as simple as that.
No, it doesn't. You accepting you see the tree and the ground below it destroys your argument.
Most of you are, so, what now?
No, we're not.
Our acceptance of the RE is based upon it being the best model to explain what is observed in reality.
If you can provide us with a better model, which can actually describe/explain reality, better than the current RE model, especially if you can show an actual problem with the RE model, then we will accept it.
Instead you just continually lie about the RE model and provide nonsense which is easily shown to be self contradictory and contradict reality.
Tit for tat but the issue should be, using the brain.
You should try using your brain some time then, rather than continually refusing to.
-
You're already 6 feet higher than the ground, so do your calculations again for your globe.
Which is irrelevant to the difference in the position of the tree.
For the FE, the base of the tree is 0 inches/feet/whatever below the ground you are standing on.
For the RE, it drops by a tiny amount. At 400 ft distance, that would be ~0.046 inches, or ~0.004 ft.
That is all the base of the tree has dropped by.
Your eye height is 6 ft above the ground, that means it is 6 ft above both of those distance.
That means for the FE the base of the tree is 6 ft below your eye.
That means for the RE, at that distance, it is ~6.004 ft below your eye.
Do you really think that 0.004 ft will make a difference?
This 4th mile would be equivalent to the 1 mile away from a 6 feet high level tube.
No, it wouldn't.
As you keep spouting this same ignorant nonsense, it appears you do need a picture.
Care to explain what is wrong with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/XiYn07m.png)
The 8 inches are simply below the line straight out from your feet, meaning the ground at that point is 6 ft and 8 inches below your line of sight.
There is no magical equivalence to a 4 mile view.
That would require those 8 inches to magically grow to 4 2/3 ft.
It is pure nonsense.
What I've said is correct going by your global mindset.
No, it is blatantly false, just like most things you say about the globe.
Anyone with even basic math knowledge can easily see that you are wrong.
The ground drops by 8 inches, your eye is 6 ft above the ground where you are standing, so at the 1 mile distance your eye is 6 ft + 8 inches above the ground.
6 ft + 8 inches will always be 6 ft and 8 inches. It will never magically jump up to 11 ft.
That means it is yet another blatant lie from your irrational hatred of the RE, to pretend there is a problem with the RE when there is none.
Legitimate people can verify it for themselves.
Which obviously doesn't include you.
As that would require admitting you are wrong, and you sure seem to hate that.
If you were legitimate, you would have provided your results.
-
Do you even accept the image of the tree is inverted at the back of your retina and your brain turns it correct way up? You do know this, right?
We don't need to argue inverted.
Well, hallelujah! That's one less argument to worry about.
I see you're all back discussing tubes again.
Explain for me, Sceptimatic, how light compresses. You seem to have expert secret knowledge on this. I want to know.
Atmospheric mass over distance converges the distant view due to closer light view taking precedence in the less dense mass of horizontal atmosphere to your eye.
It creates what appears to be a funnel look which appears wider at the start than the finish but is actually not the reality of overall vision..
-
Sceptimatic, surely you jest! I've just read all your recent replies!
Myself and the others, don't like to see well meaning folk like yourself, hoodwinked by flat earth disinformation propaganda. It's our civic duty to reach out to you and pull you back from the edge of madness!
I don't believe I'm hoodwinked.
I have my own Earth version. I'm not subservient to any particular belief so I can hardly be hoodwinked.
I believe I was hoodwinked throughout school with a lot of stuff, including the global Earth nonsense, which I believed unconditionally at the time.
How many times have I told you the truth never changes? That philosophy has served me well in my career, and it's something you're never too old to adopt.
You are absolutely correct, the truth can never change but it has to be the truth of something that is unchangeable.
I don't see any of that with a global Earth and its trimmings.
I see the opposite of truth which can be changed by challenge for the person doing so, regardless of the masses refusing to accept that change due t inability to break free of the indoctrinated system that doesn't allow alternate thought without consequence..
If the truth is the Earth is a globe, it doesn't matter what argument you come up with against it, the Earth is still a globe.
And if it isn't the truth, which I firmly believe it isn't, then it's told under false pretences and false representations by those who know better and by those who teach the ignorance by adherence to curriculum, respectively .
I have a globe of Earth in my lounge room. I know it's scale. I know how to use a calculator and a measuring tape. I have used it to test known distances where I have travelled. It is accurate. Earth is a globe. No flat earth model has a hope in hell of duplicating that accuracy - ever.
And yet people use flat maps to navigate, generally speaking.
Sceptimatic, you're not an idiot. You're an intelligent person. When are you going to give up on this poisonous dream of yours?
Whatever you people decide I am or am not, is irrelevant.
I have absolutely no interest in what you think of me, or your global internet/forum buddies.
-
I've stated many times how you wouldn't see the ground on your globe.
And that justification was that it is below the tube, which you have now admitted is not good enough.
No I haven't. My stance has been rigid.
The fact you people try to move the goal posts to twist stuff is down to you lot and has no bearing on my stance.
-
You're already 6 feet higher than the ground, so do your calculations again for your globe.
Which is irrelevant to the difference in the position of the tree.
For the FE, the base of the tree is 0 inches/feet/whatever below the ground you are standing on.
For the RE, it drops by a tiny amount. At 400 ft distance, that would be ~0.046 inches, or ~0.004 ft.
That is all the base of the tree has dropped by.
Your eye height is 6 ft above the ground, that means it is 6 ft above both of those distance.
That means for the FE the base of the tree is 6 ft below your eye.
That means for the RE, at that distance, it is ~6.004 ft below your eye.
Do you really think that 0.004 ft will make a difference?
This 4th mile would be equivalent to the 1 mile away from a 6 feet high level tube.
No, it wouldn't.
As you keep spouting this same ignorant nonsense, it appears you do need a picture.
Care to explain what is wrong with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/XiYn07m.png)
The 8 inches are simply below the line straight out from your feet, meaning the ground at that point is 6 ft and 8 inches below your line of sight.
There is no magical equivalence to a 4 mile view.
That would require those 8 inches to magically grow to 4 2/3 ft.
It is pure nonsense.
6 ft + 8 inches will always be 6 ft and 8 inches. It will never magically jump up to 11 ft.
That means it is yet another blatant lie from your irrational hatred of the RE, to pretend there is a problem with the RE when there is none.
Only you globalists would use that silly twist.
No, as you well know, you wouldn't be adding 8 inches, you would be squaring the 8 inches to the 4th mile having already used the 3rd mile as a height stand point of 6 feet.
Whether you told a person to go and plant a stick at the first mile at 8 inches above sea level and then go farther to plant another stick at 2 miles to square that further mile to 32 inches f stick showing and then 3 miles and squaring that 8 inches to 72 inches (6 feet).
It's still 6 feet out of the deck above water.
he following measurement goes to one mile farther which is squared by 8 inches and distance, meaning you having a stick protruding 128 inches out of the water, or 10 feet 8 inches.
So don't try and play the silly twisting game of adding 8 inches to the 6 foot. You know it's wrong and so does most others.
If they back you up then it shows what they are, too.
-
I've stated many times how you wouldn't see the ground on your globe.
And that justification was that it is below the tube, which you have now admitted is not good enough.
No I haven't. My stance has been rigid.
So are you now contradicting yourself yet again and saying that merely be being below the tube it is not visible?
Otherwise, you have admitted that you CAN see objects that are BELOW the tube, so the Earth being below the tube is not enough to magically make it invisible.
That means your argument, which relied upon objects magically being invisible if they were below the tube, is not good enough.
The fact you contradict yourself and try to so massively twist things back and forth has no bearing on reality, and that reality is ~a globe, and that you typically can still see it, even through a level tube.
Only you globalists would use that silly twist.
You mean only reality deniers like you would use your silly twist.
No, as you well know, you wouldn't be adding 8 inches
Yes you would.
The ground has dropped by 8 inches, that means the object is an additional 8 inches below. Again, this is simple math.
If you are standing with your eye 6 ft above some reference, and an object is 8 inches below that reference, then you are 6 ft 8 inches above it.
This applies regardless of the shape.
you would be squaring the 8 inches to the 4th mile having already used the 3rd mile as a height stand point of 6 feet.
Why would we do anything like that?
We are not using any 3 miles.
You are not looking away from an additional 3 miles with our head at the level of Earth.
We are looking from no additional miles away, with our eyes 6 ft above Earth.
What if instead the diagram looked like this:
So don't try and play the silly twisting game of adding 8 inches to the 6 foot. You know it's wrong and so does most others.
If they back you up then it shows what they are, too.
No, I know it is entirely correct to add those 8 inches, rather than pretend you need to add 5 ft.
If others back me up, it shows they actually understand as well and don't accept your BS.
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/XiYn07m.png)
Note that that diagram is what actually shows what we expect.
You instead are trying to pretend something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/uFBGlrw.png)
Now instead of a simple curve or a FE, you have a wavy terrain.
Any honest person would answer in the same way, it is 6 ft 8 inches below your eye.
But you think we should magically explore this land to find the point where the land has dropped by 6 feet, and count the mile from there, which is pure nonsense.
So no, any honest, sane, intelligent person would see this problem and realise that because the ground has dropped by 8 inches over that mile, it is an additional 8 inches below your eye line, making it 6 ft 8 inches.
And again, even if you did magically get your 11 ft, it is still far too little.
You need over 200 ft.
Again, just what height below the tube do you think the ground magically disappears? Just stick to a 1 mile distance for that.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
-
Whether you told a person to go and plant a stick at the first mile at 8 inches above sea level and then go farther to plant another stick at 2 miles to square that further mile to 32 inches f stick showing and then 3 miles and squaring that 8 inches to 72 inches (6 feet).
It's still 6 feet out of the deck above water.
And the tube is on that 3rd mile stick, it's 3 miles away from you. If you want to look through it you need to be standing next to it. So you walk ('down', if you insist) to the stick (you are now on the same ground as the stick, the ground is 6 feet below the top of the stick) and now this is your reference point, the ground in the next mile is the first mile and drops 8"
No. The tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop.
You are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile.
You people know this.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
-
Sceptimatic, surely you jest! I've just read all your recent replies!
Myself and the others, don't like to see well meaning folk like yourself, hoodwinked by flat earth disinformation propaganda. It's our civic duty to reach out to you and pull you back from the edge of madness!
I don't believe I'm hoodwinked.
I have my own Earth version. I'm not subservient to any particular belief so I can hardly be hoodwinked.
I believe I was hoodwinked throughout school with a lot of stuff, including the global Earth nonsense, which I believed unconditionally at the time.
How many times have I told you the truth never changes? That philosophy has served me well in my career, and it's something you're never too old to adopt.
You are absolutely correct, the truth can never change but it has to be the truth of something that is unchangeable.
I don't see any of that with a global Earth and its trimmings.
I see the opposite of truth which can be changed by challenge for the person doing so, regardless of the masses refusing to accept that change due t inability to break free of the indoctrinated system that doesn't allow alternate thought without consequence..
If the truth is the Earth is a globe, it doesn't matter what argument you come up with against it, the Earth is still a globe.
And if it isn't the truth, which I firmly believe it isn't, then it's told under false pretences and false representations by those who know better and by those who teach the ignorance by adherence to curriculum, respectively .
I have a globe of Earth in my lounge room. I know it's scale. I know how to use a calculator and a measuring tape. I have used it to test known distances where I have travelled. It is accurate. Earth is a globe. No flat earth model has a hope in hell of duplicating that accuracy - ever.
And yet people use flat maps to navigate, generally speaking.
Sceptimatic, you're not an idiot. You're an intelligent person. When are you going to give up on this poisonous dream of yours?
Whatever you people decide I am or am not, is irrelevant.
I have absolutely no interest in what you think of me, or your global internet/forum buddies.
Sceptimatic, I'm finishing up a week of night work as I type. I've been rather composed with you this time round, wouldn't you agree? Far less insults than per usual from me.
I disagree with your last sentence that you have no interest in what I or anybody else thinks of you. I think you are interested in opinions, and you should be. You're a human being and human beings are social creatures. This forum is a social experience.
So, you firmly believe earth being a globe is untruthful. :'(
My question to you is, how far would you be prepared to go with this belief?
Would you put your life on the line that you're right? If not, what would you put on the line? Your house? Your car? Your boat? Your wedding ring? Your comic book collection? Your brown stained white y-fronts? Level with us! C:-)
-
No. The tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop.
You are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile.
You people know this.
Wrong again. The tube is at the 3rd mile, you are not, you are trying to look through the tube from 3 miles away.
Think about it. If the tube was on the ground then 1 mile of drop is simply 1 mile of drop, right? Lifting it up to 6ft changes absolutely nothing.
The bottom of the 6ft stick is on the ground, right? So it's same thing so 1 mile of drop is simply 1 mile of drop.
this is your version
(https://i.ibb.co/6JyK3dz/bunk.png)
Note: If I attempted to draw this to scale the entire curve shown would appear as a straight line (using 1 pixel for the 6ft post, the 3 mile line would need to be 2640 pixels long)
IF the tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop and you are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile. Then you are also at the 3rd mile in terms of drop and the ground is 6ft below the tube, Right?
Here's a clue.
Put the tube on the figure eyeline.
That's he 6 feet.
Why you've got the 6 feet 3 miles away is a mystery, unless you're simply getting desperate.
-
No. The tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop.
You are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile.
You people know this.
Wrong again. The tube is at the 3rd mile, you are not, you are trying to look through the tube from 3 miles away.
Think about it. If the tube was on the ground then 1 mile of drop is simply 1 mile of drop, right? Lifting it up to 6ft changes absolutely nothing.
The bottom of the 6ft stick is on the ground, right? So it's same thing so 1 mile of drop is simply 1 mile of drop.
this is your version
(https://i.ibb.co/6JyK3dz/bunk.png)
Note: If I attempted to draw this to scale the entire curve shown would appear as a straight line (using 1 pixel for the 6ft post, the 3 mile line would need to be 2640 pixels long)
IF the tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop and you are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile. Then you are also at the 3rd mile in terms of drop and the ground is 6ft below the tube, Right?
Here's a clue.
Put the tube on the figure eyeline.
That's he 6 feet.
Why you've got the 6 feet 3 miles away is a mystery, unless you're simply getting desperate.
It's only a mystery to those who don't understand math and who are confused by simple geometry. This is why you should stop asking us to explain basic concepts to you and go educate yourself first. If you don't have the tools to understand a simple diagram you aren't going to be able to follow the discussion.
-
Sceptimatic, I'm finishing up a week of night work as I type. I've been rather composed with you this time round, wouldn't you agree? Far less insults than per usual from me.
I'm seriously not bothered what you do. Insult as much as you feel you can do. It really has no effect on me. You're not important enough to have any effect.
When you act normal you're ok and I can see you want to challenge your belief's but I can also see you're very dubious because you feel much more comfortable conforming to the official narrative.
You saw what happened when you tried to play devil's advocate. You were attacked and you went straight back into your weak attempted ridicule mode of the flat Earth.
You do what you feel and I'm fine with it.
I disagree with your last sentence that you have no interest in what I or anybody else thinks of you. I think you are interested in opinions, and you should be. You're a human being and human beings are social creatures. This forum is a social experience.
I'm serious. I honestly do not give a rats what you or anyone thinks of me.
The minute I'm away from the forum I forget about it.
When I re-engage I obviously take part in the too and fro debates/arguments like we all do, or why be here?
So, you firmly believe earth being a globe is untruthful. :'(
Absolutely.
That doesn't mean global Earth believers are all liars.
It just means they follow a narrative and feel almost obliged to do so.
My question to you is, how far would you be prepared to go with this belief?
As far as writing my own stuff and doing my own experiments, like I'm doing.
Would you put your life on the line that you're right?
Absolutely not.
The globe is the official model. People are examined on this stuff.
Nothing I can do or say will change that.
If the official line is, the sky is full of inflatable invisible elephants then that's what the narrative would be.
No amount of me saying it's silly, would change that.
You know this, so why would bother to try and put my life on the line to argue it?
I could say the same to you but you would say you'd put your life on the line in a toss up because you have a two headed coin handed to you by officials of the global nonsense.
If not, what would you put on the line?
Nothing.
Your house? Your car? Your boat? Your wedding ring? Your comic book collection? Your brown stained white y-fronts? Level with us! C:-)
I've levelled with you. Nothing.
Any person that sits up and starts thinking and questioning their severe indoctrination goes massively up in my estimation.
That's what I get out of what I say and do.
I literally do not care one iota for those who sit on a flat Earth forum and spend many hours a day, almost 7 days a week trying to ridicule flat Earth/alternate Earth theorists.
I believe there are very few who do this.
I believe most are here because they actually do question the narrative that s sold as, the globe but I also suspect many dare not openly do i for fear of being attacked.
They see what I get and they likely believe they will be broken down by the usual suspects.
-
It's only a mystery to those who don't understand math and who are confused by simple geometry. This is why you should stop asking us to explain basic concepts to you and go educate yourself first. If you don't have the tools to understand a simple diagram you aren't going to be able to follow the discussion.
Says Mr dupee.
-
Sceptimatic, surely you jest! I've just read all your recent replies!
Myself and the others, don't like to see well meaning folk like yourself, hoodwinked by flat earth disinformation propaganda. It's our civic duty to reach out to you and pull you back from the edge of madness!
I don't believe I'm hoodwinked.
I have my own Earth version. I'm not subservient to any particular belief so I can hardly be hoodwinked.
I believe I was hoodwinked throughout school with a lot of stuff, including the global Earth nonsense, which I believed unconditionally at the time.
How many times have I told you the truth never changes? That philosophy has served me well in my career, and it's something you're never too old to adopt.
You are absolutely correct, the truth can never change but it has to be the truth of something that is unchangeable.
I don't see any of that with a global Earth and its trimmings.
I see the opposite of truth which can be changed by challenge for the person doing so, regardless of the masses refusing to accept that change due t inability to break free of the indoctrinated system that doesn't allow alternate thought without consequence..
If the truth is the Earth is a globe, it doesn't matter what argument you come up with against it, the Earth is still a globe.
And if it isn't the truth, which I firmly believe it isn't, then it's told under false pretences and false representations by those who know better and by those who teach the ignorance by adherence to curriculum, respectively .
I have a globe of Earth in my lounge room. I know it's scale. I know how to use a calculator and a measuring tape. I have used it to test known distances where I have travelled. It is accurate. Earth is a globe. No flat earth model has a hope in hell of duplicating that accuracy - ever.
And yet people use flat maps to navigate, generally speaking.
Sceptimatic, you're not an idiot. You're an intelligent person. When are you going to give up on this poisonous dream of yours?
Whatever you people decide I am or am not, is irrelevant.
I have absolutely no interest in what you think of me, or your global internet/forum buddies.
Sceptimatic, I'm finishing up a week of night work as I type. I've been rather composed with you this time round, wouldn't you agree? Far less insults than per usual from me.
I disagree with your last sentence that you have no interest in what I or anybody else thinks of you. I think you are interested in opinions, and you should be. You're a human being and human beings are social creatures. This forum is a social experience.
So, you firmly believe earth being a globe is untruthful. :'(
My question to you is, how far would you be prepared to go with this belief?
Would you put your life on the line that you're right? If not, what would you put on the line? Your house? Your car? Your boat? Your wedding ring? Your comic book collection? Your brown stained white y-fronts? Level with us! C:-)
Why should the shape of the earth be a life or death proposition?
That's rather ludicrous.
-
You are the one trying to claim the 6ft stick would cause the extra 3 miles of curvature.
Start from the beginning:-
Is the bottom of the stick on the ground? Yes.
You're really struggling, or are you?
I hope you're just playing games like you've been doing for long enough.
-
It's only a mystery to those who don't understand math and who are confused by simple geometry. This is why you should stop asking us to explain basic concepts to you and go educate yourself first. If you don't have the tools to understand a simple diagram you aren't going to be able to follow the discussion.
Says Mr dupee.
Actually, says you who doesn't understand why a diagram showed a drop of 6 feet 3 miles away to show a drop of 6 feet three miles away. Your own words are your worst enemy.
-
It's only a mystery to those who don't understand math and who are confused by simple geometry. This is why you should stop asking us to explain basic concepts to you and go educate yourself first. If you don't have the tools to understand a simple diagram you aren't going to be able to follow the discussion.
Says Mr dupee.
Actually, says you who doesn't understand why a diagram showed a drop of 6 feet 3 miles away to show a drop of 6 feet three miles away. Your own words are your worst enemy.
Pay attention.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
-
It's only a mystery to those who don't understand math and who are confused by simple geometry. This is why you should stop asking us to explain basic concepts to you and go educate yourself first. If you don't have the tools to understand a simple diagram you aren't going to be able to follow the discussion.
Says Mr dupee.
Actually, says you who doesn't understand why a diagram showed a drop of 6 feet 3 miles away to show a drop of 6 feet three miles away. Your own words are your worst enemy.
Pay attention.
Do you just, pick from a list of catchphrases to say in response?
"Pay attention"
"You bottled it"
"I already explained"
"I know what I know"
And of course this one...
As far as writing my own stuff and doing my own experiments, like I'm doing.
You haven't done any experiments and continuing to insist you did just makes you look silly. The dog ate your homework, right.
Pay attention. ;D
-
Sceptimatic, surely you jest! I've just read all your recent replies!
Myself and the others, don't like to see well meaning folk like yourself, hoodwinked by flat earth disinformation propaganda. It's our civic duty to reach out to you and pull you back from the edge of madness!
I don't believe I'm hoodwinked.
I have my own Earth version. I'm not subservient to any particular belief so I can hardly be hoodwinked.
I believe I was hoodwinked throughout school with a lot of stuff, including the global Earth nonsense, which I believed unconditionally at the time.
How many times have I told you the truth never changes? That philosophy has served me well in my career, and it's something you're never too old to adopt.
You are absolutely correct, the truth can never change but it has to be the truth of something that is unchangeable.
I don't see any of that with a global Earth and its trimmings.
I see the opposite of truth which can be changed by challenge for the person doing so, regardless of the masses refusing to accept that change due t inability to break free of the indoctrinated system that doesn't allow alternate thought without consequence..
If the truth is the Earth is a globe, it doesn't matter what argument you come up with against it, the Earth is still a globe.
And if it isn't the truth, which I firmly believe it isn't, then it's told under false pretences and false representations by those who know better and by those who teach the ignorance by adherence to curriculum, respectively .
I have a globe of Earth in my lounge room. I know it's scale. I know how to use a calculator and a measuring tape. I have used it to test known distances where I have travelled. It is accurate. Earth is a globe. No flat earth model has a hope in hell of duplicating that accuracy - ever.
And yet people use flat maps to navigate, generally speaking.
Sceptimatic, you're not an idiot. You're an intelligent person. When are you going to give up on this poisonous dream of yours?
Whatever you people decide I am or am not, is irrelevant.
I have absolutely no interest in what you think of me, or your global internet/forum buddies.
Sceptimatic, I'm finishing up a week of night work as I type. I've been rather composed with you this time round, wouldn't you agree? Far less insults than per usual from me.
I disagree with your last sentence that you have no interest in what I or anybody else thinks of you. I think you are interested in opinions, and you should be. You're a human being and human beings are social creatures. This forum is a social experience.
So, you firmly believe earth being a globe is untruthful. :'(
My question to you is, how far would you be prepared to go with this belief?
Would you put your life on the line that you're right? If not, what would you put on the line? Your house? Your car? Your boat? Your wedding ring? Your comic book collection? Your brown stained white y-fronts? Level with us! C:-)
Why should the shape of the earth be a life or death proposition?
That's rather ludicrous.
It depends on the situation. Scientists can predict earthquakes and tsunamis, from the global earth model. For you, such warnings would be nonsense. Are you that secure in your belief, you would ignore such warnings?
Or let's say, there is a mishap with the ISS. A warning is distributed it is doing a re-entry to earth and its debris is heading your way. You dont believe the ISS even exists. Again, are you that secure in your belief you ignore the warnings?
Global warming scientists predict extra severe storms or bushfires heading your way. You don't believe in a globe, let alone global warming, so what do you do? Do you heed the advice or ignore the warnings, as nonsense?
You're a pilot on a joy flight over Antarctica from Sydney Australia, and all is going well, until a fuel problem arises and an emergency landing is declared. The only place to land is a small island on the other side of Antarctica just south of Argentina. The problem is, you dont believe you live on a globe, and flying further in the same direction should fly you into "the dome". There are no flat places identified on Antarctica to land and to land there is an 80 percent crash rate where everyone on board will likely die. So, what do you do? Fly forward or risk landing?
These are life or death propositions.
-
No. The tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop.
No, it as at the 0th mile.
It isn't equivalent to anything.
If you try to make it equivalent, you are no longer looking level through the tube.
Does this diagram help:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
Notice how in order to make it equivalent to being 3 miles further away, you no longer have it level?
Notice how instead you have the tube point up?
A level tube 6 ft above the surface is NOT equivalent to a level tube at ground level 3 miles further away.
A level tube at ground level 3 miles further away is equivalent to a tube pointing upwards 6 ft above the surface.
So again, THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!
The ground drops by 8 inches, meaning the bottom of the tree/whatever would be 6 ft 8 inches below eye level.
No amount of BS can change that.
Forget about the curve for now, and just focus on that ground being inches further down, like I provided in the other image your refused to address, likely because you know it will expose your BS.
Again, how far below the eye line is the location indicated in this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/uFBGlrw.png)
You are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile.
You people know this.
No, what we actually know is that that is yet another outright lie you make due to your irrational hatred of the globe.
Here's a clue.
Put the tube on the figure eyeline.
You mean like I did, and clearly demonstrated that the tree is 6 ft 8 inches below the eye line?
You said the tube is at the 3 mile mark, so he showed you what that actually means.
He shows your dishonesty.
Why you've got the 6 feet 3 miles away is a mystery, unless you're simply getting desperate.
No, the mystery is why you pretend that. But it is clear, you are desperate.
You have admitted that you can see objects below the tube, so you now need to lie about the drop to pretend it is much bigger than it is.
And again, if you do lie and pretend it is 11 ft, that STILL ISN'T ENOUGH!
Why should that magically make it invisible?
I could say the same to you but you would say you'd put your life on the line in a toss up because you have a two headed coin handed to you by officials of the global nonsense.
But that isn't what we have. We have mountains of evidence supporting the RE, and plenty of people do put their lives on the line based on that. They just don't see it like that because it is like putting your life on the line when you stand on the street and don't expect it to have a giant space monster pop out of it and eat you.
The reason you were asked is because you have nothing at all to support your insane claims, in contrast to the RE which has so much it isn't funny.
The fact you are not willing to put anything on the line for your outrageous lies shows you know they are almost certainly BS and that you have no confidence in them at all.
You're really struggling, or are you?
I hope you're just playing games like you've been doing for long enough.
There you go projecting again.
His argument is sound, raising your eye line will not magically make the curve greater or magically make the ground lower.
After 1 mile, the ground drops by 8 inches.
If you are directly at the ground, then that places that more distant ground 8 inches below.
If you move up to 6 ft above the ground, you make the more distant ground 6 ft 8 inches below.
Raising your eye line to 6 ft will not magically make the ground curve away more.
You are struggling to defend your irrational hatred of the globe.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
Sceppy?
-
Why should the shape of the earth be a life or death proposition?
That's rather ludicrous.
No, it isn't ludicrous at all.
Plenty of people put their lives on the line based upon the shape of Earth every day (at least before COVID)
For example, plenty of planes are flying routes based upon the globe model, using navigation tools based upon the globe model, flying routes which would be impossible on various FE models.
If the shape of Earth was wrong, and instead it was actually flat, plenty of these people would die.
Every time someone gets on such a plane to take such a flight, they are putting their life on the line that Earth is round.
If Earth was flat, the plane would run out of fuel and crash into the ocean, with a large number of people dying.
Just like Columbus put his life on the line on the basis of Earth being round and tiny. Fortunately for him, he was saved by America, rather than dying at sea due to Earth being much larger than he thought.
Another example would be those circumnavigating Antarctica in a yacht race.
Again, they put their life on the line that Earth actually is round, otherwise they would run out of resources and die.
Plenty of daily tasks are effectively people putting their life on the line on the basis that Earth is round. It is such a common occurrence, and they are so certain that Earth is round, that they don't see it like that.
They just see it as going about their day to day lives.
-
So dramatic there jackb
-
No. The tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop.
No, it as at the 0th mile.
It isn't equivalent to anything.
If you try to make it equivalent, you are no longer looking level through the tube.
Does this diagram help:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
Notice how in order to make it equivalent to being 3 miles further away, you no longer have it level?
Notice how instead you have the tube point up?
A level tube 6 ft above the surface is NOT equivalent to a level tube at ground level 3 miles further away.
A level tube at ground level 3 miles further away is equivalent to a tube pointing upwards 6 ft above the surface.
So again, THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!
The ground drops by 8 inches, meaning the bottom of the tree/whatever would be 6 ft 8 inches below eye level.
No amount of BS can change that.
Forget about the curve for now, and just focus on that ground being inches further down, like I provided in the other image your refused to address, likely because you know it will expose your BS.
Again, how far below the eye line is the location indicated in this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/uFBGlrw.png)
You are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile.
You people know this.
No, what we actually know is that that is yet another outright lie you make due to your irrational hatred of the globe.
Here's a clue.
Put the tube on the figure eyeline.
You mean like I did, and clearly demonstrated that the tree is 6 ft 8 inches below the eye line?
You said the tube is at the 3 mile mark, so he showed you what that actually means.
He shows your dishonesty.
Why you've got the 6 feet 3 miles away is a mystery, unless you're simply getting desperate.
No, the mystery is why you pretend that. But it is clear, you are desperate.
You have admitted that you can see objects below the tube, so you now need to lie about the drop to pretend it is much bigger than it is.
And again, if you do lie and pretend it is 11 ft, that STILL ISN'T ENOUGH!
Why should that magically make it invisible?
I could say the same to you but you would say you'd put your life on the line in a toss up because you have a two headed coin handed to you by officials of the global nonsense.
But that isn't what we have. We have mountains of evidence supporting the RE, and plenty of people do put their lives on the line based on that. They just don't see it like that because it is like putting your life on the line when you stand on the street and don't expect it to have a giant space monster pop out of it and eat you.
The reason you were asked is because you have nothing at all to support your insane claims, in contrast to the RE which has so much it isn't funny.
The fact you are not willing to put anything on the line for your outrageous lies shows you know they are almost certainly BS and that you have no confidence in them at all.
You're really struggling, or are you?
I hope you're just playing games like you've been doing for long enough.
There you go projecting again.
His argument is sound, raising your eye line will not magically make the curve greater or magically make the ground lower.
After 1 mile, the ground drops by 8 inches.
If you are directly at the ground, then that places that more distant ground 8 inches below.
If you move up to 6 ft above the ground, you make the more distant ground 6 ft 8 inches below.
Raising your eye line to 6 ft will not magically make the ground curve away more.
You are struggling to defend your irrational hatred of the globe.
Looking from 6 feet is equivalent to being at a 3 mile standpoint and looking to the 4th mile.
It's pretty simple and logical to grasp.
All you're doing is twisting it to suit yourself because it just makes your globe that bit harder to hang onto.
-
On a flat plane.
Looking through a 6 ft high tube at a 30 ft high tree.
I'm not talking about a flat plane. I'm talking about the ludicrous global model.
-
If you are at a 3 mile standpoint and looking to the 4th mile.
How far away from your 3 mile standpoint is the 4th mile?
Hint: it isn't 4 miles away.
It's pretty simple and logical to grasp.
4 - 3 = ?
Does 4 minus 3 not equal 1?
You are trying to claim 4 minus 3 equals 11.
1 mile. Very simple.
-
I can't entertain this tube compression of light garbage. There is no evidence light compresses. Open your eyes and look around and see the world around you, if you want to try and appreciate how light works.
Sceptimatic, do you own a mobile phone? If yes, what make and model is it?
-
No. The tube is at the 3rd mile already in terms of drop.
No, it as at the 0th mile.
It isn't equivalent to anything.
If you try to make it equivalent, you are no longer looking level through the tube.
Does this diagram help:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
Notice how in order to make it equivalent to being 3 miles further away, you no longer have it level?
Notice how instead you have the tube point up?
A level tube 6 ft above the surface is NOT equivalent to a level tube at ground level 3 miles further away.
A level tube at ground level 3 miles further away is equivalent to a tube pointing upwards 6 ft above the surface.
So again, THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!
The ground drops by 8 inches, meaning the bottom of the tree/whatever would be 6 ft 8 inches below eye level.
No amount of BS can change that.
Forget about the curve for now, and just focus on that ground being inches further down, like I provided in the other image your refused to address, likely because you know it will expose your BS.
Again, how far below the eye line is the location indicated in this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/uFBGlrw.png)
You are stood looking through the tube at 6 feet which is equivalent to being at the 3rd mile.
You people know this.
No, what we actually know is that that is yet another outright lie you make due to your irrational hatred of the globe.
Here's a clue.
Put the tube on the figure eyeline.
You mean like I did, and clearly demonstrated that the tree is 6 ft 8 inches below the eye line?
You said the tube is at the 3 mile mark, so he showed you what that actually means.
He shows your dishonesty.
Why you've got the 6 feet 3 miles away is a mystery, unless you're simply getting desperate.
No, the mystery is why you pretend that. But it is clear, you are desperate.
You have admitted that you can see objects below the tube, so you now need to lie about the drop to pretend it is much bigger than it is.
And again, if you do lie and pretend it is 11 ft, that STILL ISN'T ENOUGH!
Why should that magically make it invisible?
I could say the same to you but you would say you'd put your life on the line in a toss up because you have a two headed coin handed to you by officials of the global nonsense.
But that isn't what we have. We have mountains of evidence supporting the RE, and plenty of people do put their lives on the line based on that. They just don't see it like that because it is like putting your life on the line when you stand on the street and don't expect it to have a giant space monster pop out of it and eat you.
The reason you were asked is because you have nothing at all to support your insane claims, in contrast to the RE which has so much it isn't funny.
The fact you are not willing to put anything on the line for your outrageous lies shows you know they are almost certainly BS and that you have no confidence in them at all.
You're really struggling, or are you?
I hope you're just playing games like you've been doing for long enough.
There you go projecting again.
His argument is sound, raising your eye line will not magically make the curve greater or magically make the ground lower.
After 1 mile, the ground drops by 8 inches.
If you are directly at the ground, then that places that more distant ground 8 inches below.
If you move up to 6 ft above the ground, you make the more distant ground 6 ft 8 inches below.
Raising your eye line to 6 ft will not magically make the ground curve away more.
You are struggling to defend your irrational hatred of the globe.
Looking from 6 feet is equivalent to being at a 3 mile standpoint and looking to the 4th mile.
It's pretty simple and logical to grasp.
All you're doing is twisting it to suit yourself because it just makes your globe that bit harder to hang onto.
If it truly was that simple and logical you would be able to address what I just provided.
As clearly shown, looking through a level tube at an elevation of 6 ft, to an object 1 mile away, is NOT equivalent to looking at that same object from 4 miles away.
Instead, as clearly shown looking at a distant object from 4 miles away is equivalent to standing 1 mile away, looking through a tube at 6 ft, which is pointing up.
Simple logic clearly indicates that because the ground has dropped by 8 inches, the object is now an additional 8 inches lower, that means it is 6 ft 8 inches, not your blatant lie of 11 feet.
Again, 6 ft + 8 inches, is 6 ft 8 inches, not 11 feet.
The shape of the ground only matters for 1 point, determining how far the ground has dropped. It doesn't matter if it is a set of steps or the wavy ground I provided in the image, the ground dropping by 8 inches, means the bottom of the object is an additional 8 inches below.
Simple math and logic shows you are wrong.
If the lies you were spouting were actually simple and logical, you would have addressed the points.
The fact you are dodging them shows it is just another of your lies that you know is a lie.
You are the one twisting here, you are blatantly lying about the RE, trying to twist it to pretend there is a problem when there is none, and the saddest part is even your twisting is a complete failure as 11 ft still isn't enough to magically make the ground invisible.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
Sceppy?
-
I can't entertain this tube compression of light garbage. There is no evidence light compresses. Open your eyes and look around and see the world around you, if you want to try and appreciate how light works.
Sceptimatic, do you own a mobile phone? If yes, what make and model is it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydyjdrDg/shopping.png) (https://postimages.org/)
£23.99 pay as you go.
-
If it truly was that simple and logical you would be able to address what I just provided.
As clearly shown, looking through a level tube at an elevation of 6 ft, to an object 1 mile away, is NOT equivalent to looking at that same object from 4 miles away.
I am talking about elevation of sight over ground, not visual clarity of an object. You know fine well what I'm saying.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
Sceppy?
What we got?
Any comment about why "compressing the flute vision over distance" is a word salad when a simple diagram suffices?
Pinhole, eyeball, yes/ no?
-
All your claims require the tube to be at 6 ft off the Ground, is the view entirely different from 5 ft?
Or is it just that the maths is beyond your llimited maths ability?
I've said what I've said. Deal with it and accept it, or don't.
-
When I actually look through the tube in real life the horizon appears much closer to the centre of the tube, like the first picture (the one you think needs a hill)
I don't think anything needs a hill. What are you talking about?
-
You havent said anything in regards to a pinhole camera
Whata yoyr "opinion"???????
-
If it truly was that simple and logical you would be able to address what I just provided.
As clearly shown, looking through a level tube at an elevation of 6 ft, to an object 1 mile away, is NOT equivalent to looking at that same object from 4 miles away.
I am talking about elevation of sight over ground, not visual clarity of an object. You know fine well what I'm saying.
And you are explicitly talking about a LEVEL VIEW!
You also know that on a RE, the ground curves, and as explained to you repeatedly, that changes level.
Level remains perpindicular to the direction of down, and ignoring the tiny eccentricity that means towards the centre of Earth.
As clearly shown by the diagram, for a level view 6 ft above the ground, as the ground drops 8 inches in that first mile, the bottom of the object is 6 ft 8 inches below the line straight from the eye, passing level through the eye.
If instead you try a view from 4 miles away at the surface, that is NOT equivalent to a level view. Instead it is equivalent to a view looking UP!
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
It clearly shows that the bottom of the object is 6 ft 8 inches below the eye line, not the magical 11 ft you claim.
And regardless of if you want to accept reality and accept the 6 ft 8 inches, or if you want to continue to reject reality and instead pretend it is magically 11 ft; both are still well below the required 200 + ft needed to hide it from the FOV of the tube. So again, on a RE, you have no basis to claim that the ground should not be visible.
Your only hope was to claim that because it was below the tube it wasn't visible, but you have admitted that is not the case and that things below the tube can be seen.
-
You havent said anything in regards to a pinhole camera
Whata yoyr "opinion"???????
Explain it.
-
Its been explained
Hoe about you explain what you dont get
-
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The 6 feet would start at the black line.
It means the black line is equivalent to a 3 mile distance in terms of 8 inches per mile squared x the 3 mile.
The next distance from that black line is equivalent to the 4th mile.
You know this.
-
Its been explained
Hoe about you explain what you dont get
I've never seen any explanation from you.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
Sceppy?
What we got?
Any comment about why "compressing the flute vision over distance" is a word salad when a simple diagram suffices?
Pinhole, eyeball, yes/ no?
-
Pinhole, eyeball, yes/ no?
Explain what it's all about and what you mean.
Explain it.
Take as much time as you wish but pasting the stuff you do will only see it get overlooked, so it's your waste and a waste to the forum.....but, I'm not in charge of you, so do what you feel.
-
what part of words are confusing you?
you seem very easily confused
you must be a complete moron.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera
The closer the objext the large the angles and resulting area on the back surface = far tree looks small
Its explained and reason has been given.
What do you fail to understand about its basic concept?
Are you of the position that they dont work?
You keeo takking about compressing views over distance.
The pinhole is jow to represent this wih an accurate and dimensionably scalable diagram as dvident by my very bereft description with experimentally useful reproducible diagram.
Unlike your word salad and lack of diagram
My diagram shows how close tree looks big-far tree lokks small, and jigsaws woth kackBs angular-distance graph and bored (correct) tree tu-tube drawing.
Clearly communicated as evident by everyone understanding it.... everyone.
Even the one wackadoodle who is faking it and curewntly dodging any acknowledgment of it because he must dismiss it because he cant bring up a valid point to argue it.
It must be dodged and dismissed or he must accept his tutube premise is wrong.
TLDR
Its a pinhole.
It explains how your eye works.
It shows field of view and debunks your tu-tube.
Keeps gerting overlooked.
He asked for words.
He got words.
He even got a picture to go along with the words.
Funny its overlooked.
Are these not words?
What part of words confuses you?
Eorher "compression" happenes because eyeballs are pinhole cameras which capture images on the retina, and close obkects have big angles taking up most of retina vs far objects are small taking up small part of retina - due to angles
Or
Light compression fluting happens in the tu-tube (even when the tu-tube is not there)
Sceppy?
What we got?
Any comment about why "compressing the flute vision over distance" is a word salad when a simple diagram suffices?
Pinhole, eyeball, yes/ no?
These are my words
Read them
Then Pick some that confuse you.
-
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The 6 feet would start at the black line.
It means the black line is equivalent to a 3 mile distance in terms of 8 inches per mile squared x the 3 mile.
The next distance from that black line is equivalent to the 4th mile.
You know this.
After more than a dozen years you still don't know a thing about what you rail against.
Here's the calculation and result of our 30' Tree, 400' away from your 6' level eye-height:
(https://i.imgur.com/vs9m6SM.jpg)
If you would like to do the calculations yourself, go here (You can even do an FE calculation):
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
Try and at least catch up to what it is you think you are against and how it works.
-
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The 6 feet would start at the black line.
It means the black line is equivalent to a 3 mile distance in terms of 8 inches per mile squared x the 3 mile.
The next distance from that black line is equivalent to the 4th mile.
You know this.
After more than a dozen years you still don't know a thing about what you rail against.
Here's the calculation and result of our 30' Tree, 400' away from your 6' level eye-height:
(https://i.imgur.com/vs9m6SM.jpg)
If you would like to do the calculations yourself, go here (You can even do an FE calculation):
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
Try and at least catch up to what it is you think you are against and how it works.
You don't even know what you're arguing with me.
It's clear by what you and others put up.
-
then don't argue with him and address the pinhole.
words
please read the words used to describe the pinhole and eyeball and how the function of the pinhole creates angles of light which when captured on the retina send a signal to the brain to make how close = big and far = small.
picture
https://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch26OIn/Images/Hmwk/26.2.gif
your opinion?
-
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The 6 feet would start at the black line.
It means the black line is equivalent to a 3 mile distance in terms of 8 inches per mile squared x the 3 mile.
The next distance from that black line is equivalent to the 4th mile.
You know this.
No, I know you are full of pure BS.
The black line is 6 ft high.
The purple line is looking out at that 6 ft high point, with the tube level at that 6 ft high point.
The orange line is looking from 3 miles further back.
Again, notice how even though it passes through that 6 ft high point, it isn't level at that point?
Notice how instead it is going at an upwards angle?
That other orange line labelled 11 ft is your drop for the 4th mile. But notice how that isn't from the view through the level tube?
Instead it is from a view through a tube pointing upwards.
Again, this shows you are blatantly lying.
Again, the shape is irrelevant except for figuring out how far the ground has dropped.
Other than it doesn't matter at all to the height of the object.
The ground has dropped by 8 inches, that means it will be 6 ft 8 inches below the eye line.
You will never magically get those 8 inches to magically increase to the 5 ft you need.
Again, if your position was actually supported by reason, you would be able to do more than just repeat the same pathetic lie again and again.
And as I have explained, even if we went with your blatant lie of 11 ft, IT STILL ISN'T ENOUGH!
You need more than 200 ft to hide it from view from the tube discussed earlier.
So you are just running of yet another tangent to hide from the fact that you are wrong, yet again.
And yet again you are trying to prop up your irrational hatred of the globe with blatant lies.
-
I can't entertain this tube compression of light garbage. There is no evidence light compresses. Open your eyes and look around and see the world around you, if you want to try and appreciate how light works.
Sceptimatic, do you own a mobile phone? If yes, what make and model is it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydyjdrDg/shopping.png) (https://postimages.org/)
£23.99 pay as you go.
Did that dinosaur come with dinosaur eggs? Nevertheless, you have gps on your phone, don't you? Which stands for Global Positioning System. This means your position on the global earth can be tracked to within a metre.
Please dont try and tell us, there are invisible land towers everywhere which triangulate your position. Phone towers do triangulate your position, within a large area, but not within meters like gps.
Here's your chance sceptimatic, to reach deep into that hat of ideas of yours and come up with yet another nonsensical explanation. You know, I tried to give you an easy out by suggesting everything you type here, is for an alternate universe based video game.
-
sceppy continues to fail at basic geometry, will he be able to comprehend the pinhole?
-
then don't argue with him and address the pinhole.
words
please read the words used to describe the pinhole and eyeball and how the function of the pinhole creates angles of light which when captured on the retina send a signal to the brain to make how close = big and far = small.
picture
https://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch26OIn/Images/Hmwk/26.2.gif
your opinion?
You are arguing for scoped sight.
Why are you arguing for scoped sight?
-
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The 6 feet would start at the black line.
It means the black line is equivalent to a 3 mile distance in terms of 8 inches per mile squared x the 3 mile.
The next distance from that black line is equivalent to the 4th mile.
You know this.
No, I know you are full of pure BS.
The black line is 6 ft high.
The purple line is looking out at that 6 ft high point, with the tube level at that 6 ft high point.
The orange line is looking from 3 miles further back.
You actually believe that orange line is meant to be something.
Let me make this a bit clearer for you.
Your orange line should hit the top of the black line.
Your orange line is your 8 inch for first mile start, plus your second mile at 32 inches, plus your third mile to the top of the black line at 6 feet.
Don't even pretend there's just another 8 inches added from the top of that black line for a mile further over that curve. It's squared again by the 4th mile from that black line at 6 feet.
You twist is as you want but you're getting desperate.
-
Did that dinosaur come with dinosaur eggs?
It's a simple phone to answer calls, primarily.
Nevertheless, you have gps on your phone, don't you?
Nope.
Which stands for Global ground Positioning System. This means your position on the global ground of earth can be tracked to within a metre.
I've amended that for you.
Please dont try and tell us, there are invisible land towers everywhere which triangulate your position. Phone towers do triangulate your position, within a large area, but not within meters like gps.
Invisible? Nahhhh, not invisible.
Look around you at all the masts and tall buildings, plus ships at sea, etc, etc.
They all create a communication/network hub.
The pretence that is all comes from space, is just that.
Here's your chance sceptimatic, to reach deep into that hat of ideas of yours and come up with yet another nonsensical explanation. You know, I tried to give you an easy out by suggesting everything you type here, is for an alternate universe based video game.
I want nothing from you. Nothing you say has any effect on what I think.
Concentrate on freeing your own brain from fantasy and arrogance/ignorance and basic nastiness.
-
then don't argue with him and address the pinhole.
words
please read the words used to describe the pinhole and eyeball and how the function of the pinhole creates angles of light which when captured on the retina send a signal to the brain to make how close = big and far = small.
picture
https://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch26OIn/Images/Hmwk/26.2.gif
your opinion?
You are arguing for scoped sight.
Why are you arguing for scoped sight?
Define scoped
Because your reading comprehension must be really really poor if when i say "your eyeball is a pinhole camera" and somehow your wackadookie brain thought i meant to add a scope.
-
then don't argue with him and address the pinhole.
words
please read the words used to describe the pinhole and eyeball and how the function of the pinhole creates angles of light which when captured on the retina send a signal to the brain to make how close = big and far = small.
picture
https://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch26OIn/Images/Hmwk/26.2.gif
your opinion?
You are arguing for scoped sight.
Why are you arguing for scoped sight?
Define scoped
Because your reading comprehension must be really really poor if when i say "your eyeball is a pinhole camera" and somehow your wackadookie brain thought i meant to add a scope.
Define pin hole.
-
A very small hole.
However You Deflect
No scope was introduced.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
Yes or no
Do you understand the very basoc and non indoctrined concept of how a pinhole camera works?
-
A very small hole.
However You Deflect
No scope was introduced.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
Yes or no
Do you understand the very basoc and non indoctrined concept of how a pinhole camera works?
Explain the pin hole camera to me.
Tell me what it does.
-
Here with the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/C05JHY0/bolbby.jpg)
And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/YtRgWpZ/gobby.jpg)
The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.
Note: As the tree is only 400ft away we only need to raise the tube by 0.046 inch 11 ft to match the 8 inches per mile squared downslope of the globe of sceppys strawman of the globe.
When I actually look through the tube in real life the horizon appears much closer to the centre of the tube, like this picture (that has the tube much higher) :-
(https://i.ibb.co/98pNdgt/jja.jpg)
According to you it should actually be right in the middle.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Note: Nowhere in this statement do you specify that the tube must be exactly 6ft from sea level (looking over the sea).
Unless of course you wish to 'change your mind' about one of these claims.
So which is it? Is the ground visible in the middle of the tube? Or can you tell us at what tube height the ground magically disappears from view (you have agreed the ground can be seen when the tube is 6ft high)
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
Or deal with the level tube at 6 feet looking over a downward gradient like JJA supposedly did.
With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.
In JJA's downward gradient and 6 feet level tube, you would not see the downward slope.
The very reason why JJA will not do the revised set up.
You've tried all kinds of ways to not be bothered and been bothered but still change stance.
-
A very small hole.
However You Deflect
No scope was introduced.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
Yes or no
Do you understand the very basoc and non indoctrined concept of how a pinhole camera works?
Explain the pin hole camera to me.
Tell me what it does.
Its been explained
With a diagram
Keep deflecting.
Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope
Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
-
Its been explained
With a diagram
Keep deflecting.
Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope
Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.
Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.
-
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.
which contradicts this :-
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Of course they contradict.
I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..
-
Again, what is wrong with this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The 6 feet would start at the black line.
It means the black line is equivalent to a 3 mile distance in terms of 8 inches per mile squared x the 3 mile.
The next distance from that black line is equivalent to the 4th mile.
You know this.
No, I know you are full of pure BS.
The black line is 6 ft high.
The purple line is looking out at that 6 ft high point, with the tube level at that 6 ft high point.
The orange line is looking from 3 miles further back.
You actually believe that orange line is meant to be something.
I don't just believe, I KNOW it is.
That orange line shows what you are claiming the purple line is.
That is the line from the extra 3 miles.
Notice it how it doesn't match the purple line?
Notice how instead of going level through the tube, it instead goes through at an upwards angle?
That shows your claim is pure BS.
Your orange line should hit the top of the black line.
Your orange line is your 8 inch for first mile start, plus your second mile at 32 inches, plus your third mile to the top of the black line at 6 feet.
It does, that is exactly how I have shown it.
So what you are saying is that there is nothing wrong with my diagram.
If you continue along that line, when you get to the 4 miles distance, you end up with 11 ft. The problem is that that is looking up at the 6 ft tube, not level.
That means it isn't equivalent to looking though a level tube that is 6 ft above the ground. It is equivalent to looking through a tube pointing upwards, 6 ft above the ground.
As you have pointed out many times, we are discussing a level tube.
You twist is as you want but you're getting desperate.
Stop projecting.
You are the one twisting a simple math problem of 6 ft + 8 inches, into pure BS to try to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
Again, the ground has dropped by 8 inches in that mile, regardless of what BS you want to try to play. That means relative to our level view point, it is 6 ft and 8 inches below.
No amount of twisting by you will change that.
There is no way you can magically change that 8 inches into 5 ft.
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
Or deal with the level tube at 6 feet looking over a downward gradient like JJA supposedly did.
With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.
In JJA's downward gradient and 6 feet level tube, you would not see the downward slope.
Follow your own advice and actually deal with it.
All you have are lies and contradictions.
You blatantly lie to pretend that it will magically grow to an 11 ft drop for no reason at all and continually deflect away from the fact that that still isn't enough ot make it not visible.
Again, on what basis do you spout your blatant lie that on a RE you wouldn't see anything but sky?
On what do you spout your blatant lie that you can't see the downwards slope?
Again, all you had for that was your blatant lie that you can't see anything below the level of the tube, but you have admitted that you can see things below the tube.
Now grow up, stop with the pathetic deflections and actually deal with it.
You are arguing for scoped sight.
No, he isn't.
He is arguing for light travelling in straight lines.
The point is, this straight lines, which make this cone you hate so much, is NOT a scope.
Do you notice the lack of a lens and the lack of light suddenly tuning?
That shows it isn't a scope.
Why are you continually lying and pretending people are arguing for a scope to dismiss them?
Why can't you just be honest for once and admit you are wrong?
I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..
No, you are telling us what we actually see on the globe, in reality, when we look to the horizon, vs your blatant lie against the globe to pretend we aren't on a globe.
-
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.
which contradicts this :-
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Of course they contradict.
I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..
Correct
Two separate points
1. people can see a FIELD OF VIEW hence jjas tu-tube photo showing you wrong.
2. Eye level has been explained to you and you have yet to diagram how in denP two people at different heights wil obtain an eyelevel of rhe horizon.
-
Its been explained
With a diagram
Keep deflecting.
Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope
Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.
Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.
I said your eye is a pinhole.
You responded with "fluted compression over distance."
Showing you neither read the words nor looked at the image but instead merely happy to repeat your meaningless word salad.
Then youresponded "is there a scope?"
Showing once again zero comprehension of the words and picture provided.
So
Very simply
You are an idiot.
-
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.
which contradicts this :-
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Of course they contradict.
I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..
Correct
Two separate points
1. people can see a FIELD OF VIEW hence jjas tu-tube photo showing you wrong.
2. Eye level has been explained to you and you have yet to diagram how in denP two people at different heights wil obtain an eyelevel of rhe horizon.
I have no issue with FOV. I never have.
It was twisted to say I did.
Go back and see it all and put up the quotes and reference where they came from and let's see.
I said you have FOV by naked eye.
I said your FOV is in tunnel vision through a tube.
The argument skewed into nonsense from this point with you all throwing in all kinds of stuff and having a good old back patting giggle while I sat back and just smirked at your silliness.
Now you're trying to be serious and you don't know what you're trying to be serious about.
Put better effort in.
-
Its been explained
With a diagram
Keep deflecting.
Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope
Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.
Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.
I said your eye is a pinhole.
You responded with "fluted compression over distance."
Showing you neither read the words nor looked at the image but instead merely happy to repeat your meaningless word salad.
Then youresponded "is there a scope?"
Showing once again zero comprehension of the words and picture provided.
So
Very simply
You are an idiot.
No I didn't.
I said you people are making out it's fluted over distance.
-
Skirting semanitcs and not actually addressing the question.
Still deflecting and avoiding.
Is
Your
Eyeball
A
Pinhole camera?
-
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.
which contradicts this :-
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Of course they contradict.
I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..
Correct
Two separate points
1. people can see a FIELD OF VIEW hence jjas tu-tube photo showing you wrong.
2. Eye level has been explained to you and you have yet to diagram how in denP two people at different heights wil obtain an eyelevel of rhe horizon.
I have no issue with FOV. I never have.
It was twisted to say I did.
Go back and see it all and put up the quotes and reference where they came from and let's see.
I said you have FOV by naked eye.
I said your FOV is in tunnel vision through a tube.
The argument skewed into nonsense from this point with you all throwing in all kinds of stuff and having a good old back patting giggle while I sat back and just smirked at your silliness.
Now you're trying to be serious and you don't know what you're trying to be serious about.
Put better effort in.
Bored provided diagrams which you amazingly misunderstood, contradicted yourself and still have yet to provide your own.
And with jjas unleveled single tube photo showed that there is still a fov allowing you to see the ground at some far enough away distance.
Jackb followed up with the appropriate distance.
And you pathetically added a 2nd tube and a vertical plumb line.
We yet to see any effort from your side to educate us and explain what is going on.
Educate us.
Feel free.
Anytime now.
Pushing 150pg soon.
-
Skirting semanitcs and not actually addressing the question.
Still deflecting and avoiding.
Is
Your
Eyeball
A
Pinhole camera?
No. It's an eye ball.
-
Bored provided diagrams which you amazingly misunderstood, contradicted yourself and still have yet to provide your own.
And with jjas unleveled single tube photo showed that there is still a fov allowing you to see the ground at some far enough away distance.
Jackb followed up with the appropriate distance.
And you pathetically added a 2nd tube and a vertical plumb line.
We yet to see any effort from your side to educate us and explain what is going on.
Educate us.
Feel free.
Anytime now.
Pushing 150pg soon.
Educate you on what?
You don't want anything from me.
You have all you need from the curriculum you bought into, to present day of acceptance of anything officially put out by what you deem as, authority.
How can I educate you?
Maybe try and question what you were indoctrinated with and you might......I say "might" start to think outside of that box and maybe......I say "maybe" you could start seeing reasoning behind the stuff you massively reject with gusto, now.
-
Skirting semanitcs and not actually addressing the question.
Still deflecting and avoiding.
Is
Your
Eyeball
A
Pinhole camera?
No. It's an eye ball.
Then you are incorrect.
Being an eye doctor does not require acceptance the earth is flat.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera and fully explains far = small close = big.
-
Bored provided diagrams which you amazingly misunderstood, contradicted yourself and still have yet to provide your own.
And with jjas unleveled single tube photo showed that there is still a fov allowing you to see the ground at some far enough away distance.
Jackb followed up with the appropriate distance.
And you pathetically added a 2nd tube and a vertical plumb line.
We yet to see any effort from your side to educate us and explain what is going on.
Educate us.
Feel free.
Anytime now.
Pushing 150pg soon.
Educate you on what?
You don't want anything from me.
You have all you need from the curriculum you bought into, to present day of acceptance of anything officially put out by what you deem as, authority.
How can I educate you?
Maybe try and question what you were indoctrinated with and you might......I say "might" start to think outside of that box and maybe......I say "maybe" you could start seeing reasoning behind the stuff you massively reject with gusto, now.
You came here to tell us we re wrong.
We provided our standpoint.
You provided a glimps of yours - and nothing further.
If you continue to dodge and not partucipate i will conitnue to make fun of you.
Because we are no longer discussing ideas.
Its just you say "nuh uh" over and over.
If youre right, take it beyond "curshing friction fluted dark on light" and provide something of susbstance.
-
I have no issue with FOV. I never have.
It was twisted to say I did.
You mean it was honestly shown that your position relies upon pretending there is no FOV, or that it magically becomes a straight line.
If you actually accepted the fact that we have a FOV, and this limits what we can see, you would be using it in your argument, rather than continually dismissing it and continually trying to appeal to a level tube as if it magically means you don't have a FOV.
I said you have FOV by naked eye.
I said your FOV is in tunnel vision through a tube.
And your claims about the tube are pure BS.
Even though a tube, you still have a FOV.
It doesn't magically make it a straight line like you want to pretend, all so you can pretend you can't see the ground.
Again, if you actually had no issues with FOV, to determine if you can see the ground or not, you would simply calculate the dip angle to it, and see if that is within your FOV.
Instead you do whatever you can to avoid that as you know it shows you are wrong.
The only one trying to twist things here is you.
So follow your own advice, and actually put some effort in.
Again, this image shows your blatant lie:
(https://i.imgur.com/wr4zwI7.png)
The orange line shows the view from the extra 3 miles back. It has the drop increasing until you reach the tube at 6 ft.
But unlike your lie, it is clearly not equivalent.
That is because it is going upwards through the tube, not level through it.
The 11 ft you want to pretend is there, is the distance from the line passing through the middle of an UPWARDS facing tube at 6 ft elevation, to the base of an object 1 mile away.
If instead you use a LEVEL tube, like you continually hyped on about to ensure we were doing that, we end up with only 6 ft 8 inches.
That is the purple line.
Notice how unlike your orange lie, the purple line passes through the tube LEVEL, not going upwards, not going down, but LEVEL.
This means that your claims about the extra 3 miles are pure BS, and yet again just shows you lying to try to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
But again, if you actually had no issues with FOV, then for the tube I said before, a 1 inch diameter 10 inch long tube, we have a FOV of 5.7 degrees.
The ground, even with your blatant lie of 11 ft below, at 1 mile distance, is at an angle of dip of 0.1 degree.
That puts it well within the FOV of the tube, and thus you CAN see the ground through this tube, even on your blatant lie of the RE.
If instead you stick to reality, to the 8 inches per mile squared, you end up with 0.07 degrees.
And as you go further away, perspective (or as you prefer to call it, "convergence") still wins, such that at 2 miles, you have an angle of dip of 0.047 degrees, then at 3 miles it is 0.043. It is only after that that curvature starts to beat perspective/"convergence", and Earth starts blocking the view to the more distant ground. This gives what most people know of as the HORIZON.
So again, it doesn't matter if you want to accept the fact you are wrong and use the real 6 ft and 8 inches, or if you want to continue to lie to try to pretend there is a problem with the RE by pretending it is magically 11 ft, defying all reason; you end up with it visible through the tube.
Again, the only way for you to pretend there was a problem seeing the ground if by pretending you can't see anything below the level of the tube. But you have admitted that is not the case and you CAN see things below the tube.
-
Skirting semanitcs and not actually addressing the question.
Still deflecting and avoiding.
Is
Your
Eyeball
A
Pinhole camera?
No. It's an eye ball.
Then you are incorrect.
Being an eye doctor does not require acceptance the earth is flat.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera and fully explains far = small close = big.
You asked if the eye ball was a pin hole camera.
It's an eye ball.
-
Bored provided diagrams which you amazingly misunderstood, contradicted yourself and still have yet to provide your own.
And with jjas unleveled single tube photo showed that there is still a fov allowing you to see the ground at some far enough away distance.
Jackb followed up with the appropriate distance.
And you pathetically added a 2nd tube and a vertical plumb line.
We yet to see any effort from your side to educate us and explain what is going on.
Educate us.
Feel free.
Anytime now.
Pushing 150pg soon.
Educate you on what?
You don't want anything from me.
You have all you need from the curriculum you bought into, to present day of acceptance of anything officially put out by what you deem as, authority.
How can I educate you?
Maybe try and question what you were indoctrinated with and you might......I say "might" start to think outside of that box and maybe......I say "maybe" you could start seeing reasoning behind the stuff you massively reject with gusto, now.
You came here to tell us we re wrong.
We provided our standpoint.
You provided a glimps of yours - and nothing further.
If you continue to dodge and not partucipate i will conitnue to make fun of you.
Because we are no longer discussing ideas.
Its just you say "nuh uh" over and over.
If youre right, take it beyond "curshing friction fluted dark on light" and provide something of susbstance.
No, I didn't come here to tell you you were wrong.
So what are you talking about?
-
Again, the only way for you to pretend there was a problem seeing the ground if by pretending you can't see anything below the level of the tube. But you have admitted that is not the case and you CAN see things below the tube.
Nope.
You're twisting it once again.
You're trying to use a scope or naked eye as your FOV to see ground on a slope.
I'm using a tube at 6 feet, plumb and level for sight.
You can change it up like the rest as much as you want but you won't gain any traction.
-
Again, the only way for you to pretend there was a problem seeing the ground if by pretending you can't see anything below the level of the tube. But you have admitted that is not the case and you CAN see things below the tube.
Nope.
You're twisting it once again.
No, I'm not.
I am honestly and accurately stating your position.
Your entire argument was based upon claiming that because the ground is below the tube, it can't be seen.
Even quite recently, you just appeal to it being below, blatantly lying about the height in the process.
The only other thing your argument has been is repeatedly lying about what others are doing to pretend you can just dismiss them, just like you are doing now.
You're trying to use a scope or naked eye as your FOV to see ground on a slope.
I'm using a tube at 6 feet, plumb and level for sight.
No. I'm using the tube, level 6 ft above Earth.
You instead want to pretend that it should be pointing up to have an 5 ft drop over the first mile instead of the real 8 inch drop.
And as I have said repeatedly, you are ignoring the FOV.
Even with a tube, THERE IS STILL A FOV!!!
Again can you justify your claim that you shouldn't be able to see the Earth on a downwards slope, or on the real RE, through a level tube at an elevation of 6 ft?
Because so far you have made no honest attempt to do so.
You have just stated that it is below, lying about how far below, and acted like that should be enough.
Again, even if the ground was 11 ft below eye level at a distance of 1 mile, WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE VISIBLE THROUGH THE TUBE?
What if it was only 6 ft? Is it visible then?
What about 7?
Just what do you think the limit is?
Just how far below eye level does the ground need to be before it disappears from your tube?
-
Play games.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera.
No one ever said scope except for you.
The tube limits the field of view, but, the the limited field of view is still there and enoigh, at a certain distance, to see ground.
You chose rhe wrong tube and shouldve used a drinking straw.
You obiously realized this after jja and since inteoduced a tu-tube setup in a garbage attempt to further limit the fov.
Not our fault that youre not smart.
-
Precisely, all the tube does is limit your field of view. If you raise your head up and out from behind the tube, the tree 400' feet away, looks exactly the same size as inside the tube. It's just that your FOV is no longer limited by the tube walls. Simple as that.
The tube isn't magically compressing anything, making it smaller to your eye. Anyone can see that (no pun intended).
-
I am honestly and accurately stating your position.
Your entire argument was based upon claiming that because the ground is below the tube, it can't be seen.
Yes and I'm basing it on your global mindset.
Once you look through a tube you see no ground beneath your tube end......if your tube is set up level.
Once this happens you will never bring ground into your view on your globe, which is the exact reason why I used a downward gradient with a tube resting level upon it, as a yardstick to show you.
JJA then proceeded to try and play a noce con job not realising that I've already done it and any honest person can, also.
All you've done and continually do with anything, is twist it all to fit the narrative you abide by.
You cause your own frustration.
-
Play games.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera.
No one ever said scope except for you.
The tube limits the field of view, but, the the limited field of view is still there and enoigh, at a certain distance, to see ground.
You chose rhe wrong tube and shouldve used a drinking straw.
You obiously realized this after jja and since inteoduced a tu-tube setup in a garbage attempt to further limit the fov.
Not our fault that youre not smart.
It's not my fault you can't seem to grasp what's been said and also, you've never performed the simple experiment yourself in any honest way if you're arguing against what I've said.
-
Precisely, all the tube does is limit your field of view. If you raise your head up and out from behind the tube, the tree 400' feet away, looks exactly the same size as inside the tube. It's just that your FOV is no longer limited by the tube walls. Simple as that.
The tube isn't magically compressing anything, making it smaller to your eye. Anyone can see that (no pun intended).
I never said the tube compresses anything. I said it creates a tunnel vision.
I said your distant vision is compressed, like looking down a big funnel but in reality it's atmospheric density closing out the distant light/reflection back to your eye.
A demagnification for the sake of throwing a word out.
-
Play games.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera.
No one ever said scope except for you.
The tube limits the field of view, but, the the limited field of view is still there and enoigh, at a certain distance, to see ground.
You chose rhe wrong tube and shouldve used a drinking straw.
You obiously realized this after jja and since inteoduced a tu-tube setup in a garbage attempt to further limit the fov.
Not our fault that youre not smart.
It's not my fault you can't seem to grasp what's been said and also, you've never performed the simple experiment yourself in any honest way if you're arguing against what I've said.
What cant be grasp is that the eyeball behaves like a pinhole camera and explains why far = small.
Unless you have a different diagram to go along with yoyr words of "fluted demagnification of reflected compression", i think all of the biological world that has an eyeball will disagree with you.
But Feel free to educate us.
-
Play games.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera.
No one ever said scope except for you.
The tube limits the field of view, but, the the limited field of view is still there and enoigh, at a certain distance, to see ground.
You chose rhe wrong tube and shouldve used a drinking straw.
You obiously realized this after jja and since inteoduced a tu-tube setup in a garbage attempt to further limit the fov.
Not our fault that youre not smart.
It's not my fault you can't seem to grasp what's been said and also, you've never performed the simple experiment yourself in any honest way if you're arguing against what I've said.
What cant be grasp is that the eyeball behaves like a pinhole camera and explains why far = small.
Unless you have a different diagram to go along with yoyr words of "fluted demagnification of reflected compression", i think all of the biological world that has an eyeball will disagree with you.
But Feel free to educate us.
I've never mentioned fluted compression.
By all means make stuff up but you get nowhere doing it.
-
Yes and I'm basing it on your global mindset.
No, you are basing it on your own strawman globe, with a tiny radius. Do you have a real concept of how far a mile is, you seem to massively underestimate just how far it is.
It would appear from what you say that an 8 inch drop over 1 mile is like a cliff face straight down in front of your feet. When in reality you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a flat plane over that first mile.
Note: The following is based on a flat plane. No curve for you to misinterpret.
With the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/C05JHY0/bolbby.jpg)
And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/YtRgWpZ/gobby.jpg)
The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.
And again based on a flat plane:-
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
He ws told to draw his picture to scale.
He refused amd said it was imppssible.
He was shown two 3d simulations which matched real life photos.
He refused to comment an umclear whether he even w atched the videos
He is a pos.
-
Play games.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera.
No one ever said scope except for you.
The tube limits the field of view, but, the the limited field of view is still there and enoigh, at a certain distance, to see ground.
You chose rhe wrong tube and shouldve used a drinking straw.
You obiously realized this after jja and since inteoduced a tu-tube setup in a garbage attempt to further limit the fov.
Not our fault that youre not smart.
It's not my fault you can't seem to grasp what's been said and also, you've never performed the simple experiment yourself in any honest way if you're arguing against what I've said.
What cant be grasp is that the eyeball behaves like a pinhole camera and explains why far = small.
Unless you have a different diagram to go along with yoyr words of "fluted demagnification of reflected compression", i think all of the biological world that has an eyeball will disagree with you.
But Feel free to educate us.
I've never mentioned fluted compression.
By all means make stuff up but you get nowhere doing it.
Sorry
I thought you did.
Feel free to do everyhting minus the flute busienss then
-
I am honestly and accurately stating your position.
Your entire argument was based upon claiming that because the ground is below the tube, it can't be seen.
Yes and I'm basing it on your global mindset.
No, you are basing it on pure fantasy.
With a "global mindset", you would accept the fact that you can see the ground.
Once you look through a tube you see no ground beneath your tube end......if your tube is set up level.
This is your outright lie you are yet to defend.
Again, the only attempts you have made is by acting like because the ground is below the tube, it can't be seen.
But again, you have admitted that is wrong and that you can see things below a tube.
So stop with the pathetic deflections, stop just repeating the same pathetic lies and start actually addressing the issues in an honest and rational manner.
All you've done and continually do with anything, is twist it all to fit the narrative you abide by.
There you go with more pathetic lies.
All I have done, is repeatedly exposed your lies, using simple logic to show that you are wrong.
All you have done is repeatedly lie and contradict yourself, twisting back on forth on if you can see an object below the tube.
What you certainly haven't done is explained why you shouldn't be able to see the ground through a level tube on a RE or a slight downwards slope, when you can see the ground on a "flat" surface.
Likewise, you certainly haven't answered any of the simple questions which were made to expose this dishonesty of yours.
Again, why shouldn't we be able to see the ground on a RE or downwards slope, when looking through a level tube?
Again, you accept that we can see the ground even when it is 6 ft below the level tube.
Can we see the ground if it is 6 ft 1 inch below the level tube? If we can't, WHY NOT?
And regardless of if you claim we can or can't, just where is the line drawn?
How far below the tube must an object be in order to no longer be visible?
Can you actually address any of these?
Or can you only continue to repeat the same pathetic lies and continue with the same pathetic deflection.
-
With a "global mindset", you would accept the fact that you can see the ground.
Absolutely not.
I've been trying to tell you this for long enough but you go into twist mode, once again.
You'll get nowhere acting like you do, in a massive frenzy.
-
But we can see the ground on a globe because :-
You wouldn't. Not through the tube I mentioned.
-
With a "global mindset", you would accept the fact that you can see the ground.
Absolutely not.
I've been trying to tell you this for long enough but you go into twist mode, once again.
The problem is all you are doing is telling, without any justification at all.
As for twisting, that would be you repeatedly.
Yet again, rather than try to justify your claim, you just repeat the same lies and deflections.
Again, where is the justification for your claim?
Again, how far below the eye line would an object at 1 mile distance be visible?
You have already admitted 6 ft can be. Can 6 ft 1 inch be?
If not, WHY?
Just where do you think the limit is and WHY?
Can you actually address this massive issue with your blatant lie, or can you just repeat the same pathetic lie to pretend there is a problem with the RE?
But we can see the ground on a globe because :-
You wouldn't. Not through the tube I mentioned.
That is just your outright lie, which you are yet to justify in any way.
-
So let me get this straight... You are seriously suggesting that you can prove the shape of the entire Earth beyond any doubt whatsoever simply by looking through a 1" diameter tube placed level 6' off the ground are you?
-
With a "global mindset", you would accept the fact that you can see the ground.
Absolutely not.
I've been trying to tell you this for long enough but you go into twist mode, once again.
You'll get nowhere acting like you do, in a massive frenzy.
with the ball earth gently sloping away, the backside will at some point become un-visible (***not counting refraction).
just like any other object you can't magically see the backside of it when staring at the front (without use of mirrors).
so your premise is flawed, as pointed out to you many times, that if you had put your drawing to scale, the radius is soooooo minor that it would be nearly undiscernable.
try it
i dare you to use any kind of software to draw a circle of diameter 12,000,000part with a view point of 1part at the surface.
try it out.
circles and triangles.
no "indoctrination" reuqired.
just plain ol' geometry.
try it out.
post a picture.
just circles and triangles.
feel free.
maybe bored or jja can help you, unless you feel they are distrustful, then by all means post your own.
-
But we can see the ground on a globe because :-
You wouldn't. Not through the tube I mentioned.
prove it
post your picture
-
So let me get this straight... You are seriously suggesting that you can prove the shape of the entire Earth beyond any doubt whatsoever simply by looking through a 1" diameter tube placed level 6' off the ground are you?
no
tu-tubes, 5ft apart, with a vertical plumb line.
pay attention.
he keeps telling us to pay attention because of people like you.
seriously.
it's not difficult.
-
So let me get this straight... You are seriously suggesting that you can prove the shape of the entire Earth beyond any doubt whatsoever simply by looking through a 1" diameter tube placed level 6' off the ground are you?
Nope.
-
So what are you trying to prove with this tube business then?
Since what you can see through a 1" tube placed 6' from the ground depends very much on the local relief and terrain of our individual surroundings everyone is going to get different results. So I don't see what anyone is trying to prove. If I look through the tube on level ground I will see one thing (the ground included) if I look through the tube on say a 30 degree downward slope I will see something else (the ground not included). I know that because I got a tube from some kitchen paper towel, mounted it on a tripod and then placed a spirit level on the tube. Whatever I see doesn't provide any evidence for whether we live on a globe or not. If it did it would have been documented during antiquity.
It's not as if tubes are a new invention is it. They have been around for as long as human beings have.
BTW Sceptimatic - do you know the difference between the terms cropped and compressed?
-
So let me get this straight... You are seriously suggesting that you can prove the shape of the entire Earth beyond any doubt whatsoever simply by looking through a 1" diameter tube placed level 6' off the ground are you?
Nope.
Really?
Because you kept claiming that this blatant lie of yours is how we "know" we aren't on a globe.
That would mean it disproves the RE, beyond any doubt.
Fortunately for reality, all that is is your pathetic blatant lie which you still refuse to defend, where you still refuse to answer basic questions which expose it as a lie.
Again, you have admitted that we can see an object 6 ft below the eye line. Can we see an object 6 ft 1 inch below?
Regardless of if that is yes or no, just what is the cut off?
What if instead of being mounted 6 ft above Earth we mount it 10 ft above Earth. Can we see the ground 10 ft below then?
-
Again, you have admitted that we can see an object 6 ft below the eye line. Can we see an object 6 ft 1 inch below?
Regardless of if that is yes or no, just what is the cut off?
What if instead of being mounted 6 ft above Earth we mount it 10 ft above Earth. Can we see the ground 10 ft below then?
I haven't admitted anything of the sort, so why waste your time?
-
Again, you have admitted that we can see an object 6 ft below the eye line. Can we see an object 6 ft 1 inch below?
Regardless of if that is yes or no, just what is the cut off?
What if instead of being mounted 6 ft above Earth we mount it 10 ft above Earth. Can we see the ground 10 ft below then?
I haven't admitted anything of the sort, so why waste your time?
So now you are backtracking on what you have said?
Because you have admitted that you can see the ground through the tube if Earth was flat, even though it is 6 ft below the tube.
Remember, that was the entire point of the tree.
So have you now ran out of excuses and will switch back to pretending you can't see the ground at the base of the tree, contradicting yourself yet again?
If not, you have admitted that you CAN see the ground, even when it is 6 ft below the tube.
So for this magical tube of yours, what is the distance which prevents you from seeing the ground?
i.e. how far below the tube, does the ground at a distance of 1 mile need to be, to prevent you from seeing it in the tube?
Can you just directly answer a simple question, without all the dishonest BS?
-
Again, you have admitted that we can see an object 6 ft below the eye line. Can we see an object 6 ft 1 inch below?
Regardless of if that is yes or no, just what is the cut off?
What if instead of being mounted 6 ft above Earth we mount it 10 ft above Earth. Can we see the ground 10 ft below then?
I haven't admitted anything of the sort, so why waste your time?
Back to "nuh uhs" and not answering or addressing actual points.
Playing semantics and word games wont help you.
Youve been told how eyeballs work.
Eyeballs have nothing to do with denP.
Youve been told how geometry works.
Circles and triangles have nothing to do with denP.
Time to either educate us or give up on this thread.
-
Again, you have admitted that we can see an object 6 ft below the eye line. Can we see an object 6 ft 1 inch below?
Regardless of if that is yes or no, just what is the cut off?
What if instead of being mounted 6 ft above Earth we mount it 10 ft above Earth. Can we see the ground 10 ft below then?
I haven't admitted anything of the sort, so why waste your time?
So now you are backtracking on what you have said?
Because you have admitted that you can see the ground through the tube if Earth was flat, even though it is 6 ft below the tube.
Remember, that was the entire point of the tree.
So have you now ran out of excuses and will switch back to pretending you can't see the ground at the base of the tree, contradicting yourself yet again?
If not, you have admitted that you CAN see the ground, even when it is 6 ft below the tube.
So for this magical tube of yours, what is the distance which prevents you from seeing the ground?
i.e. how far below the tube, does the ground at a distance of 1 mile need to be, to prevent you from seeing it in the tube?
Can you just directly answer a simple question, without all the dishonest BS?
What you are doing is deliberately mixing it all up.
You need to start being honest.
-
Again, you have admitted that we can see an object 6 ft below the eye line. Can we see an object 6 ft 1 inch below?
Regardless of if that is yes or no, just what is the cut off?
What if instead of being mounted 6 ft above Earth we mount it 10 ft above Earth. Can we see the ground 10 ft below then?
I haven't admitted anything of the sort, so why waste your time?
Back to "nuh uhs" and not answering or addressing actual points.
Playing semantics and word games wont help you.
Youve been told how eyeballs work.
Eyeballs have nothing to do with denP.
Youve been told how geometry works.
Circles and triangles have nothing to do with denP.
Time to either educate us or give up on this thread.
If you want to give up the thread then do so, or just talk with your forum friends. Don't mind me.
-
don't act like you haven't given up then.
address the questions.
-
Its been explained
With a diagram
Keep deflecting.
Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope
Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.
Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.
I said your eye is a pinhole.
You responded with "fluted compression over distance."
Showing you neither read the words nor looked at the image but instead merely happy to repeat your meaningless word salad.
Then youresponded "is there a scope?"
Showing once again zero comprehension of the words and picture provided.
So
Very simply
You are an idiot.
what about a pinhole camera and your eyeball is confusing you?
this is how your eye works.
if the picture and the words weren't engouh here're two videos.
-
What you are doing is deliberately mixing it all up.
You need to start being honest.
No, what I am doing is pointing out your repeated contradictions and showing how your position is entirely without merit.
What you are doing is using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth can't be round, because you can't bring yourself to admit that what we see is consistent with a RE and what is expected on a RE.
After going down the long path regarding the tree, you finally admitted that you can see the ground through the tube, even if the tube is 6 ft above the tube, and lied and said you never had an issue with that.
But your argument for claiming you can't see the ground on a RE relies upon you absolutely not being able to see anything below the level of the tube.
Your position is pathetic and requires you to continually contradict yourself.
It is so pathetic and without merit you need to continually avoid extreme simple questions and instead repeatedly lie by accusing others of dishonesty.
You need to start being honest, sticking to what you have said before rather than outright contradicting it unless you admit you were wrong in the first case; and actually answering these extreme simple questions which show your position is garbage.
So how about you just answer the simple question.
You are looking through a level tube, 1 inch in diameter, and 10 inches long, towards an object 1 mile away.
How far below the tube can you see at this 1 mile distance and WHY?
Note this is referring to the physical size of the object, not any compressed size by your vision.
Is it like you first claimed, where you claimed you can only see the 1 inch of tube tube?
Or if the tube is 6 ft above the ground can you magically see that 6 ft, but no more?
Or something else?
How do you determine just how much you can see?
Unless you can actually address these trivial questions, your position is dishonest, meritless garbage and shows your irrational hatred of the globe.
It shows that your position is not based upon logic and reason, but is just you spouting whatever BS you can think of to attack the globe.
-
don't act like you haven't given up then.
address the questions.
I have no need to give up.
-
Its been explained
With a diagram
Keep deflecting.
Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope
Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.
Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.
I said your eye is a pinhole.
You responded with "fluted compression over distance."
Showing you neither read the words nor looked at the image but instead merely happy to repeat your meaningless word salad.
Then youresponded "is there a scope?"
Showing once again zero comprehension of the words and picture provided.
So
Very simply
You are an idiot.
what about a pinhole camera and your eyeball is confusing you?
this is how your eye works.
if the picture and the words weren't engouh here're two videos.
Nothing is confusing me but you decided to look up something and are now using it in a sort of frenzy.
What are you actually showing against what I'm saying?
Explain it in your own words...nice and simple.
-
What you are doing is deliberately mixing it all up.
You need to start being honest.
No, what I am doing is pointing out your repeated contradictions and showing how your position is entirely without merit.
There are no contradictions.
You twisting stuff and choosing to confuse yourself, is your issue.
By all means bring up pieces of posts where you think I have contradicted myself and I'll be quite happy to show you where you're mistaken...unless it's just a deliberate act from you, which seems to be the case.
-
You are shown the tube doesnt compress anything.
Far = small is resultant of angles and the eyeball being a pinhole camera.
Thats it.
Super simple.
Acknowledge its existence.
This is taking way longer than it nesds to.
-
The following is based on a flat plane. No curve for you to misinterpret.
With the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/C05JHY0/bolbby.jpg)
And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/YtRgWpZ/gobby.jpg)
The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.
And again based on a flat plane:-
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Looking out to sea creates a THEORETICAL horizon line.
There is no line.
There is a merging of shades from light or to be a bit more specific, it's a denser to less dense meeting of layers to your level sight.
It creates a pretence of angled view. It does not bring the sea to meet the sky, it converges atmospheric densities in the stacked layers.
You see your theoretical horizon because the sea is flat and the sky concavely covers it and everything else...as in, the dome.
This means the Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Getting back to your argument with the globe. It would always convexly curve away and down from your level view.
You would not be bringing ground or sea into any equation with this set up.
The tube takes away a scope which creates a wide angled view.
The tube over a downward gradient would omit the ground and leave you viewing anything above it.
I know what I'm saying.
-
Define scope
-
You are shown the tube doesnt compress anything.
I never said the tube did.
I said the tube gives you tunnel vision.
I said distance compresses the view, meaning the light back to your eyes being overcome by the light closer to your eyes.
Far = small is resultant of angles and the eyeball being a pinhole camera.
Your eye creates the angle as an end product. That's it.
The light that's reflected is not angled. Itgives the appearance if being angled because of your eye which acts like a funnel for it.
Thats it.
Super simple.
Acknowledge its existence.
This is taking way longer than it nesds to.
It's taking longer because you don't know what you're trying to say.
-
Define scope
Wide view of an area.
-
Ok wow
We possibly have a new definition for scope.
-
Ok wow
We possibly have a new definition for scope.
Can we attempt to differentiate scope from field of view?
Is scope meaning that a lense inside a tube (exterior from the naked eye)?
Or even a lense in general tube/ notube?
-
Ok wow
We possibly have a new definition for scope.
Not really. It just depends on how you see the word, scope and what you think it means to you.
-
The following is based on a flat plane. No curve for you to misinterpret.
With the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/C05JHY0/bolbby.jpg)
And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/YtRgWpZ/gobby.jpg)
The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.
Looking out to sea creates a THEORETICAL horizon line.
There is no line.
The ground would not be visible through a tube set at 6 feet in height
-
Ok wow
We possibly have a new definition for scope.
Can we attempt to differentiate scope from field of view?
Is scope meaning that a lense inside a tube (exterior from the naked eye)?
Or even a lense in general tube/ notube?
Scope ....FOV.....you choose.
-
There are no contradictions.
There you go deflecting yet again.
Again if you want to claim there are no contradictions how about you just answer the questions provided?
As they clearly show your contradictions.
You refuse to answer, because they will again show that you have been contradicting yourself.
You are looking through a level tube, 1 inch in diameter, and 10 inches long, towards an object 1 mile away.
How far below the tube can you see at this 1 mile distance and WHY?
If there is a tree that has its base 6 ft below the line straight from the tube, and passing through the tube level, can you see the base of the tree?
Note this is referring to the physical size of the object, not any compressed size by your vision.
Is it like you first claimed, where you claimed you can only see the 1 inch of tube tube?
Or if the tube is 6 ft above the ground can you magically see that 6 ft, but no more?
Or something else?
How do you determine just how much you can see?
And as for your actual posts showing the contradiction, how about this one, and the posts around it/related to it, where you clearly admit that you can see the ground even though it is below the tube. And this includes that the tube is 6 ft above the ground and the base of the tree is thus 6 ft below the tube.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2312325#msg2312325
Yet in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2313712#msg2313712
You lie and claim you haven't already admitted that.
You refuse to answer the simple question because it will either take us straight back to the tree where you will then contradict yourself yet again, or you will directly expose your contradiction.
Now again, answer the simple question.
You have a tube that is 10 inches long and 1 inch in diameter.
It is level. You are looking directly through it with your eye at the middle of the tube height wise. How far below the tube can be seen at 1 mile?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if you are on a flat surface, with the tube 6 ft above this surface, and the base of the tree also on this flat surface and thus 6 ft below the eye line?
I have no need to give up.
Because unlike some people, you don't care about the truth and are quite happy to continually lie and use whatever dishonest BS you can to prop up your irrational hatred of the globe.
If you had any shred of honesty you would have given up long ago and admitted you were wrong.
The ground would not be visible through a tube set at 6 feet in height
So we go straight back to the tree. Are you claiming we cannot see the base of the tree 1 mile away over flat ground, through a level tube 6 ft above the ground?
Even though you have previously stated that you have never had an issue with that?
-
There are no contradictions.
There you go deflecting yet again.
No deflecting here.
All I see is attacking from you in your frenzied state.
You need to calm down.
-
No deflecting here.
Is that why yet again you refuse to answer a simple question and instead just insult me?
This insults are a pathetic deflection.
Again, if there was no deflecting you would have answered.
You need to stop deflecting and actually start addressing the questions that have been asked.
Again:
You have a tube that is 10 inches long and 1 inch in diameter.
It is level. You are looking directly through it with your eye at the middle of the tube height wise. How far below the tube can be seen at 1 mile?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if you are on a flat surface, with the tube 6 ft above this surface, and the base of the tree also on this flat surface and thus 6 ft below the eye line?
-
Wide view of an area.
The 'scope' is the area we can see is it? I take my telescope (or scope) and I use three eyepieces with it. Now I point it (the 'scope') to the Moon and with the highest power eyepiece (shortest focal length) I can see a small region of the lower half (as we look at it) of the Moons disk. Next I take the medium power eyepiece and I can see a larger region of the lower half of the lunar disk. I would say my field of view is larger. Finally I take the low power eyepiece and now I can see the whole of the Moons disk through the telescope. So the low power eyepiece or longest focal length eyepiece gives me the biggest field of view and hence the best eyepiece for scanning or searching.
I would call the telescope itself the 'scope' while the area of sky I can see through the eyepiece is my field of view. The low power eyepiece gives me a wider view (scope?) than the higher power eyepiece.
-
Ok wow
We possibly have a new definition for scope.
Not really. It just depends on how you see the word, scope and what you think it means to you.
Scope
Telescope
Sniper scope
The thing that isq used to increase ability to see things from very far away using lenses.
Very real things and commonly known and understiod by regular people when spoken in the context of seeing things far away.
As opposed to the definition of say the "scope of supply chain" where there is a vast majority of items, but my portion willl be limited few items i am able or required.
Be Like a normal human who uses language to communicate.
If i called you a dumbass, all here would consider this an insult, but ahaaa ive changed the meaning.
And it will take you all 50pg of back and forthing until i reveal my changed meaning.
Just kidding.
It means exactly what a google search will tell you it menas.
-
No deflecting here.
Is that why yet again you refuse to answer a simple question and instead just insult me?
This insults are a pathetic deflection.
The insulting is coming from you.
Anyone will tell you I'm answering.
The problem you have is in accepting the answer whether you believe it or not.
-
The following is based on a flat plane. No curve for you to misinterpret.
With the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/C05JHY0/bolbby.jpg)
And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/YtRgWpZ/gobby.jpg)
The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.
Looking out to sea creates a THEORETICAL horizon line.
There is no line.
The ground would not be visible through a tube set at 6 feet in height
So we're back to this :-
(https://i.ibb.co/WFkkVrB/tubefar.jpg)
The tree just floating in the sky, and you recommend that people test this for themselves? Just how accurate do I have to be? I can't get it to work. I must be within an inch of 6ft and have checked with two different levels, but I just can't make the ground disappear. Please, what am I doing wrong?
And i'm confused
You're confused because you deliberately confuse yourself.
-
Wide view of an area.
The 'scope' is the area we can see is it? I take my telescope (or scope) and I use three eyepieces with it. Now I point it (the 'scope') to the Moon and with the highest power eyepiece (shortest focal length) I can see a small region of the lower half (as we look at it) of the Moons disk. Next I take the medium power eyepiece and I can see a larger region of the lower half of the lunar disk. I would say my field of view is larger. Finally I take the low power eyepiece and now I can see the whole of the Moons disk through the telescope. So the low power eyepiece or longest focal length eyepiece gives me the biggest field of view and hence the best eyepiece for scanning or searching.
I would call the telescope itself the 'scope' while the area of sky I can see through the eyepiece is my field of view. The low power eyepiece gives me a wider view (scope?) than the higher power eyepiece.
Yep the telescope is a scope and yes yo can see the light magnified within that scope.
Now go and do it with a tube.
-
Ok wow
We possibly have a new definition for scope.
Not really. It just depends on how you see the word, scope and what you think it means to you.
Scope
Telescope
Sniper scope
The thing that isq used to increase ability to see things from very far away using lenses.
Very real things and commonly known and understiod by regular people when spoken in the context of seeing things far away.
As opposed to the definition of say the "scope of supply chain" where there is a vast majority of items, but my portion willl be limited few items i am able or required.
Be Like a normal human who uses language to communicate.
If i called you a dumbass, all here would consider this an insult, but ahaaa ive changed the meaning.
And it will take you all 50pg of back and forthing until i reveal my changed meaning.
Just kidding.
It means exactly what a google search will tell you it menas.
Feel free to call me what you want in any language you see fit to call me.
I promise I won't cry.
-
No deflecting here.
Is that why yet again you refuse to answer a simple question and instead just insult me?
This insults are a pathetic deflection.
The insulting is coming from you.
Anyone will tell you I'm answering.
The problem you have is in accepting the answer whether you believe it or not.
Youre not answering
Youre deflecting and dodging.
And the insulting is coming from me and bored.
Maybe you feel insulted that jackb is calling you a liar?
Maybe instead of pleading for acceptance why not provide answers?
The eyeball has a retina and works like a pinhole camera and the angles created by the light entering the eye explains why close = big and far = small.
Yes?
Good
It happens in the eye and tu-tubes doesnt change the fact the eyeball is an eyeball.
Words used are as defined in the conventional sense Unless i suffix a word with ***denP, everyone should be under that assumption the traditional use of a word is being used.
If you are confused as to the meaning of a word, feel free to google the meaning.
If you choose to use your own definiton, please let us know and use the suffix moniker ***denP
-
No deflecting here.
Is that why yet again you refuse to answer a simple question and instead just insult me?
This insults are a pathetic deflection.
The insulting is coming from you.
Anyone will tell you I'm answering.
The problem you have is in accepting the answer whether you believe it or not.
Youre not answering
Youre deflecting and dodging.
And the insulting is coming from me and bored.
Maybe you feel insulted that jackb is calling you a liar?
Maybe instead of pleading for acceptance why not provide answers?
The eyeball has a retina and works like a pinhole camera and the angles created by the light entering the eye explains why close = big and far = small.
Yes?
Good
It happens in the eye and tu-tubes doesnt change the fact the eyeball is an eyeball.
Words used are as defined in the conventional sense Unless i suffix a word with ***denP, everyone should be under that assumption the traditional use of a word is being used.
If you are confused as to the meaning of a word, feel free to google the meaning.
If you choose to use your own definiton, please let us know and use the suffix moniker ***denP
You'll get what you're given and you'll like it or lump it.
-
glad we're working together.
-
The following is based on a flat plane. No curve for you to misinterpret.
With the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/C05JHY0/bolbby.jpg)
And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line
(https://i.ibb.co/YtRgWpZ/gobby.jpg)
The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.
The ground would not be visible through a tube set at 6 feet in height
So we're back to this :-
(https://i.ibb.co/WFkkVrB/tubefar.jpg)
The tree just floating in the sky, and you recommend that people test this for themselves? Just how accurate do I have to be? I can't get it to work. I must be within an inch of 6ft and have checked with two different levels, but I just can't make the ground disappear. Please, what am I doing wrong?
Go and set up your foot long tube at around 6 feet and level it.
Now look through it and tell me what you see.
-
Now go and do it with a tube.
What? Look at the Moon with a tube. OK give me a length and diameter of the tube you would like me to use. How will the Moon look any different looking through a tube compared to looking at it without the tube. A simple tube has no magnifying property so the Moon will look exactly the same size.
I could just take the lenses out of the telescope I guess.
-
The insulting is coming from you.
Says the one saying I am getting worked up into a frenzy, and repeatedly acting like I'm an imbecile that can't understand quite simple stuff, using those insult (and others) to yet again ignore the simple questions which show your contradiction.
Pointing out your contradictions is not an insult.
Exposing your lies about these contradictions is not an insult.
Exposing your dishonesty is not an insult.
Anyone will tell you I'm answering.
The problem you have is in accepting the answer whether you believe it or not.
No, they wouldn't. Again, you were asked simple questions, and you didn't answer.
Yes, you have some of them before, but the problem is that you continually contradict yourself.
If you were answering you would have told us what the maximum height below the tube an object can be to be seen at 1 mile distance and why.
You would have told us if we could see the ground at the base of a tree which is 6 ft below eye level.
You would have told us if we could see an object if it was 6 ft 1 inch below eye level.
You would have told us what magic stops the RE from being seen.
And plenty more.
The simple fact is you know you cannot honestly and consistently answer as it will expose your lie, so you just use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid answering.
You're confused because you deliberately confuse yourself.
No, he is "confused" because you repeatedly contradict yourself.
You stated that you can see the ground, and even went so far as lying by claiming you never had an issue with that.
But then you go back and contradict yourself and claim you can't see the ground.
So people are "confused" because you repeatedly contradict yourself.
In order to attack the globe, you spout pure garbage, which is easily shown to be garbage. This results in people asking about simple things like trees in the distance, which then requires you to change your tune to avoid appearing completely insane, where you directly contradict your prior claims which you used to pretend the RE doesn't match reality, as that would show your claims don't match reality either.
But then when it comes back to a RE, you again contradict yourself, rejecting reality and rejecting what you admitted with regards to a tree because if you don't, there is no problem for the RE.
Perhaps if you were consistent rather than repeatedly contradicting yourself people would seem less "confused"?
You can start by answering the simple question, if you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you just simply and honestly answer this trivial question?
If you weren't repeatedly contradicting yourself and needing to change the answer depending on what was being discussed you would have no problem with answering this question, especially if you had already answered it like you claim.
So are you going to answer it, or will you continue with the dishonest BS?
Go and set up your foot long tube at around 6 feet and level it.
Now look through it and tell me what you see.
That post was explicitly talking about a FE. We live on a RE, so we can't do that.
Also, why bother going down this dishonest path yet again.
JJA did that and you just dismissed what he provided as fake and called him a liar, all because it showed you were wrong.
-
Now go and do it with a tube.
What? Look at the Moon with a tube. OK give me a length and diameter of the tube you would like me to use. How will the Moon look any different looking through a tube compared to looking at it without the tube. A simple tube has no magnifying property so the Moon will look exactly the same size.
I could just take the lenses out of the telescope I guess.
I didn't mention any moon.
-
The insulting is coming from you.
Says the one saying I am getting worked up into a frenzy, and repeatedly acting like I'm an imbecile that can't understand quite simple stuff, using those insult (and others) to yet again ignore the simple questions which show your contradiction.
You're far from an imbecile. you actually seem like a really good person who seems to be ardently in favour of acceptance of anything official and extreme in your denial of anything that questions it.
It makes you appear frenzied at times but I have no ill will towards you.
I certainly don't call you stupid or an imbecile or anything of the sort.
I say you don't understand my side because it appears you do not. That's it.
You taking that as an insult is your issue but you are the one throwing out the insults.
But don't get me wrong. You are welcome to do as you wish, with me, verbally or in type. I will simply just call you out on it when you start projecting, which you do on a regular basis and still attribute that, to me, which is a double projecting thingy. ;D
-
Go and set up your foot long tube at around 6 feet and level it.
Now look through it and tell me what you see.
Around 6ft? Doesn't it have to be exactly 6ft or the magic doesn't work? Why have we now moved to a 1 foot long tube? How much difference does the tube length make? Obviously you want the tube as long as possible, why not ask us to use a tube 10 foot long as then at least some of your nonsense makes sense.
5 feet or 4 feet. How tall are you?
Just set it to your eye line.
-
You're far from an imbecile. you actually seem like a really good person who seems to be ardently in favour of acceptance of anything official and extreme in your denial of anything that questions it.
And there you go with more insults to deflect from the simple questions.
I certainly don't call you stupid or an imbecile or anything of the sort.
While you do not directly say that, your accusations imply it.
You repeatedly act like I am too stupid to understand your claims.
Again, the questions you have been asked are extremely simple. Why do you continually deflect rather than answering them?
If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
Go and set up your foot long tube at around 6 feet and level it.
Now look through it and tell me what you see.
Around 6ft? Doesn't it have to be exactly 6ft or the magic doesn't work? Why have we now moved to a 1 foot long tube? How much difference does the tube length make? Obviously you want the tube as long as possible, why not ask us to use a tube 10 foot long as then at least some of your nonsense makes sense.
5 feet or 4 feet. How tall are you?
Just set it to your eye line.
So simple
Now
Please
Draw or explain how the same horizon rises to the INDIVIDUALS eyelevel when the 5ft person is on top of a 100ft tower or 1,000ft mountain.
-
So re your reply #4489, what exactly do you want me to do with this tube?
-
Go and set up your foot long tube at around 6 feet and level it.
Now look through it and tell me what you see.
Around 6ft? Doesn't it have to be exactly 6ft or the magic doesn't work? Why have we now moved to a 1 foot long tube? How much difference does the tube length make? Obviously you want the tube as long as possible, why not ask us to use a tube 10 foot long as then at least some of your nonsense makes sense.
5 feet or 4 feet. How tall are you?
Just set it to your eye line.
So simple
Now
Please
Draw or explain how the same horizon rises to the INDIVIDUALS eyelevel when the 5ft person is on top of a 100ft tower or 1,000ft mountain.
I've explained so many times.
The horizon does not rise to the eye level.
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
Where they meet is the difference is light and shade.
Generally above light takes precedence over below, in normal atmospheric natural light.
You are not seeing ground in a physical aspect, nor sea. You see dense atmosphere above it and less dense atmosphere from the sky that both meet to your eye as you look out horizontally level.
It creates a theoretical line.
This would not happen if you were looking horizontally over a globe. You lose the shade below to be replaced by a washout sky, leaving no line, at all.......just sky.....assuming you could do this on a magical globe, which we can't, which is why we see the horizon in the first place whether we look out at sea level or up in a plane or a mountain top........etc.
Convergence of light and shade to the level looking eye over distance.
As simple as that.
-
So re your reply #4489, what exactly do you want me to do with this tube?
You could do what JJA failed to do if you want to play a real honest evaluation.
If you don't want to do it then don't give this post any attention, at all. Just overlook it and let's not argue it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsKzjJZn/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
So re your reply #4489, what exactly do you want me to do with this tube?
You could do what JJA failed to do if you want to play a real honest evaluation.
If you don't want to do it then don't give this post any attention, at all. Just overlook it and let's not argue it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsKzjJZn/scope.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Draw the man smaller.
Feel free to do it yourself if he intimidates you.
-
This would not happen if you were looking horizontally over a globe.
You keep repeating this same pathetic lie, but you are yet to justify it at all.
On a globe, you will see to the actual horizon for your location. This is a real, physical horizon, not just some effect of perspective or your nonsense gradient BS.
You are yet to explain what magic you think prevents us from seeing the globe.
The previous excuse you tried, you have admitted is wrong, but you now deny that.
Likewise, you dodge trivial questions which show you are spouting crap.
Again:
If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
This would not happen if you were looking horizontally over a globe.
You keep repeating this same pathetic lie, but you are yet to justify it at all.
On a globe, you will see to the actual horizon for your location. This is a real, physical horizon, not just some effect of perspective or your nonsense gradient BS.
You think so because you believe you're living on a globe. I wouldn't expect you to argue for anything else.
You'll only change that stance when you question the globe, which I do not believe will be anytime soon, if ever.
-
Go and set up your foot long tube at around 6 feet and level it.
Now look through it and tell me what you see.
Around 6ft? Doesn't it have to be exactly 6ft or the magic doesn't work? Why have we now moved to a 1 foot long tube? How much difference does the tube length make? Obviously you want the tube as long as possible, why not ask us to use a tube 10 foot long as then at least some of your nonsense makes sense.
5 feet or 4 feet. How tall are you?
Just set it to your eye line.
So simple
Now
Please
Draw or explain how the same horizon rises to the INDIVIDUALS eyelevel when the 5ft person is on top of a 100ft tower or 1,000ft mountain.
I've explained so many times.
The horizon does not rise to the eye level.
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
Where they meet is the difference is light and shade.
Generally above light takes precedence over below, in normal atmospheric natural light.
You are not seeing ground in a physical aspect, nor sea. You see dense atmosphere above it and less dense atmosphere from the sky that both meet to your eye as you look out horizontally level.
It creates a theoretical line.
This would not happen if you were looking horizontally over a globe. You lose the shade below to be replaced by a washout sky, leaving no line, at all.......just sky.....assuming you could do this on a magical globe, which we can't, which is why we see the horizon in the first place whether we look out at sea level or up in a plane or a mountain top........etc.
Convergence of light and shade to the level looking eye over distance.
As simple as that.
What?
The horizon is light atmoshphere on dark atmosphere?
-
You think so because you believe you're living on a globe.
No, I think so because that is what simple logic and reason dictates.
Again, the fact you continually avoid trivial questions shows that your position is not based upon logic nor reason. Instead it is just irrational hatred of the globe, and you just dismiss anyone who doesn't agree as only thinking you are wrong because they know they live on a globe.
It truly is pathetic.
Again, why do you continue to avoid these simple questions?
If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
Explain to me nice and simply exactly how and why looking through two tubes set up on a slope so they are in line and level with each other proves in any way what shape the Earth is. I do love your little sketch of Bob the Builder by the way. Complete with Hi-Vis jacket and yellow hard hat so as to keep the HSE people at bay. Very cute!
Also explain what your cross-hairs were made of, and how you managed to get them both in focus from your eye point. What is that cross like structure hanging between you and the tubes? I get it that the tubes have crosshairs mounted in them. If there is 5ft between the tubes then you would be standing about 30ft away from the tubes based on your diagram. You wouldn't be able to see the crosshairs clearly enough to see when they were exactly in line from that distance. Drawing lines and circles on a screen is one thing but actually setting up this sort of experiment would be hard and essentially pointless in relation to what you could learn from it. I'd love to see some photos of your set up if you actually put in the time and effort to do this.
All your 'experiment' does in an almost cartoon like way is explain very loosely how theodolites work. Which is well known in architectural circles.
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
I agree with you that the horizon is a theoretical line. Although I wouldn't use the word theoretical. I would use apparent instead. If I look out towards the horizon I will see a 'line' which separates the sky from the sea or land. The horizon is the border between surface and sky. If I see a buoy floating on the water apparently sitting on the horizon and then swim up to it the buoy will no longer be on the horizon. The horizon will have 'moved'.
In the same way if I look along a disused straight length of railway track the rails will seem to converge to a theoretical or apparent point in the distance. I know they don't in reality but it just looks like they do due to perspective. I could travel along an infinitely long and straight railway track at whatever speed I wanted and I would never reach the 'point' along the track where the rails actually converge.
-
This would not happen if you were looking horizontally over a globe.
You keep repeating this same pathetic lie, but you are yet to justify it at all.
On a globe, you will see to the actual horizon for your location. This is a real, physical horizon, not just some effect of perspective or your nonsense gradient BS.
You think so because you believe you're living on a globe. I wouldn't expect you to argue for anything else.
You'll only change that stance when you question the globe, which I do not believe will be anytime soon, if ever.
Sceptimatic, no legitimate reason has been provided by you or anyone else for JackBlack or any person in general, to ever question the validity of the globe model of Earth.
Why don't you work out the circumference of Antarctica on your flat earth model, sceptimatic, as compared to the accepted and well documented circumference. Then, rent yourself a yacht and sailing crew, and sail around Antarctica, and get back to us all. (Take Danang along with you for the ride)
One hundred and fifty one pages later of written diahorea, and the globe deniers are still globe deniers and the globe accepters still globe accepters. It's a stalemate.
If anything, I feel sceptimatic's incredibly weak arguments, have possibly brought many fence sitters from youtube, back to the status quo of the globe model.
Nice work, sceptimatic! ;D
-
I believe we live on a globe.
No wait, scratch that. I KNOW we live on a globe.
What would change my mind? A number of things
1. Traveling anywhere in the southern hemisphere and seeing the star Polaris
2. Traveling anywhere else in the world and seeing a part of the moon that is not visible from where I am, as would have to happen on a flat earth model
3. NASA coming out and admitting it >:D
4. Seeing the "southern ice wall", possibly guarded by penguins (with machine guns??)
5. A friend travels to Antarctica and never is seen again...
To me there is little solid, rational evidence to prove the earth is flat. The Earth has already been PROVEN to be round, so the burden of proof is on those who say the earth is flat.
So far the only explainations I've seen have been similar to "I don't see a curve" or "I walked around a bit with a level and it didn't change therefor the earth is flat". For whatever reason no FEers have been able to explain why we all see the same face of the moon, why travels from Asia to North america don't go over the north pole or instead take an absurdly long route that would take several days to complete, why only some stars are visible from certain places, why stars move across the sky in different directions depending on where you are, and why people are able to live and work in antarctica, travel to the south pole, and not run into an ice wall.
So currently, there are just too many problems with the FE model to be plausible, and little scientific evidence to support it. And by scientific evidence, I mean done by actual scientists, not some random pleb on the internet that hasn't gone to college or likely even high school, thinking that holding a glass of water to the horizon proves a flat earth.
-
What?
The horizon is light atmoshphere on dark atmosphere?
To your level sight of the shades of it through the stacked layers, over distance, yes.
That's why you get your theoretical horizon line.
-
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
Where they meet is the difference is light and shade.
Generally above light takes precedence over below, in normal atmospheric natural light.
You are not seeing ground in a physical aspect, nor sea. You see dense atmosphere above it and less dense atmosphere from the sky that both meet to your eye as you look out horizontally level.
It creates a theoretical line.
So what if I take a photograph. Does my very own eye converging light and shade happen before or after the photo is taken?
Whether you look level or take a photo of that distance.... level.... you see the theoretical horizon line.
-
Whether you look level or take a photo of that distance.... level.... you see the theoretical horizon line.
You mean the REAL line, at some finite distance away?
Again, what magic prevents us seeing the RE?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
What?
The horizon is light atmoshphere on dark atmosphere?
To your level sight of the shades of it through the stacked layers, over distance, yes.
That's why you get your theoretical horizon line.
Looks likr water to me.
Anyone else see water on the bottkm?
https://images.app.goo.gl/sEHvbbZdeq86YMDP6
-
Explain to me nice and simply exactly how and why looking through two tubes set up on a slope so they are in line and level with each other proves in any way what shape the Earth is. I do love your little sketch of Bob the Builder by the way. Complete with Hi-Vis jacket and yellow hard hat so as to keep the HSE people at bay. Very cute!
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
However, if your Earth is the globe you believe it to be then you understand that.... you..... looking level should clearly understand that your globe, underfoot will curve down and away from that vision with every inch, no matter how small the curve would be.
It would never rise up to meet your centre point of the tube (crosshair).
This is why standing on a downward gradient with level tube set up, shows there would be no view of the ground beneath and the ground beneath would change height over distance between that ground and tube end.
Basically you would never see any ground but would see into the distance, any ground that rose up from that downward gradient end if it rose up enough to get back into line of sight.
However, because I am are arguing against a globe and consistent downward curve over distance, you will never see anything merge, as in the convergence of shades of light, only sky itself, assuming it was magically possible to do it on a globe, which it isn't because a globe would not offer us anything of the sort.
Also explain what your cross-hairs were made of, and how you managed to get them both in focus from your eye point.
Cotton for tube and string from the hanging cross. Very simple and inexpensive or even free for ready to hand household bits and pieces.
What is that cross like structure hanging between you and the tubes?
Just a starter point for the eye focuse to the tubes.
It ensures there is no angled view and keeps a point to point level focus over a small distance over the downward gradient.
I get it that the tubes have crosshairs mounted in them. If there is 5ft between the tubes then you would be standing about 30ft away from the tubes based on your diagram. You wouldn't be able to see the crosshairs clearly enough to see when they were exactly in line from that distance.
You can do this experiment over 12 feet, no problem.
A one foot tube and 5 feet gap plus one foot tube, plus a 3 foot cross and a two foot distance to eye from that.
Drawing lines and circles on a screen is one thing but actually setting up this sort of experiment would be hard and essentially pointless in relation to what you could learn from it. I'd love to see some photos of your set up if you actually put in the time and effort to do this.
Go and do it. Simple stuff and you are welcome to actually use a cheap scope to view through the set up if your eyes are a bit dodgy over a small distance.
a cheap bird watching scope or whatever...it doesn't matter just as long as your start focus is through all crosshairs.
All your 'experiment' does in an almost cartoon like way is explain very loosely how theodolites work. Which is well known in architectural circles.
I could've told anyone to go and use a theodolite. How many people do you know that pown one?
I put out a simple experiment and a back up to ensure no cheating.
If you have a theodolite then by all means use it....but here's the key.
If you take JJA's set up and use a theodolite on that, knowing you have to set up the measuring stick to gain a level over distance, how high do you think that measuring stick would be as you moved down that gradient from a level set up?
Soooo, how in the hell would anyone expect to see the ground from thats et up?
The only way you can do that is to set up your sights on an angle down that gradient, which would obviously show the actual slope itself.....but that's not what the argument is about.
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
I agree with you that the horizon is a theoretical line. Although I wouldn't use the word theoretical. I would use apparent instead. If I look out towards the horizon I will see a 'line' which separates the sky from the sea or land. The horizon is the border between surface and sky. If I see a buoy floating on the water apparently sitting on the horizon and then swim up to it the buoy will no longer be on the horizon. The horizon will have 'moved'.
It is theoretical. It does not exist as a real line.
If you want to call it apparent then fine, as long as you accept it does not exist as a real line.
The horizon does not use a surface, it uses a convergence of shades from the surface and sky, not a physical hit on the surface.
Asfor seeing abuoy on your horizon. You never will. You would see it as an obstacle to your view of your theoretical horizon line or as a stand up above your theoretical horizon line.
The theoretical line is your convergence from your view over distance. The second you move forward the very second your theoretical horizon line moves away...because it's specific to your eye level sight over that distance.
In the same way if I look along a disused straight length of railway track the rails will seem to converge to a theoretical or apparent point in the distance. I know they don't in reality but it just looks like they do due to perspective.
Just convergence and no real angles are used.
I could travel along an infinitely long and straight railway track at whatever speed I wanted and I would never reach the 'point' along the track where the rails actually converge.
Yep, the very same as the horizon. It's all specific to you and every other individual has their own based on their own sight convergence..
-
Sceptimatic, no legitimate reason has been provided by you or anyone else for JackBlack or any person in general, to ever question the validity of the globe model of Earth.
Feel free to keep thinking that. I wouldn't expect anything else from people like you.
The one's that gain for it are those who are willing to sidestep attempted ridicule and actually question the global indoctrinated model.
Why don't you work out the circumference of Antarctica on your flat earth model, sceptimatic, as compared to the accepted and well documented circumference.
Well documented?
What does well documented actually mean in terms of what you believe you know to be, factual?
I'll take it you've done all the necessary travelling and working out and not just relying on stories....right?
If so, tell me about it.
Then, rent yourself a yacht and sailing crew, and sail around Antarctica, and get back to us all. (Take Danang along with you for the ride)
The go to retort when you can't bully people into believing a globe, so use stuff like this.
You think a yacht would solve any puzzle of the Earth?
The only solving of any puzzle against a global Earth is to first know it is not a global Earth we supposedly walk/sail upon or fly over.
Very simple experiments and logical thoughts are all that's required to scupper any global model people have been bullied into accepting.
Those who refuse to question it will accept the magical stuff that keeps it alive. Many, including yourself, will never dare to question that because ridicule is not something you could take much of, in my opinion.
One hundred and fifty one pages later of written diahorea, and the globe deniers are still globe deniers and the globe accepters still globe accepters. It's a stalemate.
If you accept a stalemate you accept there is no legitimate proof of your globe, so that's fair enough.
If anything, I feel sceptimatic's incredibly weak arguments, have possibly brought many fence sitters from youtube, back to the status quo of the globe model.
You are welcome to feel what you want to but it changes nothing from my side.
Nice work, sceptimatic! ;D
Thanks.
It leaves you struggling.
-
Whether you look level or take a photo of that distance.... level.... you see the theoretical horizon line.
You mean the REAL line, at some finite distance away?
There is no real line.
-
Explain to me nice and simply exactly how and why looking through two tubes set up on a slope so they are in line and level with each other proves in any way what shape the Earth is. I do love your little sketch of Bob the Builder by the way. Complete with Hi-Vis jacket and yellow hard hat so as to keep the HSE people at bay. Very cute!
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
However, if your Earth is the globe you believe it to be then you understand that.... you..... looking level should clearly understand that your globe, underfoot will curve down and away from that vision with every inch, no matter how small the curve would be.
It would never rise up to meet your centre point of the tube (crosshair).
This is why standing on a downward gradient with level tube set up, shows there would be no view of the ground beneath and the ground beneath would change height over distance between that ground and tube end.
Basically you would never see any ground but would see into the distance, any ground that rose up from that downward gradient end if it rose up enough to get back into line of sight.
However, because I am are arguing against a globe and consistent downward curve over distance, you will never see anything merge, as in the convergence of shades of light, only sky itself, assuming it was magically possible to do it on a globe, which it isn't because a globe would not offer us anything of the sort.
Also explain what your cross-hairs were made of, and how you managed to get them both in focus from your eye point.
Cotton for tube and string from the hanging cross. Very simple and inexpensive or even free for ready to hand household bits and pieces.
What is that cross like structure hanging between you and the tubes?
Just a starter point for the eye focuse to the tubes.
It ensures there is no angled view and keeps a point to point level focus over a small distance over the downward gradient.
I get it that the tubes have crosshairs mounted in them. If there is 5ft between the tubes then you would be standing about 30ft away from the tubes based on your diagram. You wouldn't be able to see the crosshairs clearly enough to see when they were exactly in line from that distance.
You can do this experiment over 12 feet, no problem.
A one foot tube and 5 feet gap plus one foot tube, plus a 3 foot cross and a two foot distance to eye from that.
Drawing lines and circles on a screen is one thing but actually setting up this sort of experiment would be hard and essentially pointless in relation to what you could learn from it. I'd love to see some photos of your set up if you actually put in the time and effort to do this.
Go and do it. Simple stuff and you are welcome to actually use a cheap scope to view through the set up if your eyes are a bit dodgy over a small distance.
a cheap bird watching scope or whatever...it doesn't matter just as long as your start focus is through all crosshairs.
All your 'experiment' does in an almost cartoon like way is explain very loosely how theodolites work. Which is well known in architectural circles.
I could've told anyone to go and use a theodolite. How many people do you know that pown one?
I put out a simple experiment and a back up to ensure no cheating.
If you have a theodolite then by all means use it....but here's the key.
If you take JJA's set up and use a theodolite on that, knowing you have to set up the measuring stick to gain a level over distance, how high do you think that measuring stick would be as you moved down that gradient from a level set up?
Soooo, how in the hell would anyone expect to see the ground from thats et up?
The only way you can do that is to set up your sights on an angle down that gradient, which would obviously show the actual slope itself.....but that's not what the argument is about.
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
I agree with you that the horizon is a theoretical line. Although I wouldn't use the word theoretical. I would use apparent instead. If I look out towards the horizon I will see a 'line' which separates the sky from the sea or land. The horizon is the border between surface and sky. If I see a buoy floating on the water apparently sitting on the horizon and then swim up to it the buoy will no longer be on the horizon. The horizon will have 'moved'.
It is theoretical. It does not exist as a real line.
If you want to call it apparent then fine, as long as you accept it does not exist as a real line.
The horizon does not use a surface, it uses a convergence of shades from the surface and sky, not a physical hit on the surface.
Asfor seeing abuoy on your horizon. You never will. You would see it as an obstacle to your view of your theoretical horizon line or as a stand up above your theoretical horizon line.
The theoretical line is your convergence from your view over distance. The second you move forward the very second your theoretical horizon line moves away...because it's specific to your eye level sight over that distance.
In the same way if I look along a disused straight length of railway track the rails will seem to converge to a theoretical or apparent point in the distance. I know they don't in reality but it just looks like they do due to perspective.
Just convergence and no real angles are used.
I could travel along an infinitely long and straight railway track at whatever speed I wanted and I would never reach the 'point' along the track where the rails actually converge.
Yep, the very same as the horizon. It's all specific to you and every other individual has their own based on their own sight convergence..
Anyone catch that he flipped and used scope in the understood common term of tube with lensed magnifier?
"Brid scope"
Ohooweee
And at the end hes flipping now.
Playing his word games.
- sceppy, no one here believes you can walk up to the horizon and see a literal line drawn in the sand/ painted in the wall (spilers*** ref truman show ending)
Haha amazing!
Truly amazing!
-
Whether you look level or take a photo of that distance.... level.... you see the theoretical horizon line.
So if we are looking (or taking a photo) and not perfectly level, then we see the real horizon. Dude, are you paraplegic or perhaps you don't have a neck, you are obsessed with level vision , as if we can't see if we aren't looking level.
You can look up and down and neither is level.
To focus on level you need something that gives you a reference to level.
A spirit level is one good way.
The other way is looking out into the distance and seeing a convergence of shade that gives you a theoretical level line.
This way you know you are looking at eye level to that convergence (theoretical) line.
Anything other than this and you would be looking at sea or ground (angled down, sight) or sky (angled up, sight).
-
Anyone catch that he flipped and used scope in the understood common term of tube with lensed magnifier?
"Brid scope"
Yep, you are welcome to use a scope to look through the tube set up, as I said.
You spend far too much time trying to catch me out and fail terribly.
-
Anyone catch that he flipped and used scope in the understood common term of tube with lensed magnifier?
"Brid scope"
Yep, you are welcome to use a scope to look through the tube set up, as I said.
You spend far too much time trying to catch me out and fail terribly.
You changed definitions and acting all surprised wjen no one understands you.
Youre playing games
-
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
In that case nothing will. Especially none of the drivel that you keep on coming up with. Your tube 'experiment' shows that your practical mind is about on the same level as your theoretical mind.
-
Anyone catch that he flipped and used scope in the understood common term of tube with lensed magnifier?
"Brid scope"
Yep, you are welcome to use a scope to look through the tube set up, as I said.
You spend far too much time trying to catch me out and fail terribly.
You changed definitions and acting all surprised wjen no one understands you.
Youre playing games
You struggle badly or you are playing games.
-
You can look up and down and neither is level.
To focus on level you need something that gives you a reference to level.
A spirit level is one good way.
I didn't ask how to look level. I was pointing out that normal people actually don't care if they are looking level or not, and they can see the actual horizon and the actual ground. You keep claiming we will see something entirely different, but insisting it must be 'level sight' to make us magically see what you claim.
Whether you care if you're looking level or not, you still see your horizon and are looking level when you focus upon that horizon.
-
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
In that case nothing will. Especially none of the drivel that you keep on coming up with. Your tube 'experiment' shows that your practical mind is about on the same level as your theoretical mind.
I'm well aware nothing will change your mind. I'm not interested in changing your mind.
You carry on with what you believe you know, for the rest of your life. I'm fine with it.
-
The horizon (theoretical) line is your very own eye converging light and shade over a level distance, meaning below and above atmosphere meet.
Where they meet is the difference is light and shade.
Generally above light takes precedence over below, in normal atmospheric natural light.
You are not seeing ground in a physical aspect, nor sea. You see dense atmosphere above it and less dense atmosphere from the sky that both meet to your eye as you look out horizontally level.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/SunsetHikkaduwa-April2012.JPG/1600px-SunsetHikkaduwa-April2012.JPG)
You're showing me an horizon and theoretical line.
What is it you're trying to get across?
-
Sceptimatic, you aren't interested in the true shape of the world, just in pushing your agenda and flat earth propaganda.
I don't see the value in what you're pushing, pusher man. The globe model is prominent because everything about this world fits the globe model like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. You can't even properly describe the model you're selling, can you, yet you expect people to buy it?
If Earth isn't a globe, you need to be very specific what shape it is, and you can start with the shape of Antarctica and it's size. * Try hard not to pull your usual ignore trick, for once.
In all honesty, it doesn't bother me that you're a dopey flat earther and likely a drag queen. Just so long as you're not a sovereign citizen. I draw the line with that.
-
Anyone catch that he flipped and used scope in the understood common term of tube with lensed magnifier?
"Brid scope"
Yep, you are welcome to use a scope to look through the tube set up, as I said.
You spend far too much time trying to catch me out and fail terribly.
You changed definitions and acting all surprised wjen no one understands you.
Youre playing games
You struggle badly or you are playing games.
"I knwo you are but what am i?"
Thats the best you can come up with?
Geeezz
Try focusing more on your theory.
Drawing some pictures.
Like the part you cut out where i called you out for chagning light on dark atmosphere to light on surface.
Draw a pictute.
-
I believe we live on a globe.
No wait, scratch that. I KNOW we live on a globe.
What would change my mind? A number of things
1. Traveling anywhere in the southern hemisphere and seeing the star Polaris
So I guess you're changing your mind about us living on the Globe, because Polaris can be seen from high enough elevation in the southern hemisphere near the equator.
You should choose your words more wisely.
-
You placed a long essay out. I asked you a few questions. You can't answer them so don't waste your time going any further.
This is your primary "debate" tactic -- endless deflection.
-
Sceptimatic, you aren't interested in the true shape of the world, just in pushing your agenda and flat earth propaganda.
Have to say I am with SM on this one. Sceptimatic is one of those people who simply likes arguing with people and the more the better. So by establishing and preaching unorthodox or unconventional views on things, he knows that people will challenge them. Hence people who come to forums like this and challenge him about his views (i.e. globe believers) are more attractive to him than those who agree with his beliefs. A conspiracy theorist does not seek power from other conspiracy theorists. They feed off those who challenge them.
It is well known among psychologists that you cannot change anyones views simply by arguing with them. So the fact that no one has so far changed Sceptimatics views on anything he believes in, that in itself feeds the further belief that has always existed in his mind that his views are in fact correct.
-
Nor did I. I came to try and find out a bit more about the reasons why some people still hang on to the flat Earth belief. I am all for finding alternative explanations or alternative theories but only when there is a need to.
As I read more posts I found that the 'theories' of the flat Earth side became more and more outlandish. Domes, ice walls, the Sun and Moon moving as if by magic just a few thousand miles above the flat Earth surface. Sometimes I needed to remind myself I hadn't been transported back to the dark ages.
-
I believe we live on a globe.
No wait, scratch that. I KNOW we live on a globe.
What would change my mind? A number of things
1. Traveling anywhere in the southern hemisphere and seeing the star Polaris
So I guess you're changing your mind about us living on the Globe, because Polaris can be seen from high enough elevation in the southern hemisphere near the equator.
You should choose your words more wisely.
Ah my bad, I should have said seeing polaris when your eye level cannot see past the equator... err... something like that (not sure exactly how to say it)
-
It is well known among psychologists that you cannot change anyones views simply by arguing with them.
Says the person that came here to argue with them.
-
Can you point out any of Sceptimatics claims that you agree with?
-
It is well known among psychologists that you cannot change anyones views simply by arguing with them.
Says the person that came here to argue with them.
Arguing is beneficial and can be enjoyable. Everybody argues. Yeah, sceptimatic will never change his outlook. So, what?
His outlook forces arguments requiring actual research, experiments, and reading widely. His arguments are making normal folk - globe accepters - smarter. I would also argue these arguments are lifting members like sceptimatic and yourself to higher levels of thought processes, which couldn't hurt.
-
I wouldn't want scepti to change his mind. I would rather him fully explain his theory.
-
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
It does convince me, as repeatedly explained.
The fact that the bottom of a distant object (such as a building) is obscured by the water, even though both myself and the distant object are well above water, clearly shows that this level water is curved.
However, if your Earth is the globe you believe it to be then you understand that.... you..... looking level should clearly understand that your globe, underfoot will curve down and away from that vision with every inch, no matter how small the curve would be.
No, if Earth is the pathetic strawman you make it out to be it will.
But in reality, as repeatedly explained to you, there are 2 competing effects.
There is perspective which makes things appear higher, and the curvature of Earth which makes things appear lower.
Over short distances, perspective wins. It is massive compared to the curvature of Earth.
Over much much greater distances, the curvature wins.
The point where this crosses over is the horizon.
If your pure BS was correct, every single ball in existence would appear as nothing more than a tiny point in your vision.
The fact they don't shows you are spouting pure garbage.
Again, can you answer the simple questions which show this claim of yours is pure BS:
Again, what magic prevents us seeing the RE?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
And no, appealing to a curve is not answering it unless you are going to claim that you cannot see ANYTHNG at all below the tube, regardless of how far away it is.
So if you want that to be your tactic, clearly state that so everyone can then reference to show just how wrong you are and how you are willing to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend the RE has a problem.
This is why standing on a downward gradient with level tube set up, shows there would be no view of the ground beneath
No, this is not why for anything, except why we know you are spouting BS.
It is nothing more than your pathetic assertion which requires completely rejecting the idea of perspective or as you like to call it "convergence".
It requires the false belief that if something is below the level of the tube it is impossible to see.
This is why you avoid such simple questions, because you know they expose the BS your blatant lies rely upon.
You can do this experiment over 12 feet, no problem.
Which makes it nothing like your simple claim of a simple tube.
Remeber, you claimed you could do this with a simple kitchen roll tube held up to your eye.
But now you have changed it from such a simple setup to one which is ~12 times the length.
I put out a simple experiment and a back up to ensure no cheating.
No, you put out a simple experiment, it showed that you were wrong, so you dismissed it as fake and threw in a bunch of needless complications so you can pretend you aren't just rejecting everything that shows you are wrong.
Soooo, how in the hell would anyone expect to see the ground from thats et up?
By understanding how vision works.
By understanding that if you look through a 1 inch tube at a distant object, you can see more than 1 inch of it.
It doesn't matter if you want to call it perspective, or convergence or some other BS, the simple fact is you CAN see more than just 1 inch.
This means as long as the slope isn't too great, you WILL be able to see it after enough distance.
The real question is how in the hell would anyone expect to be incapable of seeing the ground through a level tube from a tiny downwards gradient after they have already accepted they could see it on a flat surface?
Again, this is why you continually avoid answering simple questions.
You know that answering them will expose you as a liar.
The horizon does not use a surface
It uses the surface of Earth.
The theoretical line is your convergence from your view over distance.
Which is infinitely far away and not the horizon seen on Earth.
Very simple experiments and logical thoughts are all that's required to scupper any global model people have been bullied into accepting.
There you go lying yet again.
Very simple experiments and logical thought are that is required to scupper your BS.
Simply looking through a tube at any distant object is enough to scupper your BS lies regarding the inability to see the ground.
But even logical thought is enough for that.
The tube doesn't magically bend the light. All it does is restrict your FOV.
That means you can still see the ground, no matter how much you want to lie and claim you can't.
You are yet to provide a single thing which in any way actually challenges the globe.
Sure you continually lie by claiming to provide things which do, but again, simple experiments and logic shows that they are lies.
Simple questions which you continually refuse to answer shows that you know they are lies.
And you repeatedly contradicting yourself as you twist your position back and forth to avoid admitting these lies shows your character.
Many, including yourself, will never dare to question that because ridicule is not something you could take much of, in my opinion.
And like so many of your opinions, that is just another blatant lie.
Many, including myself, do question it, but find that the globe model answers our questions. That means we don't just reject it.
You don't question the globe.
Questioning implies a willingness to accept an answer.
You just outright reject the globe and come up with whatever pathetic BS you can to pretend that rejection is justified.
It leaves you struggling.
The only one struggling here is you.
You are struggling so much, you refuse to answer extremely simple questions.
are looking level when you focus upon that horizon.
Again, the evidence already provided shows that is wrong.
But that is the kind of dishonest circular reasoning you would use to prop up your lies.
-
Have to say I am with SM on this one. Sceptimatic is one of those people who simply likes arguing with people and the more the better.
That would imply actually responding to what has been said.
He doesn't do that. The vast majority of the time he just deflects however he can.
If anything, he is one of those people who simply likes to troll.
-
I wouldn't want scepti to change his mind. I would rather him fully explain his theory.
I agree
-
Sceptimatic, you aren't interested in the true shape of the world, just in pushing your agenda and flat earth propaganda.
I don't see the value in what you're pushing, pusher man. The globe model is prominent because everything about this world fits the globe model like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. You can't even properly describe the model you're selling, can you, yet you expect people to buy it?
If Earth isn't a globe, you need to be very specific what shape it is, and you can start with the shape of Antarctica and it's size. * Try hard not to pull your usual ignore trick, for once.
In all honesty, it doesn't bother me that you're a dopey flat earther and likely a drag queen. Just so long as you're not a sovereign citizen. I draw the line with that.
I'm not selling any model.
People ask me what I think my Earth is and I answer.
Whether it's correct or not, I will likely never know.
I don't push any of it out as factual, unlike you and others with your global Earth.
All I can say for sure is, Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon and especially not a spinning one.
As for your lame attempts at ridicule, you need to up your game.
Please try and up your game.
-
Nor did I. I came to try and find out a bit more about the reasons why some people still hang on to the flat Earth belief. I am all for finding alternative explanations or alternative theories but only when there is a need to.
As I read more posts I found that the 'theories' of the flat Earth side became more and more outlandish. Domes, ice walls, the Sun and Moon moving as if by magic just a few thousand miles above the flat Earth surface. Sometimes I needed to remind myself I hadn't been transported back to the dark ages.
More and more outlandish and yet you actually think you're stood on a spinning oblate spheroid in a vacuum of space....etc.
And you seriously think alternate views to it are outlandish?
I'd say alternate views to it are much more reasonable and have potential, far far far and away more than any spinning globe presents.
It's utter utter nonsense and it baffles me how people who've had the time to go over it, can't see that.
-
It is well known among psychologists that you cannot change anyones views simply by arguing with them.
Says the person that came here to argue with them.
Arguing is beneficial and can be enjoyable. Everybody argues. Yeah, sceptimatic will never change his outlook. So, what?
His outlook forces arguments requiring actual research, experiments, and reading widely. His arguments are making normal folk - globe accepters - smarter. I would also argue these arguments are lifting members like sceptimatic and yourself to higher levels of thought processes, which couldn't hurt.
At least you're seeing some benefit.
-
The fact you cant come to grips with how circles and triangles work should be alarming to yourself and anyone lookingfor "answers".
Also
Eyeballs.
Theyre a real thing and how they work dont rely on domes and denp.
-
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
It does convince me, as repeatedly explained.
Fair enough.
So now it's time for you to argue for what the Earth could be in its entirety now you know it cannot be a spinning globe.
-
I don't push any of it out as factual.
All I can say for sure is, Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon and especially not a spinning one.
So you push it out as factual that earth is not a globe, but none of your alternatives are factual?
My alternate theory is far from factual. I can't push it out as factual unless I can actually prove it.
All I can do is prove certain things that show it not to be a globe which means nothing what you people say, is anything like factual, only reliance on what you deem as, your authority.
I believe my theories have potential by simple experiments, none of which you'll get because your mindset is focused on what you believe in and you're welcome to it.
-
The fact you cant come to grips with how circles and triangles work should be alarming to yourself and anyone lookingfor "answers".
Also
Eyeballs.
Theyre a real thing and how they work dont rely on domes and denp.
I have no issue with circles and triangles.
You merely trying to use it as some kind of self leverage against me, is your issue.
-
It's utter utter nonsense and it baffles me how people who've had the time to go over it, can't see that.
So tell us, what can we observe that cannot be explained by a globe earth? Without just using your usual strawman of a tiny globe.
And explain how your stupid square earth model doesn't have the same issues you attribute to the globe.
I live in Australia. If I look through a 1 inch tube level at 6ft above the ground on your 'square earth' I would be many miles under water, therefore the earth is not 'square'.
Who said the Earth was square?
-
The fact you cant come to grips with how circles and triangles work should be alarming to yourself and anyone lookingfor "answers".
Also
Eyeballs.
Theyre a real thing and how they work dont rely on domes and denp.
I have no issue with circles and triangles.
You merely trying to use it as some kind of self leverage against me, is your issue.
Graat
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00 units.
Draw a stick of height 2units going vertical plumb off the circle.
Draw a tangent line from the circle to the top of the stick.
And a straight line from the bottom of the stick to the tangent point forming a triangle.
Let us know the angle between the two long ends.
Report back.
If any of the words confuse you, feel free to google them as their definitions i used are the conventional ones.
Also
Avoided the eyeball i see.
See?
-
Whether it's correct or not, I will likely never know.
If you evaluated it honestly and rationally you would quite easily know. The problem is it isn't the answer you want, so you plead ignorance.
All I can say for sure is, Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon and especially not a spinning one.
And while you continually say that, you have never been able to support that outright lie of yours.
More and more outlandish and yet you actually think you're stood on a spinning oblate spheroid in a vacuum of space....etc.
And you seriously think alternate views to it are outlandish?
Yes, as would anyone honestly looking at it.
You are yet to explain just what you find to be outlandish, and why. Instead you just continually appeal to ridicule.
It's utter utter nonsense and it baffles me how people who've had the time to go over it, can't see that.
No, that would be the garbage you spout, like claiming the ground magically can't be seen through a level tube; especially with how often you contradict yourself and how you refuse to answer extremely simple questions as they show your dishonesty.
If water level won't convince you then nothing will.
It does convince me, as repeatedly explained.
Fair enough.
So now it's time for you to argue for what the Earth could be in its entirety now you know it cannot be a spinning globe.
There you go with more dishonesty.
Again, it convinces me that Earth is round, as it would convince any honest, rational person.
So no, I know it can be a spinning globe.
Water level in no way refutes that. Instead, water level supports Earth being a level globe.
Now that you know Earth CAN'T be flat, you can try to think about what it can be.
My alternate theory is far from factual.
That's right. It is delusional nonsense with no connection to reality.
All I can do is prove certain things that show it not to be a globe
Then go ahead and try doing it.
So far all you have done is continually spout the same pathetic lies which in no way prove Earth is not a globe.
Again, if the lies you spouted where actually true, if you could actually prove Earth is not a globe, you would answer these trivial questions.
But we both know you know you are lying to us all. We both know that you know Earth almost certainly is a globe, you will just refuse to admit it.
We both know you answering these questions will show your attacks on the RE to be blatant lies.
If you wish to disagree, all you need to do is answer the questions.
Again, what magic prevents us seeing the RE?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
I have no issue with circles and triangles.
Then why did you repeatedly reject how human vision works when it is based upon that?
Why did you repeatedly lie and claim the base of a tree at 1 mile distance on the RE, will magically be 11 ft below the view from a 6 ft high level tube, even though simple geometry based upon circles and triangles, shows that it will actually be 6 ft and 8 inches?
Why did you repeatedly lie by claim a downwards slope cannot be seen through a level tube?
Why did you repeatedly lie by claiming that the RE cannot be seen through a level tube?
Why did you repeatedly lie by claiming the horizon a finite distance away is due to convergence?
Because if you have no issues with circles and triangles, all of those statements of yours are outright lies.
-
I don't know what you call your version of earth but it is based on the 'square and stationary earth'.
It isn't based on that, at all.
Sorry if I have confused you. I will refer to it as 'Sceppys retard shape earth' instead, unless you have a better word for it?
You haven't confused me. You're confusing yourself by not paying attention.
You can only frustrate yourself with your games.
I live in Australia. If I look through a 1 inch tube level at 6ft above the ground on your 'Sceppys retard shape earth' I would be many miles under water, therefore the earth is not 'Sceppys retard shape'.
No, you wouldn't.
Like I said, pay more attention.Maybe your global minded pals will help you out.
-
The fact you cant come to grips with how circles and triangles work should be alarming to yourself and anyone lookingfor "answers".
Also
Eyeballs.
Theyre a real thing and how they work dont rely on domes and denp.
I have no issue with circles and triangles.
You merely trying to use it as some kind of self leverage against me, is your issue.
Graat
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00 units.
Draw a stick of height 2units going vertical plumb off the circle.
Draw a tangent line from the circle to the top of the stick.
And a straight line from the bottom of the stick to the tangent point forming a triangle.
Let us know the angle between the two long ends.
Report back.
If any of the words confuse you, feel free to google them as their definitions i used are the conventional ones.
Also
Avoided the eyeball i see.
See?
Here's something for you.
Draw a circle and lay a level line along the top and bottom and two plums lines down the sides so yu have what looks like a square encasing the circle.
Don't look at the square but do look at the gaps in each corner created by the lines of that square.
Notice how they get higher and higher from the mid point.
This is what you'd be seeing on a level set up looking out.
No matter what you try to do, you will never change that.
Your globe cannot ever offer you any horizon, so we know it has to be something different.
What that is in its entirety remains to be seen...if ever...but I can make a best guess, as I have, which makes sense, to me.
What will never make sense to anyone who cares to use logic is, Earth supposedly being a spinning globe.
-
There you go with more dishonesty.
Nope, no dishonesty here, only logical thought and a dismissal of a spinning global model that I find preposterous.
-
The fact you cant come to grips with how circles and triangles work should be alarming to yourself and anyone lookingfor "answers".
Also
Eyeballs.
Theyre a real thing and how they work dont rely on domes and denp.
I have no issue with circles and triangles.
You merely trying to use it as some kind of self leverage against me, is your issue.
Graat
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00 units.
Draw a stick of height 2units going vertical plumb off the circle.
Draw a tangent line from the circle to the top of the stick.
And a straight line from the bottom of the stick to the tangent point forming a triangle.
Let us know the angle between the two long ends.
Report back.
If any of the words confuse you, feel free to google them as their definitions i used are the conventional ones.
Also
Avoided the eyeball i see.
See?
Here's something for you.
Draw a circle and lay a level line along the top and bottom and two plums lines down the sides so yu have what looks like a square encasing the circle.
Don't look at the square but do look at the gaps in each corner created by the lines of that square.
Notice how they get higher and higher from the mid point.
This is what you'd be seeing on a level set up looking out.
No matter what you try to do, you will never change that.
Your globe cannot ever offer you any horizon, so we know it has to be something different.
What that is in its entirety remains to be seen...if ever...but I can make a best guess, as I have, which makes sense, to me.
What will never make sense to anyone who cares to use logic is, Earth supposedly being a spinning globe.
Nopenopenope
Before you deflect
You claim to disprove the globe model so that, guess what, requires disproving!
Make the circle, make the model, compare it to reality, show the two dont match.
Draw the circle
Draw the triangle.
Report back.
Well actually
If you WANT to deflect
Feel free to prove your square circle plumbs by providing the photo/ video of your setup.
Do both.
Disprove one.
Prove the other.
Go for it
-
You need to significantly shrink those drawings.
-
Zoom in.
Life isnt that difficult.
-
Zoom in.
Life isnt that difficult.
Help him out.
-
Don't look at the square but do look at the gaps in each corner created by the lines of that square.
Notice how they get higher and higher from the mid point.
This is what you'd be seeing on a level set up looking out.
There you go ignoring perspective again and pretending we magically only see a line.
No matter what dishonest BS you try to pull, you will never refute the fact that we have a FOV, and that this FOV can allow us to see the RE we stand on.
So how about instead of your garbage, you take an observation point at some distance above Earth, and draw lines showing the limits of the FOV. You know, to see what is actually visible.
Your globe cannot ever offer you any horizon, so we know it has to be something different.
If that actually was the case, rather than just your pathetic lie, you would have answered the questions already.
Again, what magic prevents us seeing the RE?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Until you answer them, you are just showing everyone that all you can do is irrationally reject the globe because you hate it.
You have no argument against it.
Here is a diagram you are yet to refute, showing how a FOV on the RE allows us to see the horizon, with a purple line drawn from the observer to the horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/DPQvJ0R.png)
Yes, the horizon is below level, but still in the FOV.
And if you do the math for an observer 2 m above the RE we live on, you end up with that angle of dip being ~ 2.7 arc minutes, i.e. TINY, so it will pretty much appear level.
In order to pretend your blatant lie is correct you need to pretend we can magically only see what is directly level in front of us and pretend we don't have a FOV.
What will never make sense to anyone who cares to use logic is, Earth supposedly being a spinning globe.
No, what will never make sense is your pathetic lies.
Perhaps you should try using logic some time.
Nope, no dishonesty here
Well I wouldn't expect you to admit to your dishonesty.
But you continually lie about the Earth and refuse to provide anything to justify your lies.
only logical thought
You mean a complete absence of any logical thought from you.
Again, if you actually had logic on your side, you would answer the questions instead of continually avoiding them as you know they expose your lies.
You need to significantly shrink those drawings.
We have already established that even that is you being dishonest.
The forum is set so the maximum width of the image is to fit into the page.
You need to stop parroting the same pathetic excuses and start dealing with the fact that you are wrong.
-
Don't look at the square but do look at the gaps in each corner created by the lines of that square.
Notice how they get higher and higher from the mid point.
This is what you'd be seeing on a level set up looking out.
There you go ignoring perspective again and pretending we magically only see a line.
A theoretical line.
No matter what dishonest BS you try to pull, you will never refute the fact that we have a FOV,
I've never ever said we don't have a FOV. You keep claiming it because it suits your agenda.
and that this FOV can allow us to see the RE we stand on.
I disagree.
You don't stand on a globe, or sit, or sail, or fly and you certainly would not see any horizon.
-
There you go ignoring perspective again and pretending we magically only see a line.
A theoretical line.
No, this has nothing to do with your claim that the horizon is a line.
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV, and that it doesn't matter how far away an object is, if it is below a straight line going level from your eye, you magically can't see it.
I've never ever said we don't have a FOV. You keep claiming it because it suits your agenda.
No, I keep pointing it out because that is what your argument relies upon.
You are pretending that because the Earth is below us we can't see it.
You ignore the fact that we have an angular FOV which allows us to see objects below us even when we look out level.
This is because if you accepted the fact that we have an angular FOV and actually stuck to it, you would have no reason to claim we can't see Earth.
So you continually pretend that we don't have a FOV.
This can be shown by applying the same dishonest BS you use, but for a FE.
Draw a straight line to show your hypothetical and fictitious FE.
Now, draw a straight line parallel to this surface some distance above it.
Now look at the gap between those 2 lines.
The bottom line indicating the FE isn't getting any higher.
So by your delusional garbage, it shouldn't be seen either.
Just like you should only see 1 inch of the tree if your nonsense was correct.
I don't care if you explicitly state we do not have a FOV, or if you just continually act like we don't. They are effectively the same.
You pretend we don't' have a FOV to irrationally attack the globe, because you have no logical arguments against it; which is why you still avoid extremely simple questions.
Again, what magic prevents us seeing the RE?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
You don't stand on a globe, or sit, or sail, or fly and you certainly would not see any horizon.
And that will remain your pathetic lie until you start answering those questions and actually sticking to the answer rather than repeatedly contradicting yourself to irrationally attack the globe.
-
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV
No, I'm not and never have...and you cannot bring up where I have said it, so stop making up stories.
-
My alternate theory is far from factual. I can't push it out as factual unless I can actually prove it.
All I can do is prove certain things that show it not to be a globe which means nothing what you people say, is anything like factual, only reliance on what you deem as, your authority.
What mystifies me is how you are the first and only person I know who has ever laid claim to being able to 'prove' that we do not live on a spinning globe. Given the world population and all the scientists, engineers and other specialists in their respective fields, how come all of them, throughout history have missed something that dear old Sceptimatic has worked out all on his own..? The very same person who insists that the Sun and Moon are but merely holographic reflections off a non-existent dome.
-
Zoom in.
Life isnt that difficult.
Help him out.
Who re you talking to?
-
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV
No, I'm not and never have...and you cannot bring up where I have said it, so stop making up stories.
It seems you did right here:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
-
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV
No, I'm not and never have...and you cannot bring up where I have said it, so stop making up stories.
It seems you did right here:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
we now know that he changes the intent of the drawing, just like words, when it suits him.
using drawings is meaningless.
-
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV
No, I'm not and never have...and you cannot bring up where I have said it, so stop making up stories.
It seems you did right here:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
You put up a picture of a tube and a line of sight from that tube.
Outside of that tube would be a field of view.
Inside of it is tunnel vision with a small field of view. A compressed.
I already said it doesn't act like a torch beam.
It's you lot that deliberately twist it all to try and suit your own requirements.
I've never denied a field of view. It's just a case of how big you want that field against my compression of it.Angles were mentioned. I'm saying they do not exist inside the tube to a target on a level.
You people act like it's a torch beam view.
This only happens when you have something that alters your vision, like a scope or your eye itself without obstruction to scope, such as the tube.
-
]My alternate theory is far from factual. I can't push it out as factual unless I can actually prove it.
All I can do is prove certain things that show it not to be a globe which means nothing what you people say, is anything like factual, only reliance on what you deem as, your authority.
I believe my theories have potential by simple experiments, none of which you'll get because your mindset is focused on what you believe in and you're welcome to it.
So you admit your theory is not based in fact.
-
]My alternate theory is far from factual. I can't push it out as factual unless I can actually prove it.
All I can do is prove certain things that show it not to be a globe which means nothing what you people say, is anything like factual, only reliance on what you deem as, your authority.
I believe my theories have potential by simple experiments, none of which you'll get because your mindset is focused on what you believe in and you're welcome to it.
So you admit your theory is not based in fact.
Course it isn't. If it was I'd be able to show you it as fact.
The theory you go along with is not based on fact, either and can be proved wrong.
You can't prove anything I'm saying, to be wrong but you can certainly say I can't physically prove it to be correct.
If you took any notice you'd have seen my posts where I put my musings. My thoughts. My hypotheses. My theories.
Not facts.
Your globe has zero facts. Zero.
-
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV
No, I'm not and never have...and you cannot bring up where I have said it, so stop making up stories.
It seems you did right here:
So are you saying this:
(https://i.imgur.com/U2UYIR0.jpg)
Absolutely.
You put up a picture of a tube and a line of sight from that tube.
Outside of that tube would be a field of view.
Inside of it is tunnel vision with a small field of view. A compressed.
I already said it doesn't act like a torch beam.
It's you lot that deliberately twist it all to try and suit your own requirements.
I've never denied a field of view. It's just a case of how big you want that field against my compression of it.Angles were mentioned. I'm saying they do not exist inside the tube to a target on a level.
You people act like it's a torch beam view.
This only happens when you have something that alters your vision, like a scope or your eye itself without obstruction to scope, such as the tube.
wtf is torch beam?
i have an inlicnation but based on your history of actively being unhelpful to your own cause, i'll have to ask you to draw it.
redraw it without the tube and add in the torch beam.
because
as stated, and understood by all except you -
the red lines represent the range of FIELD OF FRICK"N VIEW and anything in between will be seen by the viewer.
let's lay that out as clear as possible.
the FIELD OF VIEW
THE FOV lies in between the lines of sight.
lines of sight
by definition of the first google thing that pops up
1 : a line from an observer's eye to a distant point. 2 : the line between two points specifically
amazing
truly amazing!
-
You are again pretending we do not have a FOV
No, I'm not and never have...and you cannot bring up where I have said it, so stop making up stories.
Again, YOU ARE!
Again, you don't need to explicitly state it to be pretending we don't have a FOV.
Your entire argument against the RE and downwards slopes pretends we don't have a FOV.
You pretend that because it is below us, we can't see it.
But as has been repeatedly explained to you, the only way for it to be that simple is to pretend we don't have a FOV.
As soon as you accept that we have an angular FOV, we can see some downwards slopes and depending on the circumstances we can see the RE.
If you accepted the fact that we actually have a FOV, that would mean discussing how that FOV allows you to see further down the further away something is.
So if the FOV is larger than 2 times the downwards gradient, you would be able to see this downwards gradient, even when looking out level.
Again, this was already shown in a diagram you are yet to refute:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVgct1L.png)
Remember that?
The FOV is shown in brown.
The black line is a downwards slope that is parallel to that.
Now, the FOV and the ground do not get any closer, and thus the ground is never visible in this case.
The purple line is a different downwards slope.
Now the FOV and the ground do get closer, and in fact the ground does go into the FOV, and thus it is visible.
The black line is the boundary. Any downwards slope which has a lesser slope than that black line will enter the FOV eventually. Any downwards slope with a greater or equal slope will not.
This means if you actually accepted the fact that we have a FOV, and didn't repeatedly pretend that we didn't, you would be discussing how large that FOV is (noting they are always measured in angular terms) and thus if such a slope would be visible.
The fact you don't, and instead just repeatedly assert that a downwards slope would never be visible through a level tube is you pretending we don't have a FOV.
It doesn't matter what BS you want to wrap it up in, unless you actually deal with the FOV and if that would allow the slope to be seen or not, you are pretending we don't have one.
You put up a picture of a tube and a line of sight from that tube.
Yes, a line of sight, not a FOV.
Even with the tube, you still have a FOV.
No matter how much you want to lie and pretend we do not have a FOV, we still do.
By pretending we only see in that tiny straight out region is pretending we don't have a FOV.
You repeatedly rejected the actual FOV from a tube, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nxXCmh4.png)
I already said it doesn't act like a torch beam.
It's you lot that deliberately twist it all to try and suit your own requirements.
You are the one twisting.
You continually falsely claiming it doesn't act like a torch beam, which in reality is saying that light will magically stop because of the tube, even though there is no reason at all for that.
What you haven't been able to do is justify that.
Instead you repeatedly twist your claims back and forth directly contradicting yourself, while refusing to answer trivial questions as they expose that dishonesty and contradiction.
This only happens when you have something that alters your vision, like a scope or your eye itself without obstruction to scope, such as the tube.
No, your BS only happens when you have something that alters your vision, like a scope.
All a tube does is block the light which would hit the tube.
That means you can still see the ground.
Again, this image shows what you need for your nonsense:
(https://i.imgur.com/PRAlDBf.png)
Notice the lens which bends the light?
If you want to pretend that the light is coming in parallel rather than at angles you need a lens.
That means you aren't just using a simple tube.
If you have a simple tube, then it is a simple case of any light that would hit the tube is blocked. Other light, such the infamous blue line, can go into the end of the tube and into the eye.
The theory you go along with is not based on fact, either and can be proved wrong.
Yet you can't provide anything to prove it wrong. Instead you just repeatedly lie to pretend it is wrong.
You can't prove anything I'm saying, to be wrong
We can, and have.
You just ignore it and lie and say we haven't.
Again, simple logic shows you are wrong.
Even the simple questions repeatedly asked to you shows you are wrong.
Such simple questions you need to repeatedly avoid because if you actually answer them and stick to those answers, your lies are instantly exposed and your attacks on the RE fall to pieces.
Again, what magic prevents us seeing the RE?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
]My alternate theory is far from factual. I can't push it out as factual unless I can actually prove it.
All I can do is prove certain things that show it not to be a globe which means nothing what you people say, is anything like factual, only reliance on what you deem as, your authority.
I believe my theories have potential by simple experiments, none of which you'll get because your mindset is focused on what you believe in and you're welcome to it.
So you admit your theory is not based in fact.
Course it isn't. If it was I'd be able to show you it as fact.
The theory you go along with is not based on fact, either and can be proved wrong.
You can't prove anything I'm saying, to be wrong but you can certainly say I can't physically prove it to be correct.
If you took any notice you'd have seen my posts where I put my musings. My thoughts. My hypotheses. My theories.
Not facts.
Your globe has zero facts. Zero.
Sceptimatic, did you really just write that???
Your musings, hypothesis, and theories are the polar opposite of factual and the global model is factual. You wholeheartedly admit the first part at least.
Your musings unfortunately for you, have been proven to be wrong, and you will never ever be able to prove them correct - because they are wrong. The facts for the globe are tried, tested, and proven. They can withstand the test of time.
I dunno, man. I think you need to go see your family doctor and get a thorough check-up. Do it for yourself and your family.
You're at that age when people can be vulnerable to mania from existential crisis. I see it happen in a few older friends of mine. The superiority complex, tunnel vision, and group think, can be fanatical.
Here's a suggestion: Take a break from this, cold turkey. After a period, if you decide to return to this, ask yourself why this is so important to you and take your time to refresh your understanding of the globe earth model first. Nobody will think any less of you.
You've got a lot to offer, and there are plenty of other productive pursuits you can invest your time and energy for rewarding results. Flat earth is never going to be rewarding for you unless you're a troll, and I don't think you're a troll.
-
Sceptimatic, did you really just write that???
Your musings, hypothesis, and theories are the polar opposite of factual and the global model is factual. You wholeheartedly admit the first part at least.
Your musings unfortunately for you, have been proven to be wrong, and you will never ever be able to prove them correct - because they are wrong. The facts for the globe are tried, tested, and proven. They can withstand the test of time.
I dunno, man. I think you need to go see your family doctor and get a thorough check-up. Do it for yourself and your family.
You're at that age when people can be vulnerable to mania from existential crisis. I see it happen in a few older friends of mine. The superiority complex, tunnel vision, and group think, can be fanatical.
Here's a suggestion: Take a break from this, cold turkey. After a period, if you decide to return to this, ask yourself why this is so important to you and take your time to refresh your understanding of the globe earth model first. Nobody will think any less of you.
You've got a lot to offer, and there are plenty of other productive pursuits you can invest your time and energy for rewarding results. Flat earth is never going to be rewarding for you unless you're a troll, and I don't think you're a troll.
My alternate to the global Earth you think you walk on, is fantastic. I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
All I need to do is to observe what we can actually do ourselves to understand what's potentially happening with Earth.
Your globe has none of it other than magical mysteries that do not marry up with normality.
You believe in it because you are severely indoctrinated into it and are happy to follow that.
I used to be, so I get that you can't or won't try to question it.
-
Sceptimatic, if it were a metaphorical or allegorical construct you were creating, then fine. But as an explanation for the physical ground that you and I and everyone else lives on, it just doesn't work.
Why does what you are creating, have to be literal? Put it in an alternate universe and refine it, if you must.
I believe in the global earth because I follow facts. I couldn't do the job I do, if I didn't. Think about it. The physical world is full of physical facts.
I think you've exhausted all avenues trying to marry your alternate world model to the actual earth.
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality, where you can't even get past square 1 with it and need to resort to continually contradicting yourself.
Your globe has none of it other than magical mysteries that do not marry up with normality.
There you go projecting again.
You delusional model has nothing other than pure magic which in no way matches up with reality or logic.
The globe on the other hand has massive ammounts of evidence supporting it.
You believe your delusional nonsense because it makes you feel better about your irrational and baseless rejection of the globe.
We accept the globe model because that is what all the available evidence indicates.
It has nothing to do with indoctrination.
The fact that you hate the globe has no bearing on us accepting that it matches reality.
Again, if it was actually indoctrination and the globe model didn't match reality you wouldn't be so afraid of such simple questions which expose your blatant lies.
The fact you need to continually avoid these trivial questions shows that your rejection of the globe is not based upon on logic or reason or evidence at all. Instead it is entirely irrational and without merit.
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
Sceptimatic, if it were a metaphorical or allegorical construct you were creating, then fine. But as an explanation for the physical ground that you and I and everyone else lives on, it just doesn't work.
It certainly doesn't work for the globe you think you live upon.
Why does what you are creating, have to be literal? Put it in an alternate universe and refine it, if you must.
I'm fine with how it's going.
I believe in the global earth because I follow facts.
Clearly you don't follow facts in my opinion, if you follow a global model. You may believe you follow facts and you're welcome to that.
I couldn't do the job I do, if I didn't.
Course you could. If you're already doing a job then you clearly can do it on the Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Think about it. The physical world is full of physical facts.
I agree but it's the physical facts that need to stand out as just them.....facts.
There is also a fantasy world that pretends to be based on facts. It's passed off as a global spinning Earth in a space vacuum....etc.
A fantasy.
I think you've exhausted all avenues trying to marry your alternate world model to the actual earth.
Not even close.
I've only just started.
Your global stuff of fantasy will be ongoing but the global pretence never was and never has been a reality.
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
-
Zoom in.
Life isnt that difficult.
Help him out.
Who re you talking to?
draw it
12,750,00unit diameter circle with a 2unit line standing on it
draw it
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
Are you saying that all the worlds transport of goods and people on board planes and ships, all of which utilize globe earth navigation measurements and tools, is not reality? It's all fake?
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
Are you saying that all the worlds transport of goods and people on board planes and ships, all of which utilize globe earth navigation measurements and tools, is not reality? It's all fake?
It's this whole construct, dozens and dozens of accusations delicately stacked on top of eachother. If one is disproven, they all fall down. Incidentally, they have ALL been disproven yet look at all these FEers who are still here.
-
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
That being the case you obviously have got little or no understanding of what a global model is. You do know what a globe is?
OK let's go back to basics then shall we. After all this time when we all thought that the spinning of the Earth is what causes something as simple and obvious as day and night, what actually causes this pattern that happens every 24 hours? And indeed the yearly cycle of the seasons. Both are examples of the reality that we all experience throughout our lives so if you are suggest these alternative realities then you also have to give us the alternative explanations. And not just your opinions. Actual evidence that shows your alternatives are the real explanations.
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
Are you saying that all the worlds transport of goods and people on board planes and ships, all of which utilize globe earth navigation measurements and tools, is not reality? It's all fake?
It's this whole construct, dozens and dozens of accusations delicately stacked on top of eachother. If one is disproven, they all fall down. Incidentally, they have ALL been disproven yet look at all these FEers who are still here.
Did you disprove ALL of them yourself, or did you take the words of others?
-
It certainly doesn't work for the globe you think you live upon.
Why not?
You keep repeating the same pathetic lies, without any justification at all.
Clearly you don't follow facts in my opinion, if you follow a global model.
Because in your non-factual opinion, facts are fantasy and fantasy are facts.
But this isn't something you can claim as a mere opinion.
You are claiming that things are not factual.
This is effectively stating a fact.
That is not a mere opinion.
Stop trying to use the word opinion as if it magically means you can spout ignorant garbage you want and not have to defend it.
Course you could. If you're already doing a job then you clearly can do it on the Earth that is not a spinning globe.
There you go stating another false claim as a fact.
The fact is that Earth IS a spinning globe, as all the evidence supports.
If their job relies upon Earth being roughly a globe (and spinning) then they can't do it on any Earth that isn't a spinning globe.
You not liking that fact wont change it.
I agree but it's the physical facts that need to stand out as just them.....facts.
Yes, facts like the surface of water curves.
There is also a fantasy world that pretends to be based on facts.
Yes, your delusional nonsense which you continually pass off as factual when all you can do is make baseless assertions.
It's passed off as a global spinning Earth in a space vacuum....etc.
A fantasy.
No, a reality you hate.
Because you hate it so much you do whatever you can to dismiss it as fantasy, but you can show no fault with it, nor refute the evidence supporting it (and no, dismissing the evidence as fake or pretending it isn't there is not refuting it).
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
You mean in your extremely dishonest opinion.
If you hadn't been on this site for so long and had your repeatedly lies about the RE repeatedly exposed, you could try claiming it is your honest opinion.
But the fact that all your claims have been refuted repeatedly, with you completely incapable of justifying your outright lies, and you needing to repeatedly dodge trivial questions shows that there is nothing honest about your "opinion" at all.
It is merely a wilful rejection of reality.
Until you can actually answers these questions there will NEVER be anything honest about your irrational attack on the globe.
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
Are you saying that all the worlds transport of goods and people on board planes and ships, all of which utilize globe earth navigation measurements and tools, is not reality? It's all fake?
Nobody utilises global navigation.
The reason they don't is very simple.
The globe we are told to believe in, does not exist.
You trying to argue it by using what you just did, shows nothing more than your adherence to a model you accept, seemingly, unconditionally and without proof from your own person.
-
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
That being the case you obviously have got little or no understanding of what a global model is. You do know what a globe is?
OK let's go back to basics then shall we. After all this time when we all thought that the spinning of the Earth is what causes something as simple and obvious as day and night, what actually causes this pattern that happens every 24 hours? And indeed the yearly cycle of the seasons. Both are examples of the reality that we all experience throughout our lives so if you are suggest these alternative realities then you also have to give us the alternative explanations. And not just your opinions. Actual evidence that shows your alternatives are the real explanations.
Let's be clear.
The global model you adhere to is set up in such a way as to deal with what you see.
Questions were asked and answers were given to suit, even if those answers had to tilt the so called globe and then wobble it and then throw in elliptical so called orbits, then crate a bulge at the so called global equator and a flatness at the so called poles.
Why don't we fall off?.....Gravity...yeah, gravity. It acts like a big string pulling us all back to the centre of Earth so we don't fly off....etc....etc...and blah blah blah.
This is the on going nonsense spouted to cater for everything asked.
Just fantasy to cater for he questions.
It just goes on and on and is utter utter utter, nonsense.
-
It certainly doesn't work for the globe you think you live upon.
Why not?
You keep repeating the same pathetic lies, without any justification at all.
In your opinion.
-
Zoom in.
Life isnt that difficult.
Help him out.
Who re you talking to?
draw it
12,750,00unit diameter circle with a 2unit line standing on it
draw it
Wheres the circle drawing?
-
Wheres the circle drawing?
What's a circle drawing going to achieve?
I've done plenty but you want one where the circle looks flat because you want to argue that your Earth would show this over the size but in the very same breath you also argue that ships fall down the curve over a few short miles.
The contradictions are mental.
-
Whats it going to show???
Its going to show either you are right or not.
Your claim was if the earth curves away from you and falsely conclude that it would curve away at such a rate you would never see ground.
Weve been telling you "triangles" for 150pg
Draw it.
Draw the circle to scale.
The mental is you having a thesis and never taking step 2 to evaluate.
Evaluate it.
Draw the circle.
Your statement has two posits that can ne easily argued.
1. Field of view or scope or torch or whatever dumbshit words you tried to twist with - fov is going to show you an angle as jackb says that will allow you to see the ground at XXX distance.
2. The curvature of the circle at XXX distance you will see the tangent point and show when ships bottoms start disappearing.
So feel free to prove us all wrong.
Cifcles and triangles.
Lets have it
-
In your opinion.
No, in fact.
Your lies have been repeatedly exposed. It isn't simply my opinion that you are lying. It is a fact.
Again, if it wasn't, you would address the simple questions that have been asked of you which directly expose your lies.
Each time you avoid them, you just provide further evidence of the fact that you are lying.
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
What's a circle drawing going to achieve?
I've done plenty
You have done nothing of constructive value.
You just continually spout a bunch of nonsense, dismiss or ignore anything that shows you are wrong, twist and turn your claims back and forth, repeatedly contradicting yourself, all while refusing to justify any of your lies.
Something constructive you could do is something like drawing a RE, to scale and showing the FOV through a level tube, like I already did.
Do you remember this:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
The curvature for this distance is less than 1 pixel.
You are easily able to see the ground through this tube, just like you would be able to do over a hypothetical FE.
Over such short distances the curvature is negligible and perspective easily beats it and allows you to see the ground and objects on the ground.
It is only when you start getting to much greater distances, several km, that the curvature starts to win and you get the horizon at the cross over point. For a 2 m altitude, that is roughly 5 km away.
Then after that the bottom of objects more distant will start to be obscured.
Even when they do start to be obscured, the difference in the angular position of the object is tiny compared to your FOV. You need to go to much much greater distance in order for that difference to be significant.
This is NOT a contradiction.
It is simply you being wrong, and your strawmen not working.
Stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball such that the curvature beats perspective even at a few cm distance.
The contradictions are mental.
Your contradictions are quite mental. You want to claim that you can see more than just the 1 inch of the tube, yet want to pretend we can't see a downwards slope or the ground on a globe because its below the tube, even though we can see parts of the tree that are below the tube.
You admitted we can see the ground even though it is below the tube, until there was the potential for that ground to be on a downwards slope or part of the RE, at which point you claim it can't be seen because it is below the tube, and then you pretend you never admitted that you can see the ground.
Your contradictions are mental.
Nobody utilises global navigation.
Ignoring reality doesn't change it.
Plenty of people use global navigation, navigation based upon Earth being a globe.
You not liking that because you want to pretend Earth isn't a globe, will not change that.
Your circular reasoning is pathetic.
You dismiss things which show Earth is a globe, by claiming it magically doesn't because Earth magically isn't a globe.
In order to actually make a rational argument, you need to explain how all these things which rely upon Earth being a globe actually work without Earth being a globe.
Which of course is impossible.
The global model you adhere to is set up in such a way as to deal with what you see.
Or to express that differently, it is based upon actual evidence, unlike your delusional garbage which is based upon a wilful rejection of reality.
Questions were asked and answers were given to suit
Or to express it honestly, observations where made, and the model of Earth made to fit those observations, just like any honest person would do.
Just why do you think this is a problem?
had to tilt the so called globe
You mean to produce a coherent explanation for the seasons which is both extremely simple and actually works?
then crate a bulge at the so called global equator and a flatness at the so called poles.
That is actually one which was based upon rational thought before it had the observation evidence to back it up.
This is because if Earth spins at all, then in order to have hydrostatic equilibrium, you need that bulge. Then experimental evidence showed the naive calculations were actually incorrect, and the bulge is larger than was expected.
Why don't we fall off
Before asking that you should ask why we should fall off and in what direction we should be falling.
But you already know the answer, and you cannot find a single fault with it.
Gravity is backed up by plenty of evidence showing that mass attracts other mass.
You not liking that will not change that fact.
You not liking that will not magically make gravity nonsense.
But you rejecting it and dismissing it as nonsense shows you are wilfully rejecting reality and that your stance is in no way based upon rational thought or evidence and is in no way honest.
If you want to claim it is nonsense, actually demonstrate that it is, not just that you don't like it.
-
It just goes on and on and is utter utter utter, nonsense.
Sceptimatic summed up perfectly in a single sentence...
-
Whats it going to show???
Its going to show either you are right or not.
Your claim was if the earth curves away from you and falsely conclude that it would curve away at such a rate you would never see ground.
Weve been telling you "triangles" for 150pg
Draw it.
Draw the circle to scale.
The mental is you having a thesis and never taking step 2 to evaluate.
Evaluate it.
Draw the circle.
Your statement has two posits that can ne easily argued.
1. Field of view or scope or torch or whatever dumbshit words you tried to twist with - fov is going to show you an angle as jackb says that will allow you to see the ground at XXX distance.
2. The curvature of the circle at XXX distance you will see the tangent point and show when ships bottoms start disappearing.
So feel free to prove us all wrong.
Cifcles and triangles.
Lets have it
You're not saying much.
I've shown you what your globe would offer and it doesn't show a reality...because we do not live upon a globe.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/nc9hfRz/image.png)
Bravo.
-
In your opinion.
No, in fact.
Your lies have been repeatedly exposed. It isn't simply my opinion that you are lying. It is a fact.
You're not exposing any lies from me because I'm not telling any lies.
However, feel free to think it and tell me at every opportunity when you get all worked up.
-
It just goes on and on and is utter utter utter, nonsense.
Sceptimatic summed up perfectly in a single sentence...
Global Earth summed up in one sentence.
-
Whats it going to show???
Its going to show either you are right or not.
Your claim was if the earth curves away from you and falsely conclude that it would curve away at such a rate you would never see ground.
Weve been telling you "triangles" for 150pg
Draw it.
Draw the circle to scale.
The mental is you having a thesis and never taking step 2 to evaluate.
Evaluate it.
Draw the circle.
Your statement has two posits that can ne easily argued.
1. Field of view or scope or torch or whatever dumbshit words you tried to twist with - fov is going to show you an angle as jackb says that will allow you to see the ground at XXX distance.
2. The curvature of the circle at XXX distance you will see the tangent point and show when ships bottoms start disappearing.
So feel free to prove us all wrong.
Cifcles and triangles.
Lets have it
You're not saying much.
I've shown you what your globe would offer and it doesn't show a reality...because we do not live upon a globe.
You havent
Because you, self admitted, rhat this drawing is not to scale.
Your whole arguement is prwmsied on this drawing and you, self admitted, it is not to scale.
Draw it to scale.
-
You havent
Because you, self admitted, rhat this drawing is not to scale.
Your whole arguement is prwmsied on this drawing and you, self admitted, it is not to scale.
Draw it to scale.
Take your time and think about things.
-
You havent
Because you, self admitted, rhat this drawing is not to scale.
Your whole arguement is prwmsied on this drawing and you, self admitted, it is not to scale.
Draw it to scale.
Take your time and think about things.
Draw it to scale.
Ill find the drawing eventually.
Menawhile
Nothing prevents you from actually proving us wrong by drawing it to scale
-
sceppy you are truly AMAZING!
watch the video.
let me know how much field of view is seen through this 1in sniper's scope at 500yards and the different levels of magnifications.
amazing!
Your field of view is compressed into an inch from the tube.
Magnification does not make the object physically bigger at distance.
Maybe have a think about it and you will understand.........................................maybe.
AMAZING!
Heres a funny tidbit
Definition of "Scoped" where i actually show a scope view as veey apparent by the use of a snipers scope.
You twistibg words is very obvious.
You are a pos.
-
Global Earth summed up in one sentence.
Fair enough. If that's true then just explain how there are two points in the sky, separated by 180 degrees around which all the stars rotate. Anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. If you live at the equator then all the stars rise vertically and set vertically.
How does your model explain that reality?
-
Man
Anyone remeber the drawing he posted where thean was like 5km tall on a ball earth showing some "level" site lines?
Is that image gone?
Did he delete it?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/nc9hfRz/image.png)
Bravo.
So, do you understand the difference?
Absolutely but it seems you do not.
-
Global Earth summed up in one sentence.
Fair enough. If that's true then just explain how there are two points in the sky, separated by 180 degrees around which all the stars rotate. Anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. If you live at the equator then all the stars rise vertically and set vertically.
How does your model explain that reality?
Can you make yourself clear and explain to me what you're actually saying?
-
Its very clear.
You are obviously trying ti troll out a discussion that, in simialr past experience, after lentghy posts, is waved away.
There is only one shape that will match the star pattern
-
Baby steps.
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.
-
I've shown you what your globe would offer
No, you have repeatedly lied about the globe to pretend it doesn't match reality.
You haven't shown anything that the globe would offer.
Because if you did, you would have to admit that it matches reality.
You're not exposing any lies from me because I'm not telling any lies.
You have lied so much in this thread it isn't funny.
If you weren't lying, you would admit that the fact that we always have a FOV (at least when our eyes are open and not covered), even when looking through a level tube means that the ability to see the RE is dependent upon the size of that FOV, and your elevation above Earth.
Instead you lie and claim it magically isn't visible at all, yet you cannot defend that lie and simple questions expose that lie.
Just like you lied to try to pretend the drop is much larger than it actually is, claiming that an object on ground level at 1 mile distance is magically 11 feet because we all know that 6 ft plus 8 inches is magically 11 ft.
Again, every time you avoid these simple questions, it further supports the fact that all you have against the globe are pathetic lies.
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
-
Can you make yourself clear and explain to me what you're actually saying?
I have made myself pretty clear. I assume you know what 180 degrees looks like and I assume you know what clockwise, anticlockwise and vertical means yes?
Just because I literally don't have anything better to do right now, imagine a sphere. Now take a point on the surface of that sphere. Any point will do. Now draw a line inside (i.e. through) the sphere from that point such that it passes through the centre of the sphere and continues on to the inside surface on the other side. What is the angular separation between the two points on the the surface of the sphere? We could draw any umber of arcs to join these points and they would be analogous with lines of longitude on Earth or lines of RA on the sky. Now rotate the sphere around the line you have just drawn.
Now imagine that your observation point is the centre of the sphere and you are watching the sphere rotate all around you. Above you the sphere is rotating anticlockwise, below you the sphere is rotating clockwise. This is the perception that we have of the sky. Of course as things are you would be able to see the entire inside surface of the sphere would you not.
So now imagine you are actually standing on a second sphere which is concentric with our original sphere. This second sphere starts to grow increasingly large so our view of the original sphere below us also gets more and more obstructed by the sphere we are standing on. As the sphere we are standing on gets larger, so too does the original sphere but the two remain concentric (i.e. have common centre). Eventually the sphere we are standing on becomes very large compared to us to the point where we can only see half of the inside surface of the original sphere.
As we look at it there will always be two fixed points on the inside surface of the original sphere which lie along a straight line which passes through the centre of both spheres. This line can be thought of as the polar axis of the Earth. From our vantage point on the sphere we are standing on we can move around the surface as we wish but we will only ever be able to see half of the inside surface of the original sphere at any one moment. That accounts (or explains to use your favourite word) for why we can only see different stars from different locations on Earth, with the exception of the equator where we can see all of the stars. That in turn explains why most large observatories are sited near the equator. Because there they can see the most regions of sky.
If you are having problems matching these simple, real world observations with your model then ask yourself why.
-
I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.
And that has no bearing on reality
The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.
Are you saying that all the worlds transport of goods and people on board planes and ships, all of which utilize globe earth navigation measurements and tools, is not reality? It's all fake?
Nobody utilises global navigation.
The reason they don't is very simple.
The globe we are told to believe in, does not exist.
That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/
So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?
-
Its very clear.
You are obviously trying ti troll out a discussion that, in simialr past experience, after lentghy posts, is waved away.
There is only one shape that will match the star pattern
Explain what's happening in your world that you can confirm from a global point of view and which you think I can't.
Just explain it so I can give you an answer.
-
Baby steps.
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.
What the hell is that number?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/nc9hfRz/image.png)
Bravo.
So, do you understand the difference?
Absolutely but it seems you do not.
So, explain it to me.
What is the difference between a curve and a gradient?
Remembering that you claim I don't understand it, despite having drawn the picture.
Your response sounds like you are struggling, going into a nasty angry frenzy at the sight of a curve.
A curve is an arc. A gradient can also also arc up or down and also at a straight angle up or down.
Either way, if you look level when stood on any of them you will not see the gradient or the bottom of it when looking down and away from it.
A curve downwards offers you the same thing.
So what are you struggling with?
-
I've shown you what your globe would offer
No, you have repeatedly lied about the globe to pretend it doesn't match reality.
I don't believe I'm lying, at all.
One simple thing is needed, only, to destroy the globe you adhere to.
Water level.
I could go on and on but water level is all that's needed to destroy the global model you believe to be your facts.
I'm not lying and you may not be intentionally lying.
You believe in magic and because of that your globe stays alive, to you and anyone else who thinks like you.
-
Can you make yourself clear and explain to me what you're actually saying?
I have made myself pretty clear. I assume you know what 180 degrees looks like and I assume you know what clockwise, anticlockwise and vertical means yes?
Yes.
Just because I literally don't have anything better to do right now, imagine a sphere. Now take a point on the surface of that sphere. Any point will do. Now draw a line inside (i.e. through) the sphere from that point such that it passes through the centre of the sphere and continues on to the inside surface on the other side. What is the angular separation between the two points on the the surface of the sphere? We could draw any umber of arcs to join these points and they would be analogous with lines of longitude on Earth or lines of RA on the sky. Now rotate the sphere around the line you have just drawn.
Now imagine that your observation point is the centre of the sphere and you are watching the sphere rotate all around you. Above you the sphere is rotating anticlockwise, below you the sphere is rotating clockwise. This is the perception that we have of the sky. Of course as things are you would be able to see the entire inside surface of the sphere would you not.
So now imagine you are actually standing on a second sphere which is concentric with our original sphere. This second sphere starts to grow increasingly large so our view of the original sphere below us also gets more and more obstructed by the sphere we are standing on. As the sphere we are standing on gets larger, so too does the original sphere but the two remain concentric (i.e. have common centre). Eventually the sphere we are standing on becomes very large compared to us to the point where we can only see half of the inside surface of the original sphere.
As we look at it there will always be two fixed points on the inside surface of the original sphere which lie along a straight line which passes through the centre of both spheres. This line can be thought of as the polar axis of the Earth. From our vantage point on the sphere we are standing on we can move around the surface as we wish but we will only ever be able to see half of the inside surface of the original sphere at any one moment. That accounts (or explains to use your favourite word) for why we can only see different stars from different locations on Earth, with the exception of the equator where we can see all of the stars. That in turn explains why most large observatories are sited near the equator. Because there they can see the most regions of sky.
If you are having problems matching these simple, real world observations with your model then ask yourself why.
Let's make this a bit more clear.
Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.
Let's start from here.
Why?
Simple answers and I'll move on asking simple questions.
If you're up to it then simple answers that make sense.
I know I can go and look it all up but I would like explanations for what I ask, as in, why the 23.5 degree tilt.
-
That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/
So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?
How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?
If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.
I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.
-
That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/
So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?
How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?
Because all of the documentation references the usage of WGS-84. Are you saying that even though all the documentation and calculations are referencing WGS-84 that they are not really using WGS-84? And secretly using a flat earth navigation/calculation? And again, if so, which flat earth map/model do they use?
If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.
How long have you been at this FE thing? Like a dozen+ years and you still don't know the basics of the model you disagree with?
I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.
Are you an aeronautics engineer now? Somehow re-writing all of avionics as well of the entirety of physics? You must think yourself a genius.
-
Baby steps.
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.
What the hell is that number?
it's a typo as if you've read any of my posts, you know i'm very prone to have.
and the number has been given to you on many occasions now.
life isn't that difficult.
quit playing udmb
12,750,000
draw the circle
draw it to scale
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
-
Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.
Let's start from here.
Why?
Simple answers and I'll move on asking simple questions.
If you're up to it then simple answers that make sense.
I know I can go and look it all up but I would like explanations for what I ask, as in, why the 23.5 degree tilt.
And let me make my position nice and clear. I'm not here to spoon-feed you at whatever simple level you demand. Everything I have said so far to me is simple. Not just simple but also very logical. But if what I call simple and logical is going over your head to the extent that you can't understand any of it and therefore you dismiss it as nonsense then I'm sorry I can't help you. What causes the seasons in your world then? I'm sure you have an explanation because the seasons are undoubtedly real. Also how do you account for the latitude depend variation in climatic changes due to the seasonal cycle?
I am not going to bring myself down to your level with the attitude that you currently have towards all this. Get rid of your ego and then we might have a basis to go forward.
Why the 23.5 degree tilt which causes the seasons? The scientific explanation is that during its formation 4.3 billion years ago the Earth was in collision with another forming planetesimal which altered the angle of spin of the Earth in relation to its orbit in the plane of the solar system. This caused a partial disintegration of Earth and the debris from both the Earth and the planetesimal re-congealed to form the Moon. The inclination of the Earths spin wobbles over time with a period of around 26,000 years. We know that from historical records of star positions which can then be extrapolated. We call this precession.
Obviously there was no one around 4.3 billion years ago to observe all this going on so all this is - as I'm sure you will point out - ultimately a hypothesis. No one has come up with any better an explanation so until someone does, that is what we will go with. It seems to match observations quite nicely. The iron rich core of the forming Earth was unaffected by the collision and remained intact.
I'm sure you will dismiss all this as pure nonsense and gobble-de-gook as you have before and have other and no doubt better ideas about all this. So perhaps you can enlighten us about the 'truth'. But since you cannot prove any of your alternative ideas as correct, they are also pure hypothesis on your part as well and therefore no better than the scientific view.
-
That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/
So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?
How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?
If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.
I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.
Surely you jest? A plane skims the atmosphere even though it is fully within the atmosphere? Have you ever tried skimming a flat-sided rock underwater, sceptimatic? No, I guess you haven't.
Planes don't skim. Flat rocks skim across the surface of a pool of water. There is no surface within the atmosphere for a plane to skim across.
Your conspiracy theorisations continue to grow more outlandish as your imagination is stretched to it's absolute limits.
When you realised globe earth has always been the symbol of the start of science and the start of the ideological crumble of institutional christianity, you really drank all the cups of cool aide you could get your hands on!
I'd like to watch your flat earth YouTube videos. Can you post up a link?
-
did sceppy say that, on a ball earth, a plane has to constantly fly DOWN so that it doesn't fly away from the earth?
woweeeee
-
I could go on and on but water level is all that's needed to destroy the global model you believe to be your facts.
What sort of size scales are we talking here? A puddle? A lake? the ocean? I placed a metre rule over a puddle recently and the surface of the water certainly did seem to be pretty parallel with the ruler. So perhaps that simple experiment provides evidence that the Earth is not a globe?
Unfortunately I don't have a ruler long enough to lay over the surface of the lake near my home so I am not sure how I can measure how level that actually is but again it looks pretty level. Is that evidence enough?
Looking out from the beach near my home I can look out over the sea and in the distance are some wind turbines. Some of those seem to look a bit shorter than others. Just how can I tell whether the sea is level and flat other than just visual estimate? Not very scientific but then science is trying to dupe us right?
-
Explain what's happening in your world that you can confirm from a global point of view and which you think I can't.
Anything provided you will just dismiss as fake.
For example, the fact that the horizon is observed to be BELOW eye level.
The thing provided right near the start of the thread, which shows that Earth isn't flat, which you then just dismissed as fake because it shows you are wrong.
Either way, if you look level when stood on any of them you will not see the gradient or the bottom of it when looking down and away from it.
A curve downwards offers you the same thing.
So what are you struggling with?
We aren't struggling with anything.
You are struggling to justify that outright lie of yours.
Again, this lie of yours requires it to be impossible to see anything below "level".
It means you cannot have a FOV.
As soon as you accept the fact that we do have a FOV, it is not as simple as you make it because you can see things below level, including potentially the ground on a downwards gradient or curve.
I've shown you what your globe would offer
No, you have repeatedly lied about the globe to pretend it doesn't match reality.
I don't believe I'm lying, at all.
And even then you lie.
Due to how you respond to everything, you KNOW you are lying.
Stop playing dumb.
One simple thing is needed, only, to destroy the globe you adhere to.
Water level.
As has been explained to you repeatedly, water level strongly supports the globe.
It in no way refutes it.
Again, the fact that you can go to a large body of water and look out across it at a distant object and see the bottom of the obscured by the water, even though both you and the object are above the water, shows that the surface of the water is curved, with that curve blocking your view.
This shows Earth is round.
It in no way destroys the globe model.
I'm not lying
Yes, you are.
It has been repeatedly explained to you how water level shows Earth is round, yet you contiually lie and claim it magically destroys the globe model.
It has been repeatedly explained to you how the fact we have a FOV allows you to potentially see a downwards gradient or a curve, even when you look out level, based upon how large your FOV is, and the slope of that downwards slope, or your height above the curve and the radius of the curve; yet you continually lie and claim it is impossible to see.
You are lying repeatedly.
All because you cannot justify your irrational hatred of the globe, so you lie to pretend it is flawed.
You are the one continually appealing to magic, not us.
You are the one continually defying simple logic, not us.
Again, if you weren't lying with almost every post you make, you would answer the simple questions and stick to the answers.
But you don't, because you know with the way one of these questions is stated, there is no distinction between if Earth is flat and horizontal with you 6 ft above the surface, or if it is a downwards slope, with you some height above the surface, or if it is curved with you some height above the surface, the answer is the same. Either you see the base of the tree and thus the ground, or you don't.
Because of that, there is no easy opportunity for you to twist it and pretend you can see the ground if it is flat but lie and claim you can't if it is a curve or a downwards slope.
And that means you either say that on a FE you can't see the ground, or you say on a RE you can, either way you contradict your prior claims.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
And again, if you weren't lying or didn't think you were, you would have no issues with answering these simple questions.
You would be able to answer these trivial questions and stick to the answer.
The fact you continually refuse to do so shows that you know you are lying.
Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.
Let's start from here.
No.
Lets start with the simple tube and FOV you have been avoiding ever sense the start of this thread.
If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path.
There you go with more lies.
They would be maintaining altitude to keep a curved path.
They would need to alter their altitude to fly a straight path.
They don't need to intentionally alter their course to follow the curve. All they need to do is maintain their altitude and attitude.
-
That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/
So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?
How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?
Because all of the documentation references the usage of WGS-84. Are you saying that even though all the documentation and calculations are referencing WGS-84 that they are not really using WGS-84? And secretly using a flat earth navigation/calculation? And again, if so, which flat earth map/model do they use?
From what I read it seems to be a terrain mapper for high and low lands.
It doesn't show any navigation of a globe.
If it does then explain exactly what's happening, nice and simple and from your own words.
Explain it to the retard that I am or in so simple terms.
If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.
How long have you been at this FE thing? Like a dozen+ years and you still don't know the basics of the model you disagree with?
Yep, I know what I'm arguing against and this is exactly why this stuff will not just go away, no matter how many times you try to use this line of waving away.
I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.
Are you an aeronautics engineer now? Somehow re-writing all of avionics as well of the entirety of physics? You must think yourself a genius.
I think we all have genius is us.
Did you know that engineers still do not know fully why a plane stays in the air.
And I believe I do. How weird is that?
-
Baby steps.
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.
What the hell is that number?
it's a typo as if you've read any of my posts, you know i'm very prone to have.
and the number has been given to you on many occasions now.
life isn't that difficult.
quit playing udmb
12,750,000
draw the circle
draw it to scale
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
Are you panicking?
I think anyone who cares to look logically will see what happens, regardless of whether you try to play scale.
Like I said before, don't try to play the scale game when you argue for a ship falling down your globe at just a few miles away.
It's massively contradicting and you know this, I think.
-
Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.
Let's start from here.
Why?
Simple answers and I'll move on asking simple questions.
If you're up to it then simple answers that make sense.
I know I can go and look it all up but I would like explanations for what I ask, as in, why the 23.5 degree tilt.
And let me make my position nice and clear. I'm not here to spoon-feed you at whatever simple level you demand. Everything I have said so far to me is simple. Not just simple but also very logical. But if what I call simple and logical is going over your head to the extent that you can't understand any of it and therefore you dismiss it as nonsense then I'm sorry I can't help you.
If you're not here to spoon feed me,a s you call it, then don't interact with me.
Treat me with the contempt you have and don't lower yourself to my level.
That would be the sensible option for you but you seem to feel the need to try and knock me down, which is fine..but to do that you need to play by the simple rules I go by.
Just shut me up by going nice and simple in proving your side.
I see no proof, regardless of whether you think you have it by appeals to so called authority.
What causes the seasons in your world then?
I'm sure you have an explanation because the seasons are undoubtedly real.
Yes I do.
As the sun moves over and around it rises and drops due to the dome rising and dropping caused by the centre of Earth's circle of energy within, rising and falling as energy depletes and replenishes.
It requires a lot of explanation and would massively go right over your head because your mindset is firmly against anything contrary to your globe.
Also how do you account for the latitude depend variation in climatic changes due to the seasonal cycle?
I'm not even sure what this is.
Maybe you can explain what you see and how you know it's a thing.
I am not going to bring myself down to your level with the attitude that you currently have towards all this. Get rid of your ego and then we might have a basis to go forward.
Get rid if your own ego. You seem to be massively projecting.
Why the 23.5 degree tilt which causes the seasons? The scientific explanation is that during its formation 4.3 billion years ago the Earth was in collision with another forming planetesimal which altered the angle of spin of the Earth in relation to its orbit in the plane of the solar system. This caused a partial disintegration of Earth and the debris from both the Earth and the planetesimal re-congealed to form the Moon. The inclination of the Earths spin wobbles over time with a period of around 26,000 years.
See what I mean?
You sit and swallow that story without one iota of reality in any way shape or form.
The idea/story is so nonsensical that to pass it off as potential is stretching it massively.
As a fantasy for a film or the fictional story, it's fine.
It baffles me why people go along with this.
I fully understand why kids would. I fully understand why the ordinary everyday person who takes no notice of why we are here and what we live on/in, would.
I get baffled as to why anyone else would who actually takes the time to question it all.
We know that from historical records of star positions which can then be extrapolated. We call this precession.
Obviously there was no one around 4.3 billion years ago to observe all this going on so all this is - as I'm sure you will point out - ultimately a hypothesis.
What records are these?
Explain simply what the records show and how far back?
No one has come up with any better an explanation so until someone does, that is what we will go with.
People have but it's hard to explain something that the masses have already adhered to like limpets, unconditionally.
It seems to match observations quite nicely.
Anything can be set up to match observations.
We could be told that the lights in the sky are diamonds and people would accept it if that was what was taught as part of a curriculum and even religion.
It's so easy to dupe people with stories and so easy for people who number crunch to set up pretences of distances and what not to fit a model.
All it is , is tweaking as people question.
Eventually the tweaking will cater for the questions and the masses will be once again, pacified.
The iron rich core of the forming Earth was unaffected by the collision and remained intact.
You have absolutely no idea what the core is.
You're told it's iron but you have little clue as to what is farther down than a score of miles and I'm being very very generous with that.
I'm sure you will dismiss all this as pure nonsense and gobble-de-gook as you have before and have other and no doubt better ideas about all this.
I believe I have better ideas and yes, I do believe it's absolute nonsense.
I'm surprised people don't question it.
So perhaps you can enlighten us about the 'truth'.
The truth about what?
But since you cannot prove any of your alternative ideas as correct, they are also pure hypothesis on your part as well and therefore no better than the scientific view.
Of course they are. I've repeatedly said they are...but you seem to want to bring that argument up as if I'm spouting off my hypotheses, as facts, which I'm not.
All I say is, they fit much better, for me.....for me, than anything to do with a spinning global set up that the masses have been severely indoctrinated into.
That's simply my opinion and you're very welcome to spit it back at me....but don't expect me to swallow it and do expect me to return it.
-
Explain what's happening in your world that you can confirm from a global point of view and which you think I can't.
Anything provided you will just dismiss as fake.
For example, the fact that the horizon is observed to be BELOW eye level.
It's not observed to be below eye level.
How is it that you can't understand that your eye centre converges light shades over distance. It has to be central. It has to be level over distance, to your own eye.
If you look slightly up your horizon focus is off. If you look slightly down your horizon focus is off.
If you look directly level....horizontally, your horizon is right there as your theoretical line which are lighter to darker shades converged to your farthest sight ability.
And yes, anything provided to me without proof, I will question or dismiss as fake if it reeks of it, like a lot of this space stuff reeks of it, as an instance.
-
Surely you jest? A plane skims the atmosphere even though it is fully within the atmosphere? Have you ever tried skimming a flat-sided rock underwater, sceptimatic? No, I guess you haven't.
Planes don't skim. Flat rocks skim across the surface of a pool of water. There is no surface within the atmosphere for a plane to skim across.
I was waiting for someone to come in with this.
You see, if you had paid attention you would understand that I go with stacked atmospheric layers.
The plane sits on a layers among layers.
Let me try and explain a bit better, not that you'll get it.
A speedboat will sit in water, not skim the very top.
It will sit in a fair few layers of that water (yes water has stacked layers, too).
Once you power against the water you push against layers behind and slice through layers in front.
Now here's the key.
On a speed boat, or any moving boat, but more easily seen on a moving speed boat, you notice the nose raises slightly as it moves forward.
It does this to skim as little water as opposed to pushing against much more.
This allows it to gain speed and much less resistance to the front, by the water, leaving only less dense wind resistance to skim through.
The plane does the very same thing, only it does it through atmosphere.
Have a real good think about it before you come back with whatever.
Your conspiracy theorisations continue to grow more outlandish as your imagination is stretched to it's absolute limits.
My imagination is calm and collective.
My theories are also calm and collective.
What they appear to you, is not my concern.
When you realised globe earth has always been the symbol of the start of science and the start of the ideological crumble of institutional christianity, you really drank all the cups of cool aide you could get your hands on!
I have no god. I am me and my god is myself.
You have a god, right?
For what reason do you have one and why?
It might seem to run off on a sort of tangent but you argue against me for my theories and you try to tell me a globe is logical to you. But so is your god...right?
I'd like to watch your flat earth YouTube videos. Can you post up a link?
I have no need for videos.
You can watch many videos on flat Earth and many that are so logical and simple when destroying the global model.
I'd hazard a guess you've seen most.
-
did sceppy say that, on a ball earth, a plane has to constantly fly DOWN so that it doesn't fly away from the earth?
woweeeee
I did say, if you were on a ball Earth your plane would have to adjust altitude to follow the curve.
This clearly doesn't happen and for obvious reasons.
This stuff just does not go away because it was discussed many time many years ago.
It's still valid and has no explanation from globalists.
-
I could go on and on but water level is all that's needed to destroy the global model you believe to be your facts.
What sort of size scales are we talking here? A puddle? A lake? the ocean? I placed a metre rule over a puddle recently and the surface of the water certainly did seem to be pretty parallel with the ruler. So perhaps that simple experiment provides evidence that the Earth is not a globe?
Unfortunately I don't have a ruler long enough to lay over the surface of the lake near my home so I am not sure how I can measure how level that actually is but again it looks pretty level. Is that evidence enough?
Looking out from the beach near my home I can look out over the sea and in the distance are some wind turbines. Some of those seem to look a bit shorter than others. Just how can I tell whether the sea is level and flat other than just visual estimate? Not very scientific but then science is trying to dupe us right?
I see you try to marry up a visual distance to a physical set up at close proximity.
Feel free to do that, obviously but you're getting nowhere with that.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
-
Across the ocean 10km, along the coast 40 km, outside the city from the remote hamlet of clairview 20/30km to downtown, from the landing airplane 300 km to the mountains - not seeing this curvature...
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
How is it that you can't understand that your eye centre converges light shades over distance.
Because it is pure nonsense, which completely ignores how your eye actually works, and which makes no sense at all.
If that garbage was true, then it wouldn't matter if your eyes were level or not, the horizon would magically be at the centre of your vision, regardless of where it actually is.
But in reality, with your how your eye works, in order to be central to your vision, you need to be looking straight at it.
That means unless you are looking straight at the horizon, it isn't going to be at the centre of your vision.
So no, it doesn't need to be central.
Again, the photo provided quite early on in this thread shows it is BELOW level, and you have provided nothing other than repeated baseless assertions to go against that.
I will question or dismiss as fake if it reeks of it
By which you really mean if it doesn't agree with your dishonest BS.
Just like you continually dismiss the simple questions which show your claims are dishonest BS.
You were provided a logical argument which showed beyond any doubt that your position was wrong, and you just repeatedly ignored it.
Again, if your position was based upon logic and evidence, and wasn't just a bunch of blatant lies, you would have answered the questions by now.
But you keep on avoiding them because you know that answering them will expose your lies.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
Are you panicking?
I think anyone who cares to look logically will see what happens, regardless of whether you try to play scale.
No. Are you?
Because anyone who cares to look logically and honestly will see that you continually pretend that Earth is a teeny tiny ball as none of your arguments work if actually drew it to scale and accepted the fact that we have a FOV.
Like I said before, don't try to play the scale game when you argue for a ship falling down your globe at just a few miles away.
It's massively contradicting and you know this, I think.
No, it isn't contradictory at all.
The ship isn't "falling down".
Instead the base appears lower, such that after quite a few miles it will be hidden by Earth.
but to do that you need to play by the simple rules I go by.
No, we don't.
You might really want us to go by your rule of just accepting whatever BS you want to say without questioning or thinking, but we are under no obligation to do so, and definitely don't need to do so to prove you wrong, as we have done repeatedly.
I see no proof
Because you dismiss or ignore everything that shows you are wrong.
I did say, if you were on a ball Earth your plane would have to adjust altitude to follow the curve.
This clearly doesn't happen and for obvious reasons.
The obvious reason is that your claim is a load of BS.
Planes don't need to specifically adjust for the curve. They fly level and adjust their attitude and speed and the like to maintain that.
This stuff just does not go away because it was discussed many time many years ago.
It's still valid and has no explanation from globalists.
There you go projecting your own inadequacies yet again.
This issue is addressed trivially.
Conversely, all you have been able to do with the countless issues raised against your nonsense is dismiss them or ignore them.
They don't go away just because you continually pretend they don't exist.
-
Across the ocean 10km, along the coast 40 km, outside the city from the remote hamlet of clairview 20/30km to downtown, from the landing airplane 300 km to the mountains - not seeing this curvature...
Care to provide the full details (and preferably a picture as there are plenty of pictures showing the bottom of an object missing)?
Just how far away is the object?
How tall is the object?
How high are you?
For example, with your "landing airplane" is that actually on the ground, or is it still a few hundred or a few thousand feet in the air?
Perhaps the real question should be why do you need to appeal to a landing airplane. Why can't you see the 300 km away mountains when standing on the ground?
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
-
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Your "reasons" are nothing more than a baseless assertion that Earth is flat.
Your argument is effectively "Any evidence that shows Earth is round is fake as Earth is flat"
You just dismiss anything that shows you are wrong.
Again, the image shows you are wrong.
Simple reasoning shows you are wrong.
And yet again, you avoid simple questions that show you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.
-
Baby steps.
Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.
What the hell is that number?
it's a typo as if you've read any of my posts, you know i'm very prone to have.
and the number has been given to you on many occasions now.
life isn't that difficult.
quit playing udmb
12,750,000
draw the circle
draw it to scale
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
Are you panicking?
I think anyone who cares to look logically will see what happens, regardless of whether you try to play scale.
Like I said before, don't try to play the scale game when you argue for a ship falling down your globe at just a few miles away.
It's massively contradicting and you know this, I think.
Why would i panic?
Draw it to scale.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
-
Surely you jest? A plane skims the atmosphere even though it is fully within the atmosphere? Have you ever tried skimming a flat-sided rock underwater, sceptimatic? No, I guess you haven't.
Planes don't skim. Flat rocks skim across the surface of a pool of water. There is no surface within the atmosphere for a plane to skim across.
I was waiting for someone to come in with this.
You see, if you had paid attention you would understand that I go with stacked atmospheric layers.
The plane sits on a layers among layers.
Let me try and explain a bit better, not that you'll get it.
A speedboat will sit in water, not skim the very top.
It will sit in a fair few layers of that water (yes water has stacked layers, too).
Once you power against the water you push against layers behind and slice through layers in front.
Now here's the key.
On a speed boat, or any moving boat, but more easily seen on a moving speed boat, you notice the nose raises slightly as it moves forward.
It does this to skim as little water as opposed to pushing against much more.
This allows it to gain speed and much less resistance to the front, by the water, leaving only less dense wind resistance to skim through.
The plane does the very same thing, only it does it through atmosphere.
Have a real good think about it before you come back with whatever.
Your conspiracy theorisations continue to grow more outlandish as your imagination is stretched to it's absolute limits.
My imagination is calm and collective.
My theories are also calm and collective.
What they appear to you, is not my concern.
When you realised globe earth has always been the symbol of the start of science and the start of the ideological crumble of institutional christianity, you really drank all the cups of cool aide you could get your hands on!
I have no god. I am me and my god is myself.
You have a god, right?
For what reason do you have one and why?
It might seem to run off on a sort of tangent but you argue against me for my theories and you try to tell me a globe is logical to you. But so is your god...right?
I'd like to watch your flat earth YouTube videos. Can you post up a link?
I have no need for videos.
You can watch many videos on flat Earth and many that are so logical and simple when destroying the global model.
I'd hazard a guess you've seen most.
Ahh, yes. I was waiting for you to explain your skimming theory with your atmospheric stacks.
But have you ever tried to count these stacks, or attempted to explain where the height of one stack ends and another begins? What defines one layer of this atmospheric stack? Is it temperature? Is it air molecules per cubic meter? But, more pertinently, which parts of the atmospheric stacks you speak of, have surfaces suitable for skimming? What are these surfaces made of?
A boat is moving through water molecules and air molecules. A plane is only moving through air molecules, unless flying through rain.
Surely you jest when you say a plane must be constantly dipping its nose if the earth is a globe? Do I need to draw for you a diagram of what is happening?
Honestly, how in the world did the notion of a flat earth become your comfort zone, sceptimatic?
Oh, and I have watched my fair share of flat earth videos. You're right. Those videos are simple - yes. Logical - no.
There is still time for you to make a huge contribution to the world, and this nonsense is holding you back. To me you are no different to an alcoholic or a drug addict. You have allowed your interest in flat earth to grow into an all consuming obsession. Your rebuttals in these threads is also an obsession. This imbalance is a problem.
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Apparently there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you. Here's one - I'm not sure how effective the turbines are that seem to have the blades slashing through the water:
(https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/incoming/6755821-nf05m1-Ship-horizon-curvature-wind-turbines-Lieven-cc-by-4.0.jpg/alternates/BASE_FREE/Ship%20horizon%20curvature%20wind%20turbines%20Lieven%20cc%20by%204.0.jpg)
This photo of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast)
-
What yoyre seeing is light on dark reflection compression of atmospheric resistence.
-
That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/
So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?
How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?
Because all of the documentation references the usage of WGS-84. Are you saying that even though all the documentation and calculations are referencing WGS-84 that they are not really using WGS-84? And secretly using a flat earth navigation/calculation? And again, if so, which flat earth map/model do they use?
From what I read it seems to be a terrain mapper for high and low lands.
It doesn't show any navigation of a globe.
If it does then explain exactly what's happening, nice and simple and from your own words.
Explain it to the retard that I am or in so simple terms.
You can look this up as easily as I can. Where do you get the notion that WGS-84 is just a “terrain mapper”?
The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563. The refined value of the WGS 84 gravitational constant (mass of Earth’s atmosphere included) is GM = 3986004.418×108 m³/s². The angular velocity of the Earth is defined to be ω = 72.92115×10−6 rad/s.
All commercial flight plans/maps/software is based on WGS-84 datum.
Again, if everyone is faking it, what flat earth model/map/datum do they use to navigate from point A to B?
If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.
How long have you been at this FE thing? Like a dozen+ years and you still don't know the basics of the model you disagree with?
Yep, I know what I'm arguing against and this is exactly why this stuff will not just go away, no matter how many times you try to use this line of waving away.
This is like bad FE basics 101. In the same realm as “water always seeks level...” business. Again, what FE datum/map/model do the airlines use? I’m having a hard time finding it. Maybe you know.
I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.
Are you an aeronautics engineer now? Somehow re-writing all of avionics as well of the entirety of physics? You must think yourself a genius.
I think we all have genius is us.
Did you know that engineers still do not know fully why a plane stays in the air.
And I believe I do. How weird is that?
I do know.
Yeah, there’s a great article in SA about it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/
And, no, you do not know. You have your own theory that literally no one accepts, including the people who actually design and build planes that do, in fact, fly. You do not do such things. So no, you do not know.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
what do you mean, like get a really big piece of paper or small pencil or something...my scanner is in the shop.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
Better idea - why don't you or someone figure out the field of view of the perfectly level scope and see if it encompasses the ground, maybe get a bigger magnificatio to avoid this... maybe i could do the math.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
what do you mean, like get a really big piece of paper or small pencil or something...my scanner is in the shop.
However you want to do it.
Just do it.
Using a computer probably the easiest............ you pos.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
Better idea - why don't you or someone figure out the field of view of the perfectly level scope and see if it encompasses the ground, maybe get a bigger magnificatio to avoid this... maybe i could do the math.
Go for it.
Jackb already did the math and jja did the photo.
Your guys turn.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
Better idea - why don't you or someone figure out the field of view of the perfectly level scope and see if it encompasses the ground, maybe get a bigger magnificatio to avoid this... maybe i could do the math.
Already been done dozens and dozens of pages ago.
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
what do you mean, like get a really big piece of paper or small pencil or something...my scanner is in the shop.
However you want to do it.
Just do it.
Using a computer probably the easiest............ you pos.
it was a joke
-
I've seen it over and over agiain - always missing curvature.
Good
Maybe you can help sceppy out.
Ddaw a circle 12,750,000units in diameter and place a 2unit perpendicukar stick on rhe surface.
Lets see it.
Better idea - why don't you or someone figure out the field of view of the perfectly level scope and see if it encompasses the ground, maybe get a bigger magnificatio to avoid this... maybe i could do the math.
Already been done dozens and dozens of pages ago.
I want to see this - can someone tell me where to find it?
-
Just an approximation would be helpful.
-
it was done around the 50mark, then again around the 100mark.
not sure how many postperpage you have, but mine is the default.
-
I did say, if you were on a ball Earth your plane would have to adjust altitude to follow the curve.
Why? The altimeter measures the height above surface of the Earth. How long is an average airliner? The Earth has a circumference of 37,700km or diameter of around 12,000km. So the curve of the Earth is imperceptible from the point of view of the crew and passengers. They could continue to fly at the same height for ever but they would never need to adjust altitude to follow the curve of the Earth.
An airliner cruises at an altitude of about 10km so the plane is effectively flying in a circle of diameter 12,010km or circumference of 37.730km. So the Earths surface and the planes path are just concentric circles. The altimeter is simply ensuring the plane remains a constant distance (height) from the surface of the Earth. The plane changes it direction in space constantly but it doesn't need to adjust its altitude.
-
Better idea - why don't you or someone figure out the field of view of the perfectly level scope and see if it encompasses the ground, maybe get a bigger magnificatio to avoid this... maybe i could do the math.
I already did. Scepti just ignored it because it shows he is wrong.
He ignores all the math, logic and questions that show he is wrong.
If you stand 2 m above the surface, with a perfectly level tube/scope/whatever, you need a FOV less than ~5.4 arc minutes.
And that is ignoring refraction.
The math is quite trivial, with the simplification of Earth being a perfect sphere and no refraction.
The horizon is the point where your line of sight is tangent to Earth. That is the highest possible angle from your eye to reach Earth.
This allow you to draw a right angle triangle, as a tangent is perpendicular to a line going from that point to the centre.
So construct a right angle triangle. One side is the line from the horizon to the centre of Earth. This has a length of R (the radius of Earth).
Then at right angle to that you have a line from the horizon to your eye.
Then to complete the triangle you have the hypotenuse, which goes from your eye to the centre of Earth, with a length of (R+h) where h is your height.
Now, you have the angle at the centre of Earth, lets call it a.
The angle from straight down to the horizon (at you), is thus 90 degrees - a.
Thus the angle from straight out level to the horizon is 90 degrees - (90 degrees - a) = a.
i.e. the angle of dip to the horizon, is the angle at the centre of Earth.
Now cos(a)=R/(R+h).
Thus the angle of dip is arccos(R/(R+h))
Putting in the numbers you get arccos(6371000/6371002) = 2.7 arc minutes.
So if your FOV includes 2.7 arc minutes below level, you can see the horizon on a RE from 2m through this tube/scope/whatever.
-
Ahh, yes. I was waiting for you to explain your skimming theory with your atmospheric stacks.
But have you ever tried to count these stacks, or attempted to explain where the height of one stack ends and another begins?
Too small to see, so too small to count.
We see through them, so how are we going to see them?
What defines one layer of this atmospheric stack?
Pick one.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8Pj4XBVZ/atmospheric-stack.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzjbSpY5/RP.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Is it temperature? Is it air molecules per cubic meter? But, more pertinently, which parts of the atmospheric stacks you speak of, have surfaces suitable for skimming? What are these surfaces made of?
When you think of skimming, don't just think of it as skimming on just the top of water.
Think of the plane underbody skimming on layers of atmosphere under it.
You're looking at it from your side but asking me for my side.
Pay attention to that if you want to get my side.
A boat is moving through water molecules and air molecules. A plane is only moving through air molecules, unless flying through rain.
That's the thing. A boat is moving through fluids of different densities. Water and air are the same thing in different density break down.
Surely you jest when you say a plane must be constantly dipping its nose if the earth is a globe? Do I need to draw for you a diagram of what is happening?
Of course I jest. I jest because it obviously wouldn't happen because a plane does not fly curving over a globe.
You drawing a diagram showing a plane following a curve is all well and good but it means nothing in reality.
You'll argue for the ld swing ball on the string effect that your gravity pulls the plane to the centre of Earth as it flies, so keeps a set altitude, or something like that....right?
Would this be the case?
If not, show me what you have as a case.
Honestly, how in the world did the notion of a flat earth become your comfort zone, sceptimatic?
Flat as in, how?
There's lots of flat Earth belief's/theories out there. So which one is my comfort zone?
Oh, and I have watched my fair share of flat earth videos. You're right. Those videos are simple - yes. Logical - no.
Against a global spinning Earth some theories are very simple and extremely logical, compared.
There is still time for you to make a huge contribution to the world, and this nonsense is holding you back.
I make my contributions just like most.
What I do in my time with my thoughts and my experiments, are my leisure.
You could say I still make a contribution with this, in buying products and paying for energy used...etc.
Anything else you want to add?
To me you are no different to an alcoholic or a drug addict.
That's absolutely fine. You're entitled to think what you want to think.
You have allowed your interest in flat earth to grow into an all consuming obsession.
Nahhhh. I'd say it's a daily leisure among my many day to day things.
Obsession is wide of the mark....but....like I said, you are welcome to those thoughts.
Your rebuttals in these threads is also an obsession. This imbalance is a problem.
My rebuttals are simply counteracting something which I do not believe in.
I wonder if it's me that's imbalanced?
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Apparently there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you. Here's one - I'm not sure how effective the turbines are that seem to have the blades slashing through the water:
(https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/incoming/6755821-nf05m1-Ship-horizon-curvature-wind-turbines-Lieven-cc-by-4.0.jpg/alternates/BASE_FREE/Ship%20horizon%20curvature%20wind%20turbines%20Lieven%20cc%20by%204.0.jpg)
This photo of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast)
Even you are not naive enough to argue this to be turbines sitting over a curve.
How far away are those turbines?
Let's make this clear.
If you do believe or are trying to say these turbines are hidden by a curve at those distances then the tilt on them would be absolutely mental.
There's no tilt, back over.
One minute you people are arguing that, to scale Earth's curvature would appear flat and now you show a massive curve over a short distance.The contradictions are nuts.
-
I did say, if you were on a ball Earth your plane would have to adjust altitude to follow the curve.
Why? The altimeter measures the height above surface of the Earth. How long is an average airliner? The Earth has a circumference of 37,700km or diameter of around 12,000km. So the curve of the Earth is imperceptible from the point of view of the crew and passengers. They could continue to fly at the same height for ever but they would never need to adjust altitude to follow the curve of the Earth.
An airliner cruises at an altitude of about 10km so the plane is effectively flying in a circle of diameter 12,010km or circumference of 37.730km. So the Earths surface and the planes path are just concentric circles. The altimeter is simply ensuring the plane remains a constant distance (height) from the surface of the Earth. The plane changes it direction in space constantly but it doesn't need to adjust its altitude.
Changes its direction is space but doesn't need to adjust its altitude?
Can you elaborate on this?
-
Better idea - why don't you or someone figure out the field of view of the perfectly level scope and see if it encompasses the ground, maybe get a bigger magnificatio to avoid this... maybe i could do the math.
I already did. Scepti just ignored it because it shows he is wrong.
He ignores all the math, logic and questions that show he is wrong.
If you stand 2 m above the surface, with a perfectly level tube/scope/whatever, you need a FOV less than ~5.4 arc minutes.
And that is ignoring refraction.
The math is quite trivial, with the simplification of Earth being a perfect sphere and no refraction.
The horizon is the point where your line of sight is tangent to Earth. That is the highest possible angle from your eye to reach Earth.
This allow you to draw a right angle triangle, as a tangent is perpendicular to a line going from that point to the centre.
So construct a right angle triangle. One side is the line from the horizon to the centre of Earth. This has a length of R (the radius of Earth).
Then at right angle to that you have a line from the horizon to your eye.
Then to complete the triangle you have the hypotenuse, which goes from your eye to the centre of Earth, with a length of (R+h) where h is your height.
Now, you have the angle at the centre of Earth, lets call it a.
The angle from straight down to the horizon (at you), is thus 90 degrees - a.
Thus the angle from straight out level to the horizon is 90 degrees - (90 degrees - a) = a.
i.e. the angle of dip to the horizon, is the angle at the centre of Earth.
Now cos(a)=R/(R+h).
Thus the angle of dip is arccos(R/(R+h))
Putting in the numbers you get arccos(6371000/6371002) = 2.7 arc minutes.
So if your FOV includes 2.7 arc minutes below level, you can see the horizon on a RE from 2m through this tube/scope/whatever.
Don't do any maths for a globe, do the actual experiment with the tubes like what JJA bottled out of..
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Apparently there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you. Here's one - I'm not sure how effective the turbines are that seem to have the blades slashing through the water:
(https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/incoming/6755821-nf05m1-Ship-horizon-curvature-wind-turbines-Lieven-cc-by-4.0.jpg/alternates/BASE_FREE/Ship%20horizon%20curvature%20wind%20turbines%20Lieven%20cc%20by%204.0.jpg)
This photo of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast)
Even you are not naive enough to argue this to be turbines sitting over a curve.
How far away are those turbines?
Let's make this clear.
If you do believe or are trying to say these turbines are hidden by a curve at those distances then the tilt on them would be absolutely mental.
There's no tilt, back over.
One minute you people are arguing that, to scale Earth's curvature would appear flat and now you show a massive curve over a short distance.The contradictions are nuts.
Roughly scattered 26-30 Km offshore of Belgium.
In your own words, what's your calculation as to how mental the tilt would be given your knowledge of the model you reject?
Edit: Oh and by the way, in your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
-
Changes its direction is space but doesn't need to adjust its altitude?
Can you elaborate on this?
You obviously didn't take in anything that I said about altitude did you. So maybe read it again. There is no need for me to elaborate anything. Even for you. Altitude is distance above the Surface. Or if you want to be pedantic it is the planes height or distance above sea level. If that doesn't change then neither does the altitude. Nothing to do with direction. A plane could go round in circles at the same height. It would be continually changing direction in space but its altitude would be constant.
If that is too difficult for you to understand then that is due to your mindset and not because anything I said is wrong.
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Apparently there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you. Here's one - I'm not sure how effective the turbines are that seem to have the blades slashing through the water:
(https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/incoming/6755821-nf05m1-Ship-horizon-curvature-wind-turbines-Lieven-cc-by-4.0.jpg/alternates/BASE_FREE/Ship%20horizon%20curvature%20wind%20turbines%20Lieven%20cc%20by%204.0.jpg)
This photo of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast)
Even you are not naive enough to argue this to be turbines sitting over a curve.
How far away are those turbines?
Let's make this clear.
If you do believe or are trying to say these turbines are hidden by a curve at those distances then the tilt on them would be absolutely mental.
There's no tilt, back over.
One minute you people are arguing that, to scale Earth's curvature would appear flat and now you show a massive curve over a short distance.The contradictions are nuts.
Roughly scattered 26-30 Km offshore of Belgium.
In your own words, what's your calculation as to how mental the tilt would be given your knowledge of the model you reject?
Edit: Oh and by the way, in your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
-
Massive tilt...
Perhaps drawing a 12,750,000unit diameter circle with a 2unit stick standing on it would help you better conceptulaize it.
Whats the hold up?
Windows paintbrush.
Use pixel count.
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Apparently there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you. Here's one - I'm not sure how effective the turbines are that seem to have the blades slashing through the water:
(https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/incoming/6755821-nf05m1-Ship-horizon-curvature-wind-turbines-Lieven-cc-by-4.0.jpg/alternates/BASE_FREE/Ship%20horizon%20curvature%20wind%20turbines%20Lieven%20cc%20by%204.0.jpg)
This photo of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast)
Even you are not naive enough to argue this to be turbines sitting over a curve.
How far away are those turbines?
Let's make this clear.
If you do believe or are trying to say these turbines are hidden by a curve at those distances then the tilt on them would be absolutely mental.
There's no tilt, back over.
One minute you people are arguing that, to scale Earth's curvature would appear flat and now you show a massive curve over a short distance.The contradictions are nuts.
Roughly scattered 26-30 Km offshore of Belgium.
In your own words, what's your calculation as to how mental the tilt would be given your knowledge of the model you reject?
Edit: Oh and by the way, in your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
Okay I'll do the 'hard math' for you.
At 40km the distance is 1/1000 of the Earths circumference.
So the tilt is 1/1000 of 360 degrees. That is 0.36 degrees. Do you consider that a massive tilt?
Sceptimatic has no viable conceptualization of geometry, he cant even really understand simple geometric concepts such as circles and triangles. The numbers and math are so far beyond his thought processes that are are completely meaningless to him.
In his mind there must be a tilt, and he is unable to see outside his own imagination, so nothing, no matter how logical and rational, can convince him otherwise.
It is interesting.
-
It's not observed to be below eye level.
The image provided early on in this thread shows that it IS!
Absolutely not and never can be, for reasons I've already explained.
Apparently there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you. Here's one - I'm not sure how effective the turbines are that seem to have the blades slashing through the water:
(https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/incoming/6755821-nf05m1-Ship-horizon-curvature-wind-turbines-Lieven-cc-by-4.0.jpg/alternates/BASE_FREE/Ship%20horizon%20curvature%20wind%20turbines%20Lieven%20cc%20by%204.0.jpg)
This photo of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast)
Even you are not naive enough to argue this to be turbines sitting over a curve.
How far away are those turbines?
Let's make this clear.
If you do believe or are trying to say these turbines are hidden by a curve at those distances then the tilt on them would be absolutely mental.
There's no tilt, back over.
One minute you people are arguing that, to scale Earth's curvature would appear flat and now you show a massive curve over a short distance.The contradictions are nuts.
Roughly scattered 26-30 Km offshore of Belgium.
In your own words, what's your calculation as to how mental the tilt would be given your knowledge of the model you reject?
Edit: Oh and by the way, in your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
Again, kinda absurd that you have no concept, after all of this time, what and how the model works that you so loathe.
As Bored pointed out, do the math that you seem to also loathe, "So the tilt (at 40km) is 1/1000 of 360 degrees. That is 0.36 degrees. Do you consider that a massive tilt?"
Here's what a larger tilt (0.40 as apposed to the calculated 0.36) looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/rxc6i3i.jpg)
Does that tilt look "massive" to you?
And again, you haven't responded to: In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
-
Its also tilted away from you point of view.
So its not even dicernable left-right.
It would mean that it is an inpercievable fraction shorter than one that is not tilted.
Amazing!
-
If the turbine was dropped that far down over a dozen miles it should tilt like hell but there's nothing.
The reason for that is simple.
It's atmospheric mass that shuts out the light back to our eyes leaving what we can see, above that, which makes perfect sense.
-
No justification.
Just you thinking it should.
Draw the damn circle already and prove everyone wrong.
Do it.
-
No justification.
Just you thinking it should.
Draw the damn circle already and prove everyone wrong.
Do it.
I've drew many a circle and showed you how your globe is nonsense.
-
And none to scale.
Draw it to scale.
-
Don't do any maths for a globe, do the actual experiment with the tubes like what JJA
JJA did, and showed you were wrong, and you dismissed it as fake.
It is quite easy to dismiss any evidence provide as fake. It is much harder for you to claim the math is fake.
Notice how you don't do that?
Instead, because the math is irrefutable and clearly shows you are spouting pure BS, you just deflect from it however you can.
So no, why don't you do the math, as the math is a key part of your baseless lies about the RE.
If you did bother doing the math, and accepted the fact that we have a FOV, even when looking through a tube, (and you were honest) you would admit that even when looking through a level tube, you CAN see a RE, at least if you are close enough to the surface and/or the FOV through the tube is large enough.
Likewise, if you did the math for the downwards slope, you would see that it depends on the FOV and the gradient.
What you certainly wouldn't be doing is spouting the same refuted lies.
Likewise, if you bothered doing the math, you would realise that the tilt in your example above is tiny, and is not going to be noticed. But instead you lie and claim it would be massive. (or as you put it "mental").
So no, I will stick to doing the math, like you would do if you were honest, to show your claims are pure BS.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, the math shows you should be able to view it. The math shows quite clearly that the object would need to be 264 ft below the tube in order to not be visible at a distance of 1 mile.
That means the tree is easily visible, and a RE would also easily be visible, unless you were roughly 264 ft in the air.
The math clearly shows you are wrong, beyond any sane doubt, yet you continue to ignore it, because you don't want to admit you are wrong, and that you are irrationally lashing out at the RE you hate so much even though you can't find a single fault with it.
You'll argue for the ld swing ball on the string effect that your gravity pulls the plane to the centre of Earth as it flies, so keeps a set altitude, or something like that....right?
Would this be the case?
No, planes have autopilots.
These autopilots (or just the pilot themselves) fly the plane to fly a set altitude (with simple ones based upon atmospheric pressure).
In order to do this it will adjust attitude and throttle. i.e. if it is too high it will either reduce throttle or pitch down (or both).
If it is too low it will either pitch up or increase throttle (or both).
So it doesn't matter if Earth is round or flat, a plane will maintain altitude.
The fastest commercial planes typically fly at significantly less than 1000 km/hr.
That is roughly 9 degrees. That means every hour, a plane flying along Earth's surface will have had to have tilted down (on average) by roughly 9 degrees.
That is slower than the hour hand on a clock. Vastly slower. It is not something you are going to notice.
Just like so many other claims of yours, it only makes sense if Earth is a tiny ball, rather than the massive ball it is.
Stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.
Against a global spinning Earth some theories are very simple and extremely logical, compared.
I'm yet to see any, and if your arguments are any to go by, the FE isn't logical at all.
Your claims repeatedly defy simple logic, while the RE follows trivial logic you have been unable to fault.
I make my contributions just like most.
Contributions typically means something constructive.
Your attacks on the globe with your repeatedly lies are in no way constructive and don't contribute in any meaningful way.
Even you are not naive enough to argue this to be turbines sitting over a curve.
You mean as it clearly shows you are wrong, you will come up with some BS reason to dismiss them.
How far away are those turbines?
As they are situated roughly 30 km off the cost, I would estimate roughly 30 km.
At that distance, ignoring the height of the observer above Earth and refraction, the curve would hide roughly 70 m of them.
If the observer is 2 m above the water it would only hide roughly 50 m.
As the hub has a height of roughly 75 m, and the blade diameter is roughly 126 m, that seems to match quite well.
This 30 km equates to a small fraction of Earth's circumference, only 0.075 %.
This means your pathetic lie, is yet another pathetic lie.
You will not notice a tilt of 0.27 degrees, especially not when it is pointing away from you.
You were previously challenged on tilts left and right, and refused to identify the matching lines.
So no, let's make this clear.
You would have to be mental to believe the tilt for this distance would be in any way noticeable.
Yet again, there is no contradiction from the RE.
This is what is expected.
The horizon is still only a tiny amount below eye level, and even the base of the windmill, 70 m down is still quite close to level for a distance of 30 km.
That drop is ~0.002 of the distance and equates to 0.13 degrees.
The reason for that is simple.
Yes, quite simple; you can't find any actual fault with the RE, so you just blatantly lie, making up a problem where none exists.
Just like so many other claims of yours, all you have is that blatant lie. You have literally nothing to back it up.
Conversely, we have math, math which clearly shows you are spouting pure BS.
The math shows that if you are standing 2 m above the level surface of this RE you live on, looking at an object 30 m away, the bottom ~50 m of the object will be obscured by the curve, with the object tilting away from you at an imperceptible 0.27 degrees.
It's atmospheric mass that shuts out the light back to our eyes leaving what we can see, above that, which makes perfect sense.
No, that makes no sense at all.
As we have been over before, if that was the case you would see a region of darkness.
The picture would not look like that, instead it would look more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UAni1Pw.png)
Or with a blur between them.
But you don't see that.
Instead you have a clear horizon, with the water level appearing clearly above the bottom of these wind mills.
That is enough to convince any sane person that Earth is round.
It shows your claims are pure BS.
But because you don't want to admit Earth is round, you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss reality.
You cannot explain why the windmills appear so much lower than they are.
You cannot explain why it appears the water is obscuring the base of them.
I've drew many a circle and showed you how your globe is nonsense.
You mean you have drawn many not-to-scale diagrams, where you pretend we don't have a FOV, and shown that the only way you can attack the RE is with dishonest nonsense.
You are yet to show the globe is nonsense in any way.
-
Oh my god you're still here.
-
Don't do any maths for a globe, do the actual experiment with the tubes like what JJA
JJA did, and showed you were wrong, and you dismissed it as fake.
JJA did set up an experiment.
What he didn't do was do it in a truthful way.
I gave him another way to do it so he couldn't dupe me and he backed off.
He's likely still thinking of a way to dupe me with the one I set out but it's a difficult one to dupe with, given how I set it out.
I thought you would be straight in to shut me right up but you seem to just want to argue and go into a frenzy when you seem to know everything about everything, judging by every post you jump into....so let's see you shut me up.
-
No, that makes no sense at all.
As we have been over before, if that was the case you would see a region of darkness.
The picture would not look like that, instead it would look more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UAni1Pw.png)
Or with a blur between them.
But you don't see that.
Instead you have a clear horizon, with the water level appearing clearly above the bottom of these wind mills.
That is enough to convince any sane person that Earth is round.
It shows your claims are pure BS.
But because you don't want to admit Earth is round, you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss reality.
You cannot explain why the windmills appear so much lower than they are.
You cannot explain why it appears the water is obscuring the base of them.
I massively explained but you can't seem to get your head around atmospheric mass over distance.
You see to think light can just cover that reflection in that mass close to your eyes just as far away.
It can't. It becomes slowly obscured over distance and cannot reflect back to your eyes from below but can, above, gradually.
This is why you lose your object bases and mnore and more the more distant you get to see an object of sufficient height.
The black shut off in the picture shows you have no clue or are pretending.
-
JJA did set up an experiment.
What he didn't do was do it in a truthful way.
You mean what he didn't do was do it in a way which supported your blatant lies.
He did the experiment and he showed you were wrong.
Because he showed you were wrong, you pretended that he was trying to con you and came up with BS requirements to try to pretend your claims are justified.
All you did was add in a bunch of needless complexities which serve to further remove it from the initial problem (by replacing a short tube with effectively a 12 foot tube) and do not help show it is level at all.
I thought you would be straight in to shut me right up
You have made it clear that you wouldn't shut up, you will continue lying for as long as you want, without any concern for the truth.
I have provided you logical arguments you are yet to refute, and trivial questions you are yet to answer, because you know that answering those questions will show you are wrong.
If you were an honest person, you would have shut up by now due to your complete inability to answer trivial questions.
I know you will dismiss any evidence provided that shows you are wrong.
It doesn't matter how ironclad the evidence is, you will dismiss it as fake, because you do not give a damn about the truth and are willing to continually lie to prop up your failed claims.
Again, deal with the trivial questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
I massively explained but you can't seem to get your head around atmospheric mass over distance.
You mean you spouted a bunch of nonsense which makes no sense at all and doesn't address the actual issue.
Again, if it was simply a case of the light not making it, you have the dark region like I indicated.
But back in reality, that clearly isn't the case.
Instead, the windmills appear lower, such that their base appears well below the horizon.
That is what you have never explained, because you can't.
The black shut off in the picture shows you have no clue or are pretending.
No, it shows I know what would be expected, it shows that your claims are pure garbage.
That is what you would expect if it was simply the light not magically getting to you, or the other option which I am too lazy to make up, that of a blur.
What certainly wouldn't happen is the windmills magically being lowered to appear to sink into the water.
You rejecting that shows that you either have no clue what you are talking about, or far more like, that you are blatantly lying to prop up your failed claims.
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
-
No, that makes no sense at all.
As we have been over before, if that was the case you would see a region of darkness.
The picture would not look like that, instead it would look more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UAni1Pw.png)
Or with a blur between them.
But you don't see that.
Instead you have a clear horizon, with the water level appearing clearly above the bottom of these wind mills.
That is enough to convince any sane person that Earth is round.
It shows your claims are pure BS.
But because you don't want to admit Earth is round, you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss reality.
You cannot explain why the windmills appear so much lower than they are.
You cannot explain why it appears the water is obscuring the base of them.
I massively explained but you can't seem to get your head around atmospheric mass over distance.
You see to think light can just cover that reflection in that mass close to your eyes just as far away.
It can't. It becomes slowly obscured over distance and cannot reflect back to your eyes from below but can, above, gradually.
This is why you lose your object bases and mnore and more the more distant you get to see an object of sufficient height.
The black shut off in the picture shows you have no clue or are pretending.
Why dont you draw us a pciture of what is hapoening to the light as it makes it way to our eyes.
Rmemeber those side viee trees that bored drew?
Try that.
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
Same! Nice to see something never change.
Don't forget the gears, magnets and some new age crystals charged with aether. I'm sure they would help somehow.
-
The black shut off in the picture shows you have no clue or are pretending.
No, it shows I know what would be expected, it shows that your claims are pure garbage.
That is what you would expect if it was simply the light not magically getting to you, or the other option which I am too lazy to make up, that of a blur.
What certainly wouldn't happen is the windmills magically being lowered to appear to sink into the water.
You rejecting that shows that you either have no clue what you are talking about, or far more like, that you are blatantly lying to prop up your failed claims.
You're not that naive.
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
They would not sit upright and sunk.
Let's put it more simple.
If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
-
The black shut off in the picture shows you have no clue or are pretending.
No, it shows I know what would be expected, it shows that your claims are pure garbage.
That is what you would expect if it was simply the light not magically getting to you, or the other option which I am too lazy to make up, that of a blur.
What certainly wouldn't happen is the windmills magically being lowered to appear to sink into the water.
You rejecting that shows that you either have no clue what you are talking about, or far more like, that you are blatantly lying to prop up your failed claims.
You're not that naive.
You mean you're not that naive, and you know you are blatantly lying.
Again, if it was just a case of the light getting stopped, it would either be dark or a blur.
It wouldn't magically lower the windmills to make them appear to have sunk into the water.
That is something you CANNOT explain, and something which quite clearly shows Earth is round.
But of course, there are plenty of things you can't explain but still pretend to.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
You have been provided with the math which shows that claim of yours is pure BS.
If you wish to disagree, then provide the math to justify your claim that there would be a very significant tilt instead of the insignificant tilt expected on a RE.
Otherwise, all you are doing is wilfully rejecting reality due to your irrational hatred of it.
Or lets put it more simple:
Evidence shows you are wrong.
Math shows you are wrong.
Logic shows you are wrong.
Trivial questions show you are wrong.
But you don't care. You continue to spout blatant lies in your question to attack the RE due to your irrational hatred of it.
Have you figured out any answers to the simple questions you keep on avoiding yet?
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
They would not sit upright and sunk.
Let's put it more simple.
If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
Lets put it simply - draw the circle
-
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
And what would the exact tilt in degrees be? Would you like to show your math? How did you come to your conclusion?
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
They would not sit upright and sunk.
Let's put it more simple.
If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
I wish this forum had a face palming emoji, but I digress.
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Dig deep, tiger!
-
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
What's your calculation as to how much they should be tilted given your knowledge of the globe earth model? You do know a lot about the thing you rail against, right?
And again, you haven't responded to the other question: In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, a spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
-
You mean you're not that naive, and you know you are blatantly lying.
Lying about what?
-
Lets put it simply - draw the circle
How about you draw the circle.
-
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
And what would the exact tilt in degrees be? Would you like to show your math? How did you come to your conclusion?
No need for that gobbledygook. Simple observation would suffice to actually see a tilt if those turbines were that low behind your so called curve.
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
-
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
What's your calculation as to how much they should be tilted given your knowledge of the globe earth model? You do know a lot about the thing you rail against, right?
And again, you haven't responded to the other question: In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, a spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
Play with figures when its necessary.
This one is simple observation.
You people want to argue a massive drop behind a curve, then fine. But show me the observation of the tilt back over that would cause this loss of structure.
-
Lets put it simply - draw the circle
How about you draw the circle.
Nice dodge.
See how this works - your claim the angle tilt would be MASSIVE but its refuted by simpel logical math.
You INSIST its MASSSIVE becaus you think it so, even though the model shows it not to be so.
The reason - you refuse to finish any thought to completion.
Draw the circle.
You already waved away jjas photo.
Only YOUR self experiment will be unrefutable uncgi'd unwahtever excuse you chose to use.
Draw the circle you pathetic pos.
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
-
You mean you're not that naive, and you know you are blatantly lying.
Lying about what?
Quite clear from the context of the post, including what was in the post you just ignored and removed.
You KNOW that if it was just a case of the light not reaching your eyes, it would produce a region of darkness.
But as that doesn't match what is observed and you have no explanation for how what is observed could possibly match your FE fantasy, you just blatantly lie to pretend anyone who questions your BS are naive or indoctrinated or whatever other insult you like throwing out at the time.
Again, you CANNOT explain why the windmills all appeared to be lowered into the water.
You would be more plausible if you claimed they had sunk. A FE simply cannot explain it.
But a RE explains it just fine.
But don't worry, there are plenty of other things you are blatantly lying about, like your blatant lie that there should be a massive tilt, even though simple math shows that is BS.
And of course, as there is no way at all for you to justify that blatant lie of yours, so you deflect from any request to justify it and instead just repeat the same pathetic lie.
If you want to claim there would be a massive, noticeable tilt, the burden is on you to justify that blatant lie of yours. Unless you want to clearly admit that that is just your delusional opinion with no justification from reality and thus not a reason to dismiss Earth being a globe. But you aren't doing that. Instead you are acting like it is a fact.
But if it was a fact, you would be able to justify it with basic math, math you always seem to avoid, as it always shows you are wrong.
Then there is your lie, which you try to prop up with circular reasoning, that the horizon must always be at eye level, in spite of evidence showing that is not the case, and simple logic showing that is not the case.
Then there is your lie about a tiny downwards gradient or a gentle curve magically making the ground invisible, which you cannot justify at all and which causes you to avoid trivial questions you still refuse to answer, because you know answering them will show you are wrong.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable
You can happily deny anything you want.
If something shows you are wrong, you just deny it, even if it is conclusive proof.
For example, the math that clearly proves you are wrong beyond any doubt.
Do you accept that and admit you are wrong?
No, you just deny, dismiss or ignore.
So even when faced with irrefutable proof you still don't change your mind.
Why not just be honest and say nothing will change your mind, that you will continue to spout these pathetic lies based upon your irrational hatred of the RE?
You people want to argue a massive drop behind a curve, then fine. But show me the observation of the tilt back over that would cause this loss of structure.
The drop causes the loss of sight to the bottom, not the tilt.
Again, the tilt is insignificant.
At 30 km, you are a small fraction of the 40 000 km distance around Earth.
In fact it is 0.00075 times the circumference, or 0.075%.
To find the tilt, you simply multiply by 360 degrees (unless you want to go back to your delusional fantasy of claiming that objects need to magically tilt more for some reason which you are still yet to justify).
That means you end up with 0.27 degrees. That is tiny.
Even if they were tilted that much sideways, you would not notice.
But you need to see them tilted backwards, away from you.
Do you remember this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/P7vfzXs.png)
Can you tell me which of those are tilted, and in what direction and by how much? Because some are tilted vastly more than you claim should be obvious. So surely you can tell which are.
Again, stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.
Stop just claiming there should be a massive tilt and prove it.
It is really trivial math, like shown to you repeatedly.
-
Lets put it simply - draw the circle
How about you draw the circle.
Nice dodge.
See how this works - your claim the angle tilt would be MASSIVE but its refuted by simpel logical math.
You INSIST its MASSSIVE becaus you think it so, even though the model shows it not to be so.
The reason - you refuse to finish any thought to completion.
Draw the circle.
You already waved away jjas photo.
Only YOUR self experiment will be unrefutable uncgi'd unwahtever excuse you chose to use.
Draw the circle you pathetic pos.
No, it's not refuted by simple logical math, at all.
The pretence of it is there but that's all it is.
Let me make this clear, once again.
If those massive turbines were as low in the water as claimed to be, due to the so called curvature of Earth, at those distances, they would be tilted to hell and you would certainly see that.
I'll try and make this even more clear.
When you climb a hill you start to see trees as you start to see over the curve of that hill but would see trees strutting out above that curve if those trees were generally upright and plumb to near plumb.
If those trees decided to grow with the curve then you would not see those trees as you ascended the hill because those trees would be tilted to hell...away from your view.
Now here's the killer.
If I was to walk up that hill flat footed and titled back to match the gradient, as you would need to be on your global Earth, then all I'm going to see as I stand on any part of that hill, is sky.
I'm not going to see anything over that hill.
Your globe does not match what is seen.
A flatness matches perfectly and especially with a dome and atmospheric stack which will obscure the light back to your eyes from bottom up.
This means you lose the reflected object from bottom up, until you can see the reflected light from the object, which is why you see some of the object.
The globe makes zero sense and the explanations for it make zero sense when people take a small amount of time to go past the nonsense explanations and so called calculations that pretend to cater for a reality.
It amazes me how so many are massively duped, who actually have the mind to question. But, it is what it is.
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
-
Again, you CANNOT explain why the windmills all appeared to be lowered into the water.
I just did.
Why not just be honest and say nothing will change your mind, that you will continue to spout these pathetic lies based upon your irrational hatred of the RE?
Because what you're saying, is not true.
-
No, it's not refuted by simple logical math, at all.
Yes it is.
Again, at 30 km, you end up with a tilt of 0.27 degrees.
That is insignificant. You will not notice it.
You will not see it.
That means your claim is refuted by simple math.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same pathetic lie, it wont magically make it true.
You are wrong, deal with it.
If you want to disagree, either refute the math, or show your own.
Repeating the same lies just further shows how dishonest you are and how little you care about the truth.
If I was to walk up that hill flat footed and titled back to match the gradient, as you would need to be on your global Earth, then all I'm going to see as I stand on any part of that hill, is sky.
And there you go with the same old lies as before, also refuted by simple logic and math.
Again, stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand. It is not.
Again, answer the simple question that expose this lie:
Your globe does not match what is seen.
You are yet to provide a single instance of this.
Instead you just repeat the same pathetic lies which you are completely incapable of justifying.
So far in every instance, the RE matches what is observed in reality.
The globe makes zero sense and the explanations for it make zero sense when people take a small amount of time to go past the nonsense explanations and so called calculations that pretend to cater for a reality.
You mean it makes no sense when you have an irrational hatred of it and makes perfect when you honestly and rationally think about it.
It amazes me how so many are massively duped, who actually have the mind to question. But, it is what it is.
But it doesn't look like you are duping anyone here. Instead you just keep getting your BS called out.
Again, you CANNOT explain why the windmills all appeared to be lowered into the water.
I just did.
No, you didn't.
The closest you came is trying to explain why the bases are not visible. But that does not explain why it appears that the bottom are below water level.
Again, if your BS was true, there would either be a region of darkness or a blur. You would not have them appear to be below water level.
-
Lets put it simply - draw the circle
How about you draw the circle.
Nice dodge.
See how this works - your claim the angle tilt would be MASSIVE but its refuted by simpel logical math.
You INSIST its MASSSIVE becaus you think it so, even though the model shows it not to be so.
The reason - you refuse to finish any thought to completion.
Draw the circle.
You already waved away jjas photo.
Only YOUR self experiment will be unrefutable uncgi'd unwahtever excuse you chose to use.
Draw the circle you pathetic pos.
No, it's not refuted by simple logical math, at all.
The pretence of it is there but that's all it is.
Let me make this clear, once again.
If those massive turbines were as low in the water as claimed to be, due to the so called curvature of Earth, at those distances, they would be tilted to hell and you would certainly see that.
I'll try and make this even more clear.
When you climb a hill you start to see trees as you start to see over the curve of that hill but would see trees strutting out above that curve if those trees were generally upright and plumb to near plumb.
If those trees decided to grow with the curve then you would not see those trees as you ascended the hill because those trees would be tilted to hell...away from your view.
Now here's the killer.
If I was to walk up that hill flat footed and titled back to match the gradient, as you would need to be on your global Earth, then all I'm going to see as I stand on any part of that hill, is sky.
I'm not going to see anything over that hill.
Your globe does not match what is seen.
A flatness matches perfectly and especially with a dome and atmospheric stack which will obscure the light back to your eyes from bottom up.
This means you lose the reflected object from bottom up, until you can see the reflected light from the object, which is why you see some of the object.
The globe makes zero sense and the explanations for it make zero sense when people take a small amount of time to go past the nonsense explanations and so called calculations that pretend to cater for a reality.
It amazes me how so many are massively duped, who actually have the mind to question. But, it is what it is.
Lets make this very clear
- you dont know how circles and triangles work.
Got it
-
The closest you came is trying to explain why the bases are not visible. But that does not explain why it appears that the bottom are below water level.
Again, if your BS was true, there would either be a region of darkness or a blur. You would not have them appear to be below water level.
Can you remember the theoretical line?
The very reason the line is theoretical is due to the light differences from above and below converging.
Let's make this clear.
Remember the big black rectangle you splattered across the picture, earlier?
That black rectangle would be the difference of slight shades that converge from bottom to top.
This means your object is obscured by that theoretical line of convergence. It's your horizon (theoretical line).
So take away your black rectangle and show the picture as was and see the convergence of shade.
Have a sit down and a good think about it.
-
Lets make this very clear
- you dont know how circles and triangles work.
Got it
Let me see if I have this.
A circle is this....right?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tC7M1GHz/circle.png) (https://postimages.org/)
A triangle can be these....right?
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGLF6Zxj/triangles.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Correct me if I'm wrong about this and then maybe you can get on and not be so arrogant.
-
Great
You know what they look like.
Not how they work.
Almost there.
Now add a triganlfle to the circle in the ratio of triagnle height being 2units with hypotnuse going to tangent.
And circle being 12,750,000unit diameter.
Or
Take the 12,750,000unit diameter circle and make a pie cutout with arc of length 30,000unit.
30,000 sounds like a big enough number.
Massive even!
Let us know the angle of the arc.
Ill be arrogant because youre clearly playing games and being a dodgy mcdodger face to avoid actually looking at the basic math.
-
Great
You know what they look like.
Not how they work.
Almost there.
Now add a triganlfle to the circle in the ratio of triagnle height being 2units with hypotnuse going to tangent.
And circle being 12,750,000unit diameter.
You want me to throw a trifle into a circle?
-
The closest you came is trying to explain why the bases are not visible. But that does not explain why it appears that the bottom are below water level.
Again, if your BS was true, there would either be a region of darkness or a blur. You would not have them appear to be below water level.
Can you remember the theoretical line?
Do you mean the one which has nothing at all to do with the issue and is you yet again trying to avoid the issue?
Remember the big black rectangle you splattered across the picture, earlier?
Yes, clearly showing the region of darkness or blur you would expect if it was just a case of the light not reaching your eye.
That black rectangle would be the difference of slight shades that converge from bottom to top.
This means your object is obscured by that theoretical line of convergence. It's your horizon (theoretical line).
No, it isn't.
If convergence was making that massive region into a line, the entire view would be a line.
That theoretical line you appeal to requires an infinite distance.
They are not infinitely far away and thus the line has nothing to do with it.
With convergence things just get smaller.
The bottom doesn't magically disappear.
Have a sit down and a good think about it.
Follow your own advice.
While you are at it, do some math and see what the tilt should be, rather than just repeating the same.
Also, think of answer to the trivial question you keep on avoiding:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Let me see if I have this.
A circle is this....right?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tC7M1GHz/circle.png)
Now take that, circle, divide the circumference into 40 000 parts, and then draw 2 lines going from the centre outwards, separated by 30 of those 30 000 units.
That is the tilt you would expect.
-
Great
You know what they look like.
Not how they work.
Almost there.
Now add a triganlfle to the circle in the ratio of triagnle height being 2units with hypotnuse going to tangent.
And circle being 12,750,000unit diameter.
You want me to throw a trifle into a circle?
"Trifle?"
Dunno wtf you tslking about.
But if you mean "triangle"
Yes
As repeatedly being asked of you.
If the request confuses you let me know.
Because its pretty basic.
Ill continue being arrognat sionce you clearly continue not being able to undersrand how circles and triangles work
-
The closest you came is trying to explain why the bases are not visible. But that does not explain why it appears that the bottom are below water level.
Again, if your BS was true, there would either be a region of darkness or a blur. You would not have them appear to be below water level.
Can you remember the theoretical line?
Do you mean the one which has nothing at all to do with the issue and is you yet again trying to avoid the issue?
It has everything to do with the issue.
There's no avoidance from me but plenty from you.
You can't, or don't want to grasp the theoretical line because you know that theoretical line is a convergence of light shades which obscures objects within that shading, which places the below structure within that theoretical line.
Within.
This means you lose that vision and only see what is above the theoretical line.
Very simple.
-
Great
You know what they look like.
Not how they work.
Almost there.
Now add a triganlfle to the circle in the ratio of triagnle height being 2units with hypotnuse going to tangent.
And circle being 12,750,000unit diameter.
You want me to throw a trifle into a circle?
Trifle?
Dunno wtf you tslking about.
But if you mean triangle
Yes
As repeatedly being asked of you.
If the request confuses you let me know.
Because its pretty basic.
Ill continue being arrognat sionce you clearly continue not being able to undersrand how circles and triangles work
You want me to put a triangle inside a circle?
Any particular triangle you want me to use?
-
Uh...
Yes
The ones as described.
You dont appear to understand triangles and circles.
Got back to grade school if thisnis too difficult.
-
Uh...
Yes
The ones as described.
You dont appear to understand triangles and circles.
Got back to grade school if thisnis too difficult.
You need to be clear.
Draw what you're asking so I can see what you're getting at...if you can, that is.
-
Its very clear.
Maybe YOU should be clear what part confuses you.
If lifes too difficult, Try drawing one first and well go from there.
-
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
And what would the exact tilt in degrees be? Would you like to show your math? How did you come to your conclusion?
No need for that gobbledygook. Simple observation would suffice to actually see a tilt if those turbines were that low behind your so called curve.
LOL. Yes, no need to use actual math and measurements... much better just to make things up and declare your crazed fantasies are 'good enough' because you 'just know'.
Math and measurements and logic is all gobbledygook to you, that explains a lot.
-
Its very clear.
Maybe YOU should be clear what part confuses you.
If lifes too difficult, Try drawing one first and well go from there.
Can you not draw what you want to show?
-
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
And what would the exact tilt in degrees be? Would you like to show your math? How did you come to your conclusion?
No need for that gobbledygook. Simple observation would suffice to actually see a tilt if those turbines were that low behind your so called curve.
LOL. Yes, no need to use actual math and measurements... much better just to make things up and declare your crazed fantasies are 'good enough' because you 'just know'.
Math and measurements and logic is all gobbledygook to you, that explains a lot.
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
-
Its very clear.
Maybe YOU should be clear what part confuses you.
If lifes too difficult, Try drawing one first and well go from there.
Can you not draw what you want to show?
let me get thsi straight
you've been asked to draw a circle and triangel to prove your theory that the massive tilt is massive.
you didn't understand it and are asking me to draw the circle to shwo you how to draw the circle?
you don't want to do anything.
got it.
keep dodging
or it really shows you are really below basic here.
it's a circle and a triangle
put the little one on top of the big one.
let's see it.
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
-
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
What's your calculation as to how much they should be tilted given your knowledge of the globe earth model? You do know a lot about the thing you rail against, right?
And again, you haven't responded to the other question: In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, a spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
Play with figures when its necessary.
This one is simple observation.
You people want to argue a massive drop behind a curve, then fine. But show me the observation of the tilt back over that would cause this loss of structure.
Why is it not necessary? Without calculation you have no argument. So what is your calculated tilt given the parameters laid out in a globe earth model? If you want to have an argument, you actually have to make one. Not just say "nuh uh." That's just lame. Step up your game.
As well, you still seem to be dodging this question:
In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, a spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
-
So, math is bad if and only if it doesnt support the claims a FEer makes. When asked to use math, it is gobbledygook. Simple observation trumps logical mathematics... got it. Hopeless.
-
Simple observation trumps logical mathematics... got it. Hopeless.
Observation can be deceiving. Sometimes we see what is real and true. Other times we what our minds tell us is real and true. In other words you cannot rely entirely on observation alone.
Low level inversions over water can make an object like a ship appear to be floating but we know in reality that it isn't.
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
Lol! This isn't about me. This is all about you. You, you, you.
Is there an experiment that you would be prepared to do, or a trip you are prepared to take, where the risk is you might find undeniable physically provable truth, about the overall shape of the earth, not just the shape of the earth in your front yard?
I'm wondering if you're prepared to do anything more than make use of one of your used toilet rolls?
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
oh hoo i missed this one.
looks like sceppy is real easy going.
"any way we like" eh?
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/
hundreds of people working on projects across public and private sector across different countries all able to verify they saw or used something relating to the ball earth.
several 10s of 20s of them actually going up there.
hmmm... not so easy going are you now?
-
It has everything to do with the issue.
No, it doesn't.
It is infinitely far away.
You need to explain why the top section of the turbine has magically been lowered down.
Again, if it was just convergence, the entire structure would be visible.
There is no reason for the bottom to be magically hidden.
If it is a case of the light not making it to your eyes, you get a region of darkness, and that convergence has nothing to do with it.
Convergence just makes things appear smaller.
It doesn't just magically cut out a section of your vision and join above and below it together.
There's no avoidance from me but plenty from you.
You avoid things with every single post you make.
Even now you avoid the issue of what is magically lowering the turbines.
Instead you deflect to your nonsense theoretical line as if it addresses it.
Just like you continually avoid trivial question which expose your lies.
Even now you avoid the actual issue, why the top appears lower than it should.
And the same questions you have been avoiding for so long, like your justification for why a 0.27 degree tilt away from you is massive and should be easily visible.
And for even longer.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
We can, and we do.
Repeatedly.
Every time we do, you just ignore it because it shows you are spouting pure BS.
YOU are the one who cannot use legitimate maths to defend any of the BS you claim.
Legitimate math shows that the ability to see a downwards slope depends upon your FOV and the gradient of the slope. This contrasts quite significantly with your outright lie that any downwards slope is magically invisible.
Legitimate math shows that the ability to see a gentle curve depends upon your FOV and the radius of that curve and your height above it. This contrasts quite significantly with your outright lie that any downwards curve is magically invisible.
Legitimate math shows that the windmills being discussed are tilted by ~0.27 degrees, a tiny amount humans cannot easily detect, even if it was sideways rather than the much harder to see tilting forwards or backwards. This contrasts quite significantly with your outright lie that there would be a massive and obvious tilt.
This legitimate math repeatedly shows that your claims are pure garbage.
You refuse to even attempt to engage with it because you know it is irrefutable.
Unlike evidence which you can easily dismiss as fake, math is cold hard logic and what is provided is irrefutable.
So because you cannot refute it or easily dismiss it as fake, you need some other excuse to ignore it.
If you were honest and your position was actually based upon evidence and logic, you would have no issue with this legitimate math and would have provided your own to show just how massive the tilt is.
The fact you don't, and instead just do whatever you can to avoid this simple, legitimate, irrefutable math, and likewise avoid the trivial questions; shows just how dishonest you and your position are.
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
-
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
What's your calculation as to how much they should be tilted given your knowledge of the globe earth model? You do know a lot about the thing you rail against, right?
And again, you haven't responded to the other question: In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, a spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
Play with figures when its necessary.
This one is simple observation.
You people want to argue a massive drop behind a curve, then fine. But show me the observation of the tilt back over that would cause this loss of structure.
Why is it not necessary? Without calculation you have no argument. So what is your calculated tilt given the parameters laid out in a globe earth model? If you want to have an argument, you actually have to make one. Not just say "nuh uh." That's just lame. Step up your game.
As well, you still seem to be dodging this question:
In your own words, as simple as I can understand, what FE datum/model/map(s) do all of airline and shipping transport use for navigation? You've repeated that they don't use a globe model when all references point to them using the WGS-84 datum, a spheroid earth model. So if, in reality, they are faking that and don't really use it, what FE version do they use?
Yous till don't get it.
The whole purpose of your global working, with a turbine (as an instance) supposedly dropping behind your so called curve would mean it has to tilt away from your vision over distance.
Let me make this more clear.
If your ship was to supposedly fall over the curve, the last thing you would see before it was lost to your so called curve, would be the stern, not the mast, if your ship started to disappear like you lot think it does, behind your curve.
The same applies to your turbine.
If the turbine and blades were as sunk as it shows, over a short distance, it would show turbine blades tilted right back, not upright like we're shown.
The only way we would see what we see are for two reasons.
1. They suddenly sink into the sea, which we know does not happen.
2. The theoretical horizon line has a light and shade convergence in between sea and sky where we cannot see into that dense mass of atmosphere and anything within that is lost or it sits above that, as in distant structures, like turbines, where some of it still stays into the light back to your eyes, as reflection.
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
No globe, no convex curve.
-
So, math is bad if and only if it doesnt support the claims a FEer makes. When asked to use math, it is gobbledygook. Simple observation trumps logical mathematics... got it. Hopeless.
Let's make this simple for you.
You could give me the math/calculations for the starship enterprise by looking it up, if I asked you how it would work.
You can tell me it would reach so and so galaxy in blah blah time and by warp speed which would be blah blah something or other.
Are you handing me real maths?
Or are you going by the maths given to show what you think might be the case and pass it off as truth?
Of course, you know it's just a series but if you were told otherwise and told as real, you would be arguing till you were blue in the face as to the set up and math you are told are real calculations.
This is all you're doing with your globe and its trimmings.
Just made up math that work for you because it's been made to work for you.
The reality could be so massively different but the one you go with is the one set out on the platter, for you and others like you.
By all means argue it to the contrary but I'm just showing you what I mean by math not being the reality you think, in cases like this.
-
Look at the reports from Russia - you will understand that they are not joking. Already because they cannot fly into space ... Ha ha - now why should they all lie if their rockets fall and they get out of the space race.
-
Simple observation trumps logical mathematics... got it. Hopeless.
Observation can be deceiving. Sometimes we see what is real and true. Other times we what our minds tell us is real and true. In other words you cannot rely entirely on observation alone.
Low level inversions over water can make an object like a ship appear to be floating (on air) but we know in reality that it isn't.
Yep, you're right...and it's the bit in bold which you are best taking notice of.
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
Lol! This isn't about me. This is all about you. You, you, you.
Is there an experiment that you would be prepared to do, or a trip you are prepared to take, where the risk is you might find undeniable physically provable truth, about the overall shape of the earth, not just the shape of the earth in your front yard?
I'm wondering if you're prepared to do anything more than make use of one of your used toilet rolls?
What do you have in mind?
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
oh hoo i missed this one.
looks like sceppy is real easy going.
"any way we like" eh?
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/
hundreds of people working on projects across public and private sector across different countries all able to verify they saw or used something relating to the ball earth.
several 10s of 20s of them actually going up there.
hmmm... not so easy going are you now?
So, what did people see or use that confirmed a global Earth we supposedly walk upon, that you know of to be the truth?
I'll wait for your answers.
-
If you were honest and your position was actually based upon evidence and logic, you would have no issue with this legitimate math and would have provided your own to show just how massive the tilt is.
There is no legitimate math for something that does not exist.
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
Drawing the circle and the triangel as requested will show you either the globe model matches realoty or the globe model does not mafch reality.
Feel free to draw the circle and the triangle.
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
Lol! This isn't about me. This is all about you. You, you, you.
Is there an experiment that you would be prepared to do, or a trip you are prepared to take, where the risk is you might find undeniable physically provable truth, about the overall shape of the earth, not just the shape of the earth in your front yard?
I'm wondering if you're prepared to do anything more than make use of one of your used toilet rolls?
What do you have in mind?
Draw the circle and the triangle
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
oh hoo i missed this one.
looks like sceppy is real easy going.
"any way we like" eh?
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/
hundreds of people working on projects across public and private sector across different countries all able to verify they saw or used something relating to the ball earth.
several 10s of 20s of them actually going up there.
hmmm... not so easy going are you now?
So, what did people see or use that confirmed a global Earth we supposedly walk upon, that you know of to be the truth?
I'll wait for your answers.
Is daft the word you would have a definitoon for over in your area?
The answer was in the link....
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
Drawing the circle and the triangel as requested will show you either the globe model matches realoty or the globe model does not mafch reality.
Feel free to draw the circle and the triangle.
How will drawing a circle show a globe matches reality?
How about you show me if you're so set on it.
And start taking your time instead of getting into a frenzy.
-
Draw the circle and the triangle
Let's see you do it and show me what you're getting at.
-
Is daft the word you would have a definitoon for over in your area?
The answer was in the link....
What is, definitoon?
-
So, math is bad if and only if it doesnt support the claims a FEer makes. When asked to use math, it is gobbledygook. Simple observation trumps logical mathematics... got it. Hopeless.
Let's make this simple for you.
You could give me the math/calculations for the starship enterprise by looking it up, if I asked you how it would work.
You can tell me it would reach so and so galaxy in blah blah time and by warp speed which would be blah blah something or other.
Are you handing me real maths?
Or are you going by the maths given to show what you think might be the case and pass it off as truth?
Of course, you know it's just a series but if you were told otherwise and told as real, you would be arguing till you were blue in the face as to the set up and math you are told are real calculations.
This is all you're doing with your globe and its trimmings.
Just made up math that work for you because it's been made to work for you.
The reality could be so massively different but the one you go with is the one set out on the platter, for you and others like you.
By all means argue it to the contrary but I'm just showing you what I mean by math not being the reality you think, in cases like this.
You should try to understand though that people here are not using math to prove something is right, it is just to show that you are wrong. Incredibly wrong. Stupidly wrong. So wrong that it you can manage to look past the sadness of it, it is actually quite humorous.
It is analogous to this:
Sceptimatic: In your crazy globe model, it would take a million years to travel around the world because it is so big!!!
Everyone else: (collective sigh). No sceptimatic, in the geometry considered, the world has a a diameter of approximately 40,000 km. A modern airplane can fly at approx 1000 km/hr, so using basic math it would only take around 40 hours of continuous flight to fly around the world.
Sceptimatic: Your math is illegitimate! It would take a million years and you know it!
Everyone else: (collective sigh)
-
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
How is it that given you believe -
1) water is completely flat
and
2) the horizon is always at eye level
that in the same picture taken over water, the horizon can clearly be seen at the base of one huge wind turbine, at at the top of the tower for another???
-
If you were honest and your position was actually based upon evidence and logic, you would have no issue with this legitimate math and would have provided your own to show just how massive the tilt is.
There is no legitimate math for something that does not exist.
Yes, there is.
This is actually one way to demonstrate something cannot exist.
You do the math and reach a contradiction in the math, and show that the premise must be false.
Again, if you were honest, you would provide the math to show this.
But because you are just lying and know the math shows you are wrong, you look for any excuse you can to dodge it.
Just like you continue to dodge the simple questions that show beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
And what do you consider to be "a reality"?
What is actually reality, with a RE, or your delusional claims with no justifications at all?
Because that insignificant tilt you keep on claiming is massive is part of reality.
That is legitimate math that shows reality quite clearly, and in doing so shows you are wrong.
The whole purpose of your global working, with a turbine (as an instance) supposedly dropping behind your so called curve would mean it has to tilt away from your vision over distance.
Only be an insignificant amount.
Again, it is the drop that hides it, not the tilt.
That drop is large compared to the turbine, but insignificant compared to Earth.
The tilt is insignificant.
If your ship was to supposedly fall over the curve, the last thing you would see before it was lost to your so called curve, would be the stern, not the mast, if your ship started to disappear like you lot think it does, behind your curve.
Again, stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hands.
Again, the math shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
The same applies to your turbine.
If the turbine and blades were as sunk as it shows, over a short distance, it would show turbine blades tilted right back, not upright like we're shown.
Again, the math shows that that claim of yours is pure BS.
The math shows quite clearly that the tilt back would be insignificant.
If you wish to keep asserting the same pathetic lie you need to justify it. Not just by repeating it and similar claims, but actually justifying it.
Again, do the math or draw a to scale diagram.
The only way we would see what we see are for two reasons.
1. They suddenly sink into the sea, which we know does not happen.
Or Earth is round, and the base is hidden by the curve, which we both know is the actual reason.
No FE nonsense required.
You could give me the math/calculations for the starship enterprise by looking it up, if I asked you how it would work.
It doesn't matter if you want to accept the fact that the RE is a reality and show math which clearly shows your prior claims are pure BS, or if you want to pretend the RE is fantasy and pretend there is a massive tilt.
If your claims were true, you would be able to show math to justify them.
For example, you can do the math to show Voyager should be able to cross the entire Milky Way Galaxy in less than 10 years, showing the 70 year premise of the show is pure BS.
-
You should try to understand though that people here are not using math to prove something is right, it is just to show that you are wrong. Incredibly wrong. Stupidly wrong. So wrong that it you can manage to look past the sadness of it, it is actually quite humorous.
If you can't prove yourself correct with math then you certainly cannot prove someone wrong with the same math.
Have a think about it.
It is analogous to this:
Sceptimatic: In your crazy globe model, it would take a million years to travel around the world because it is so big!!!
Everyone else: (collective sigh). No sceptimatic, in the geometry considered, the world has a a diameter of approximately 40,000 km. A modern airplane can fly at approx 1000 km/hr, so using basic math it would only take around 40 hours of continuous flight to fly around the world.
Not at all.
I'm not claiming a size, first of all and you cannot prove a size, other than to go on what you are told.
Sceptimatic: Your math is illegitimate! It would take a million years and you know it!
Everyone else: (collective sigh)
As above.
-
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
How is it that given you believe -
1) water is completely flat
and
2) the horizon is always at eye level
that in the same picture taken over water, the horizon can clearly be seen at the base of one huge wind turbine, at at the top of the tower for another???
Distance.
One tower is much farther =away than the other, so more atmosphere obscures the light back to the eye.
-
It doesn't matter if you want to accept the fact that the RE is a reality and show math which clearly shows your prior claims are pure BS, or if you want to pretend the RE is fantasy and pretend there is a massive tilt.
If your claims were true, you would be able to show math to justify them.
For example, you can do the math to show Voyager should be able to cross the entire Milky Way Galaxy in less than 10 years, showing the 70 year premise of the show is pure BS.
Can you calculate how long it would take flash Gordon to reach the nearest habitable planet whilst travelling at 1 million miles per hour with the planet being 25 billion miles away.
You can obviously work it out but you are working something out based on made up fantasy.
So here you are with an answer for something that's not reality.
This all you people are doing but it's not your fault. It's the fault of those that filled you all full of this clap trap.
-
If you can't prove yourself correct with math then you certainly cannot prove someone wrong with the same math.
Again, proof by contradiction shows you are wrong.
You can use math to prove something is wrong, even when you can't use it to prove something is true.
But we have used math to prove what should (and does) happen on the RE.
Conversely, all you have are your repeated lies.
It is analogous to this:
Sceptimatic: In your crazy globe model, it would take a million years to travel around the world because it is so big!!!
Everyone else: (collective sigh). No sceptimatic, in the geometry considered, the world has a a diameter of approximately 40,000 km. A modern airplane can fly at approx 1000 km/hr, so using basic math it would only take around 40 hours of continuous flight to fly around the world.
Not at all.
That is basically what you are doing.
You are spouting pure fantasy, claiming the tilt involved would be massive and easily noticeable.
The math shows that is a blatant lie.
Can you calculate how long it would take flash Gordon to reach the nearest habitable planet whilst travelling at 1 million miles per hour with the planet being 25 billion miles away.
Yes, so if someone then claims that he did it in a much shorter period of time, that clearly is wrong, and can be used to show it is fiction.
Again, even if you want to claim a RE is fantasy, you can still do the math to show what is expected.
You can then compare this with reality to either substitute or refute that model.
Instead of doing this, you just spout blatant lies about the model to pretend it doesn't match reality.
Again, do the math and show the RE should produce a massive tilt for the turbines, not the tiny 0.27 degrees actually expected by any honest person.
And while you are at it, answer the simple questions you continue to avoid as you know they show you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
-
I'm not claiming a size.
No one is saying you are claiming a size. You are though making a specific geometric claim - that there will be substantial relative "tilt" between two objects at a fixed distance on the surface of a sphere of given size.
This is your claim. You have claimed it multiple times.
It is wrong.
We know it is wrong because it is a geometric claim (a claim about the relative positions of objects), and we can evaluate it with (surprise!) geometry. A simple understanding of circles and triangles is all that is needed to evaluate your claim and see that it is completely and utterly wrong. Multiple people here have done so and even explained to you how your claim is wrong.
You do not know it is wrong because you do not understand geometry and are unwilling or unable to learn it. You can therefore neither develop the geometric understanding yourself, nor follow it when presented.
-
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
How is it that given you believe -
1) water is completely flat
and
2) the horizon is always at eye level
that in the same picture taken over water, the horizon can clearly be seen at the base of one huge wind turbine, at at the top of the tower for another???
Distance.
One tower is much farther =away than the other, so more atmosphere obscures the light back to the eye.
So in your opinion, "eye level" changes with distance when looking out over flat, level water? I would have thought that if I was looking over flat level water from a height of six feet, then "eye level" would stay at 6 feet over the flat water, but instead you think it should curve upwards over distance?
-
Draw the circle and the triangle
Let's see you do it and show me what you're getting at.
It will show you exactly what jackb and jja tried to tell you using math.
Unforutnately for you, based on past experience, yoy convolute everything "copypasted" to you, so this is something you need to do.
-
Is daft the word you would have a definitoon for over in your area?
The answer was in the link....
What is, definitoon?
Another pathetic dodge.
Youre very transparent now.
-
You should try to understand though that people here are not using math to prove something is right, it is just to show that you are wrong. Incredibly wrong. Stupidly wrong. So wrong that it you can manage to look past the sadness of it, it is actually quite humorous.
If you can't prove yourself correct with math then you certainly cannot prove someone wrong with the same math.
Have a think about it.
It is analogous to this:
Sceptimatic: In your crazy globe model, it would take a million years to travel around the world because it is so big!!!
Everyone else: (collective sigh). No sceptimatic, in the geometry considered, the world has a a diameter of approximately 40,000 km. A modern airplane can fly at approx 1000 km/hr, so using basic math it would only take around 40 hours of continuous flight to fly around the world.
Not at all.
I'm not claiming a size, first of all and you cannot prove a size, other than to go on what you are told.
Sceptimatic: Your math is illegitimate! It would take a million years and you know it!
Everyone else: (collective sigh)
As above.
You have claimed a size - a very relatively small size.
You are consitently being told no, it is a relatively very large size.
On the magnitude of size of a dozen million...
Draw the circle.
12,750,000unit dia and 2unit stick on top.
-
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
How is it that given you believe -
1) water is completely flat
and
2) the horizon is always at eye level
that in the same picture taken over water, the horizon can clearly be seen at the base of one huge wind turbine, at at the top of the tower for another???
Distance.
One tower is much farther =away than the other, so more atmosphere obscures the light back to the eye.
That would make ot hazy
Not cropped from view.
Maybe define atmosphere.
Youve been asked this a bunch of times.
Doss atmosphere mean ocean to you?
-
we have used math to prove what should (and does) happen on the RE.
No, you haven't.
You've used calculations which have been handed to you as so called proof. You do not know them to be a proof.
You could very well be calculating a fantasy and I believe you are.
-
I'm not claiming a size.
No one is saying you are claiming a size. You are though making a specific geometric claim - that there will be substantial relative "tilt" between two objects at a fixed distance on the surface of a sphere of given size.
This is your claim. You have claimed it multiple times.
It is wrong.
We know it is wrong because it is a geometric claim (a claim about the relative positions of objects), and we can evaluate it with (surprise!) geometry. A simple understanding of circles and triangles is all that is needed to evaluate your claim and see that it is completely and utterly wrong. Multiple people here have done so and even explained to you how your claim is wrong.
You do not know it is wrong because you do not understand geometry and are unwilling or unable to learn it. You can therefore neither develop the geometric understanding yourself, nor follow it when presented.
You argue against horizon saying your Earth is just too big to see it and then you go and argue a large object falling down a curve at just a short amount of miles.
Now you're trying to argue a tilt is just not visible.
You're playing with so called calculations because you think it fits the fantasy you've been led to believe as your truth.
-
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
How is it that given you believe -
1) water is completely flat
and
2) the horizon is always at eye level
that in the same picture taken over water, the horizon can clearly be seen at the base of one huge wind turbine, at at the top of the tower for another???
Distance.
One tower is much farther =away than the other, so more atmosphere obscures the light back to the eye.
So in your opinion, "eye level" changes with distance when looking out over flat, level water? I would have thought that if I was looking over flat level water from a height of six feet, then "eye level" would stay at 6 feet over the flat water, but instead you think it should curve upwards over distance?
No.
Eye level never changes.
What changes is what your eye can see over distance from bottom to top of an object due to light not reaching your eye from the bottom up over distance..
-
This is why we see the top part of structures, depending on eye view and distance and angle height to distance, at elevation.
How is it that given you believe -
1) water is completely flat
and
2) the horizon is always at eye level
that in the same picture taken over water, the horizon can clearly be seen at the base of one huge wind turbine, at at the top of the tower for another???
Distance.
One tower is much farther =away than the other, so more atmosphere obscures the light back to the eye.
That would make ot hazy
Not cropped from view.
Maybe define atmosphere.
Youve been asked this a bunch of times.
Doss atmosphere mean ocean to you?
Atmosphere is part of the ocean and anything else porous enough for it to be part of, which is everything.
It's just a case of what break down of it takes part in what dense mass.
However, we don't need to argue this because this isn't about the water as your part of horizon. This is about convergence of light back to your eyes from a level point from where you are stood.
-
You're playing with so called calculations because you think it fits the fantasy you've been led to believe as your truth.
Actually, I'm just saying simple, basic, math shows your claim to be incorrect.
I'm sorry, but this is the way it is.
It is like if you said a 10m diameter hemispheric swimming pool contained a billion liters or water. Or that an object that was 5 feet in front of you and five feet above you was 12.5 feet away by a straight line. Or that 10 m of twine would wrap around a 2 cm diameter spool 5000 times.
These claims would be wrong. And you (well, maybe not YOU, but most people) could tell they were wrong by using simple geometry.
In this exact same way, your claim about the relative tilt between two objects separated by a known distance on the surface of a sphere of given radius is wrong. Just flat out wrong. Not because of some vast conspiracy that has brainwashed everyone else in the world, but because you lack the simple, basic knowledge to formulate the problem in a solvable way. So instead of using knowledge to determine the answer, you just guess based on your feelings, and surprise surprise, your feelings about geometric relationships are not correct.
-
You're playing with so called calculations because you think it fits the fantasy you've been led to believe as your truth.
Actually, I'm just saying simple, basic, math shows your claim to be incorrect.
I'm sorry, but this is the way it is.
No need to be sorry. You believe the stories and are entitled to that.
I won't apologise for saying that.
No math shows any claim to be incorrect, unless you actually show it to be incorrect, which you can't.
All you're doing is believing you can look out to sea and believe turbines won't tilt to the eye on your ball but are quite happy to believe they massively disappear over a few dozen miles as if they just sink, upright.
It's clear nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
It is like if you said a 10m diameter hemispheric swimming pool contained a billion liters or water. Or that an object that was 5 feet in front of you and five feet above you was 12.5 feet away by a straight line. Or that 10 m of twine would wrap around a 2 cm diameter spool 5000 times.
These claims would be wrong. And you (well, maybe not YOU, but most people) could tell they were wrong by using simple geometry.
No, not at all. You making this stuff up is you trying to make it appear you have a case. You have nothing.
In this exact same way, your claim about the relative tilt between two objects separated by a known distance on the surface of a sphere of given radius is wrong. Just flat out wrong.
We don't live on one so you can't work that one out.
Not because of some vast conspiracy that has brainwashed everyone else in the world, but because you lack the simple, basic knowledge to formulate the problem in a solvable way.
And you're free to say that and anything else.
However, in the bus and tunnel scenario, as in a bus trapped in a tunnel being too tall for it, you and your little scientists would sit and work out equations for the best way to get the bus through it.
I'd be out there letting just enough air out of the tyres to solve the issue.
This is what you people deal with, with your fantasy stuff of your global Earth and space....etc....etc.....etc.
So instead of using knowledge to determine the answer, you just guess based on your feelings, and surprise surprise, your feelings about geometric relationships are not correct.
What have I said?
-
we have used math to prove what should (and does) happen on the RE.
No, you haven't.
You've used calculations which have been handed to you as so called proof. You do not know them to be a proof.
You could very well be calculating a fantasy and I believe you are.
Amazing!!!!
Math literaly uses the word "proofs"
-
You're playing with so called calculations because you think it fits the fantasy you've been led to believe as your truth.
Actually, I'm just saying simple, basic, math shows your claim to be incorrect.
I'm sorry, but this is the way it is.
No need to be sorry. You believe the stories and are entitled to that.
I won't apologise for saying that.
No math shows any claim to be incorrect, unless you actually show it to be incorrect, which you can't.
All you're doing is believing you can look out to sea and believe turbines won't tilt to the eye on your ball but are quite happy to believe they massively disappear over a few dozen miles as if they just sink, upright.
It's clear nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
The math behind how circles are round and triangles have straight lines is provable.
You sir are arguing that circles and triangles dont work.
-
You're playing with so called calculations because you think it fits the fantasy you've been led to believe as your truth.
Actually, I'm just saying simple, basic, math shows your claim to be incorrect.
I'm sorry, but this is the way it is.
No need to be sorry. You believe the stories and are entitled to that.
I won't apologise for saying that.
No math shows any claim to be incorrect, unless you actually show it to be incorrect, which you can't.
All you're doing is believing you can look out to sea and believe turbines won't tilt to the eye on your ball but are quite happy to believe they massively disappear over a few dozen miles as if they just sink, upright.
It's clear nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
The math behind how circles are round and triangles have straight lines is provable.
You sir are arguing that circles and triangles dont work.
No, I'm not.
You're doing a pee poor job of trying to twist.
Up your game.
-
Yofeom your statements
We xan conclude your belief is that the earthball is only a few km in diameter.
When you said a boat going past the horizon the mast would pint away at a massive tilt and the keel would stick straight "up"
But
If you drew the circle as directed for 30some pg now
The circle being 12,750,000unit diameter
You will see how stupid your statement is.
So
Draw the circle.
-
Yofeom your statements
We xan conclude your belief is that the earthball is only a few km in diameter.
Actually I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.
When you said a boat going past the horizon the mast would pint away at a massive tilt and the keel would stick straight "up"
But
If you drew the circle as directed for 30some pg now
The circle being 12,750,000unit diameter
You will see how stupid your statement is.
So
Draw the circle.
The statement is far from stupid.
You believe the fantasy and you're welcome to it but it's nonsense.
-
The irony of how you split my post shows yes, you are indeed stupid.
-
The irony of how you split my post shows yes, you are indeed stupid.
By all means spend as much time as you need calling me stupid and anything else you want to add.
But at least put some effort in.
-
Yofeom your statements
We xan conclude your belief is that the earthball is only a few km in diameter.
Actually I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.
When you said a boat going past the horizon the mast would pint away at a massive tilt and the keel would stick straight "up"
But
If you drew the circle as directed for 30some pg now
The circle being 12,750,000unit diameter
You will see how stupid your statement is.
So
Draw the circle.
The statement is far from stupid.
You believe the fantasy and you're welcome to it but it's nonsense.
By implying the keel and mast scneario would happen on aball earth would require the ball earth to be very small in the relm of a few km in diameter.
So yes
You did imply it.
And it is stupid.
So
Keep being stupid.
Or draw the circle.
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
-
All you're doing is believing you can look out to sea and believe turbines won't tilt to the eye on your ball but are quite happy to believe they massively disappear over a few dozen miles as if they just sink, upright.
It's clear nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Exactly. You feel it is nonsense. You are of course welcome to your feelings, and I hope they give you happiness.
What people are trying to explain to you though is that there is are methods for describing geometry that do not relate to your feelings, but instead use straightforward relationships from simple measurements to describe the geometry of objects and their positions. The are unambiguous, predictive, and (which should be to your delight), PROVABLE both from first principles and in practice. They arose long before our understanding of the geometry of the world, and are fundamental to every endeavor humans have ever pursued.
The problem for you is that these methods CLEARLY show your feelings to be incorrect.
It's that simple. You are wrong. Stamp your feet as much as you want. Hold your breath if you makes you feel better. Rail against the eggheads and the scientists if you need to.
It won't change a thing. You will remain utterly, demonstrably wrong no matter how right you feel.
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
Yeah but I'm going off what he stated in another thread saying his volume, used in his theory does not conform to volume as it is known. Yet he wants to argue as if it were. I pointed out that he was wrong in saying that two spheres with the same radius did not have the same volume. His response was that he knows what volume is in his theory.
Instead of claiming a possible mistake, no worries mistakes are made sometimes, he doubles down, thus proving he doesn't use words like volume with their known definitions. What else has a scepti definition? Are we arguing the same things? Who could even know what the conversation is about if someone is creating their own definitions of words?
-
we have used math to prove what should (and does) happen on the RE.
No, you haven't.
Yes, we have.
We have provided you with the math that shows what the tilt should be on the RE.
(and earlier you have been provided with the math that shows you will be able to see the ground through a level tube).
You just choose to continually ignore it and come up with whatever lie you can to pretend you don't need to deal with it because it irrefutably shows you are wrong.
All so you can continue to spout your blatant lies which you continue to spout with no justification at all.
You've used calculations which have been handed to you as so called proof. You do not know them to be a proof.
You could very well be calculating a fantasy and I believe you are.
I know them to be a proof that your blatant lie is false.
The tilt would not be significant.
The tilt would be 0.27 degrees, as proven by simple math, beyond any doubt or possible refutation.
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to claim it is fantasy.
You claim that in this fantasy there would a massive tilt. The simple fact is that is a blatant lie.
The tilt would be insignificant.
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to accept reality or dismiss it as a fantasy, the math still holds and either way it shows you are wrong.
You argue against horizon saying your Earth is just too big to see it and then you go and argue a large object falling down a curve at just a short amount of miles.
Now you're trying to argue a tilt is just not visible.
You're playing with so called calculations because you think it fits the fantasy you've been led to believe as your truth.
You mean you have repeatedly pretended that the RE model has Earth as a tiny ball you can hold in your hand so you can pretend the horizon would not be visible, so you can pretend you would only see sky and see a massive tilt.
Conversely we have provided with simple, irrefutable math which shows your claims are wrong, repeatedly.
Doing the math, rather than just following your irrational hatred, we see that when standing close to sea level, the horizon would be almost indistinguishable from level, e.g. at 2 m it would appear 2.7 arc minutes below level.
Doing the math, at 2 m, the horizon is 5 km away, and then as things go further past the horizon, objects will start to be obscured by the horizon.
Such that at 30 km distance, (or 25 km past the horizon), ~50 m will be hidden.
This is quite large compared to the size of the object, but it is virtually nothing compared to Earth.
Doing the math, at that same 30 km distance, the object would be tilted away from you ~0.27 degrees.
You are yet to refute any part of this math. Instead you just dodge it however you can and claim it is all fantasy.
Grow up, and start dealing with the refutations of your claims.
Start justifying your blatant lies.
If you can't, stop making them.
What changes is what your eye can see over distance from bottom to top of an object due to light not reaching your eye from the bottom up over distance..
Again, that creates a region of darkness. It doesn't magically makes things lower down.
No math shows any claim to be incorrect, unless you actually show it to be incorrect
Which we have.
We have shown your claims about basically everything in this thread is an outright lie.
What you are really trying to say, without putting so bluntly is that you will refuse to accept anything that shows you are wrong, as you will dismiss it as fantasy and then pretend it doesn't matter.
Grow up.
It's clear nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Simply because of your irrational hatred of the globe.
You are yet to justify your claims, and you are yet to refute the fact it is wrong.
Your claims are pure BS to anyone who bothers to actually think about them.
You wanting them to be true to prop up your irrational hatred of the globe will not change that fact.
Your claims are blatant lies.
The fact you continue to make them when you cannot justify them and cannot deal with the refutations of them shows you do not give a damn about the truth and are quite happy to blatantly lie to everyone to continue your irrational attack against the globe.
Yofeom your statements
We xan conclude your belief is that the earthball is only a few km in diameter.
Actually I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.
Actually, you have repeatedly implied it.
You imply every time you claim the ground would not be visible.
You imply when you claim that over a short distance of 30 km, an object would have a massive tilt.
You continually act like Earth is a tiny ball, as all your arguments rely upon that, or some other similar BS.
And the fact that you continually avoid simple math shows you know you are spouting pure BS and pretending Earth is a tiny ball.
Here is a simple question for you, what do you believe constitutes a massive tilt?
How many degrees must it be?
But at least put some effort in.
Follow your own advice.
Stop just spouting blatant lies and start trying to justify them.
Prove that the tilt would be massive, or admit that it is just your entirely baseless delusional opinion with no connection to reality at all.
Prove it or admit that it isn't a fact and presents no problem for the RE.
And while you are at it, answer the simple, trivial questions which show your claims to be pure BS:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
-
Sceptimatic, this one's for you:
What would change your mind?
Undeniable, physically provable, truth.
Do you know of any that fits the fantasy global system you abide by?
Can you be a little more specific?
How would you like this "undeniable, physically provable truth", packaged and delivered?
Anyway you want to.
Lol! This isn't about me. This is all about you. You, you, you.
Is there an experiment that you would be prepared to do, or a trip you are prepared to take, where the risk is you might find undeniable physically provable truth, about the overall shape of the earth, not just the shape of the earth in your front yard?
I'm wondering if you're prepared to do anything more than make use of one of your used toilet rolls?
What do you have in mind?
Do you own a passport?
To overcome the comfort and familiarity of your flat world state of mind, will require venturing beyond the confines of your house and yard.
SIDE NOTE: (Less important)
In Jungian psychology, the circle is the shape many people look for, in times of turmoil, as the circle psychologically represents wholeness.
Interestingly, the flat earther on the street, will froth at the mouth over a drawing of the entire earth represented inside a flat circle, but scoff at a photo of the earth from the moon (which is a view of earth as a circle). I think it is because the common flat earth depiction shows the whole of the earth within the circle, whereas a photo of earth from space only shows only half the earth from that view - being one side of a globe.
But, you Sceptimatic, are something of an enigma. You appear happy declaring earth flat, and rounded impossible, with the overall shape being in the too hard basket.
Psychological research shows most people prefer curves over angular shapes, finding curves more attractive. This could be quite revealing about your personality, sceptimatic.............
-
we have used math to prove what should (and does) happen on the RE.
No, you haven't.
You've used calculations which have been handed to you as so called proof. You do not know them to be a proof.
You could very well be calculating a fantasy and I believe you are.
Amazing!!!!
Math literaly uses the word "proofs"
If the math shows the proof and not if it shows a theory or a fantasy. All it becomes is a bunch of calculations for, basically, nothing other than fiction....certainly in what we're arguing.
-
All you're doing is believing you can look out to sea and believe turbines won't tilt to the eye on your ball but are quite happy to believe they massively disappear over a few dozen miles as if they just sink, upright.
It's clear nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Exactly. You feel it is nonsense. You are of course welcome to your feelings, and I hope they give you happiness.
Happiness?....hmmmm, not sure I'd go that far.
Contentment?.......Yes.
What people are trying to explain to you though is that there is are methods for describing geometry that do not relate to your feelings, but instead use straightforward relationships from simple measurements to describe the geometry of objects and their positions. The are unambiguous, predictive, and (which should be to your delight), PROVABLE both from first principles and in practice.
How about proving something, then.
Nail it...let's see what you have.
They arose long before our understanding of the geometry of the world, and are fundamental to every endeavor humans have ever pursued.
I'd agree they work for reality and I have zero qualms about that.
It's when they're used to make fiction appear like reality. That's when I have issues with it and many questions and also why I have my own theory.
The problem for you is that these methods CLEARLY show your feelings to be incorrect.
No, they don't, unless you can nail one down. Can you?
It's that simple. You are wrong. Stamp your feet as much as you want. Hold your breath if you makes you feel better. Rail against the eggheads and the scientists if you need to.
I have no need to stamp my feet, hold my breath or whatever.
I'm content in the knowledge that the spinning globe is nothing other than a fantasy story told and sold to the public.
A fiction placed on the fact shelf of libraries, or the science shelf when it should be on the fiction and pseudoscience shelves.
It won't change a thing. You will remain utterly, demonstrably wrong no matter how right you feel.
In your mind, yes. In the mind of many others, yes. In my mind, absolutely not.
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
Yeah but I'm going off what he stated in another thread saying his volume, used in his theory does not conform to volume as it is known. Yet he wants to argue as if it were. I pointed out that he was wrong in saying that two spheres with the same radius did not have the same volume. His response was that he knows what volume is in his theory.
Instead of claiming a possible mistake, no worries mistakes are made sometimes, he doubles down, thus proving he doesn't use words like volume with their known definitions. What else has a scepti definition? Are we arguing the same things? Who could even know what the conversation is about if someone is creating their own definitions of words?
Get it right.
Two spheres with the same radius but with different dense mass of structure. Then the volume differs.
Don't start twisting it or you end up back to square one like Kabool generally does.
-
Yes, we have.
No, you haven't.
-
Yes, we have.
No, you haven't.
What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.
-
Do you own a passport?
Yes, do you?
To overcome the comfort and familiarity of your flat world state of mind, will require venturing beyond the confines of your house and yard.
Ok, well that's not an issue and never has been, as of yet, anyway.
How about you?
Are you projecting?
SIDE NOTE: (Less important)
In Jungian psychology, the circle is the shape many people look for, in times of turmoil, as the circle psychologically represents wholeness.
I never find myself looking for anything circular to get over turmoil. Are you projecting?
Interestingly, the flat earther on the street, will froth at the mouth over a drawing of the entire earth represented inside a flat circle, but scoff at a photo of the earth from the moon (which is a view of earth as a circle).
Are you a flat Earther or are you on the streets seeing all of this you're proclaiming, as a placard standing globalist?
I think it is because the common flat earth depiction shows the whole of the earth within the circle, whereas a photo of earth from space only shows only half the earth from that view - being one side of a globe.
The photo's of Earth from space are said to be composites.
We've seen many times where the some parts have been duplicated.
I wonder what they are. Earth's sky from below, made to look like from above?
They're certainly not from space, so we have high altitude photo's showing terrain through cloud and under cloud, over small areas.
There's no showing of a globe in any entirety because it could not be done.
Why?
Like your very own people (you adhere to) say, the so called ISS in so called space would be like looking down at a basketball from something like, half and inch.
But yet....but yet, smokey lad......we get shown utter nonsense like this......
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0RWBD6y/ISS-cupula-view-Soichi-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
From a so called cupola by a camera situated inside of it looking at so called global Earth and yet there is so called global Earth in it's so called entire diameter, within that cupola window set.
And people panic and start throwing out " ohhhh yeah, ermmm, that's because it was a wide angled lense at the window and that's why you can see it all."
What a crock of karrap.
The list of nonsense is almost endless with this global set up.
But, you Sceptimatic, are something of an enigma. You appear happy declaring earth flat, and rounded impossible, with the overall shape being in the too hard basket.
I don't declare Earth to be flat.
I said Earth is flattish, especially the seas and bodies of water and plenty of land but there are gradients of all shapes and sizes.
The trouble with you people is, as soon as someone goes against a spinning globe they're immediately all lumped into a pancake Earth.
The reason for this is, it's much easier to lump them into one category which is easier to argue against.
There are many many many theories out there, don't get stuck on just one for all.
That is you people. One globe for all who accept mass indoctrination of it and no questioning it.
Psychological research shows most people prefer curves over angular shapes, finding curves more attractive.
I personally think curves are much more attractive. I'm sure many would agree with me.
This could be quite revealing about your personality, sceptimatic.............
That depends on what you think it reveals to you.
What you think and what I am could be two entirely different things and you would only know the truth of any of it if you actually met me over a period of time and observed me.
Don't think for one minute that an internet forum will gain you psychological knowledge of a person who types stuff into it.
If you can't figure out alts then you're never going to figure out a name you think you know.
-
Yes, we have.
No, you haven't.
What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.
What difference does it make where I've flown to?
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
Yeah but I'm going off what he stated in another thread saying his volume, used in his theory does not conform to volume as it is known. Yet he wants to argue as if it were. I pointed out that he was wrong in saying that two spheres with the same radius did not have the same volume. His response was that he knows what volume is in his theory.
Instead of claiming a possible mistake, no worries mistakes are made sometimes, he doubles down, thus proving he doesn't use words like volume with their known definitions. What else has a scepti definition? Are we arguing the same things? Who could even know what the conversation is about if someone is creating their own definitions of words?
Get it right.
Two spheres with the same radius but with different dense mass of structure. Then the volume differs.
Don't start twisting it or you end up back to square one like Kabool generally does.
You seriously have no idea what volume is do you? The ONE measurement you need from a sphere to get its volume is the radius. 4/3 pi *r3
Volume is the amount of space something occupys, density is the amount of mass in that volume. Can you for once just read something and stop proving how idiotic you are willing to be just to keep from admitting you were wrong about something, you narcissistic twit.
-
I'm content in the knowledge that the spinning globe is nothing other than a fantasy story told and sold to the public.
A fiction placed on the fact shelf of libraries, or the science shelf when it should be on the fiction and pseudoscience shelves.
And you are certainly welcome to that opinion and to file it on the fiction shelf in your mind. Meanwhile, everyone else will put your story, the crazy worldwide conspiracy theory broken by a man who cant understand circles, on their own fiction shelf. It goes well next to the Magic Crystal of the North Pole and the WorldCell series (which I enjoyed by the way, thank you).
It won't change a thing. You will remain utterly, demonstrably wrong no matter how right you feel.
In your mind, yes. In the mind of many others, yes. In my mind, absolutely not.
You believe that if an object held to a sphere moves 0.075% of the way around its circumference, it will "tilt like crazy" relative to the original position. This is "right" in your mind.
0.075%
It is like taking a basketball and moving an object 0.3 mm along its surface. Or moving an object on the epcot dome by 10 cm.
You can believe anything you want, and I know you do, but I have to ask, why this? Why do you need to believe in something that is so obviously wrong? Is it just reactionary? Someone tells you that you are wrong so you immediately need to jump on the defensive?
Are you so insecure that you can not entertain any doubt?
In your mind, could you be wrong about how much tilt there would be for a distant object on a large, round earth?
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
Yeah but I'm going off what he stated in another thread saying his volume, used in his theory does not conform to volume as it is known. Yet he wants to argue as if it were. I pointed out that he was wrong in saying that two spheres with the same radius did not have the same volume. His response was that he knows what volume is in his theory.
Instead of claiming a possible mistake, no worries mistakes are made sometimes, he doubles down, thus proving he doesn't use words like volume with their known definitions. What else has a scepti definition? Are we arguing the same things? Who could even know what the conversation is about if someone is creating their own definitions of words?
Get it right.
Two spheres with the same radius but with different dense mass of structure. Then the volume differs.
Don't start twisting it or you end up back to square one like Kabool generally does.
You seriously have no idea what volume is do you?
Maybe others know otherwise, but I have not seen the slightest glimmer or any geometric understanding on his part. I dont think he can even think spatially in 2 dimensions, let alone 3.
I imagine his understanding of volume is on par with a reasonable persons understanding of the 4-volume of a hypercube.
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
Yeah but I'm going off what he stated in another thread saying his volume, used in his theory does not conform to volume as it is known. Yet he wants to argue as if it were. I pointed out that he was wrong in saying that two spheres with the same radius did not have the same volume. His response was that he knows what volume is in his theory.
Instead of claiming a possible mistake, no worries mistakes are made sometimes, he doubles down, thus proving he doesn't use words like volume with their known definitions. What else has a scepti definition? Are we arguing the same things? Who could even know what the conversation is about if someone is creating their own definitions of words?
Get it right.
Two spheres with the same radius but with different dense mass of structure. Then the volume differs.
Don't start twisting it or you end up back to square one like Kabool generally does.
You seriously have no idea what volume is do you? The ONE measurement you need from a sphere to get its volume is the radius. 4/3 pi *r3
Volume is the amount of space something occupys, density is the amount of mass in that volume. Can you for once just read something and stop proving how idiotic you are willing to be just to keep from admitting you were wrong about something, you narcissistic twit.
Volume is the amount of space occupied in any object. In any object.
Density is the amount of mass among that volume within that object.
Maybe you should read what I've said.
-
I'm content in the knowledge that the spinning globe is nothing other than a fantasy story told and sold to the public.
A fiction placed on the fact shelf of libraries, or the science shelf when it should be on the fiction and pseudoscience shelves.
And you are certainly welcome to that opinion and to file it on the fiction shelf in your mind. Meanwhile, everyone else will put your story, the crazy worldwide conspiracy theory broken by a man who cant understand circles, on their own fiction shelf. It goes well next to the Magic Crystal of the North Pole and the WorldCell series (which I enjoyed by the way, thank you).
It won't change a thing. You will remain utterly, demonstrably wrong no matter how right you feel.
In your mind, yes. In the mind of many others, yes. In my mind, absolutely not.
You believe that if an object held to a sphere moves 0.075% of the way around its circumference, it will "tilt like crazy" relative to the original position. This is "right" in your mind.
0.075%
It is like taking a basketball and moving an object 0.3 mm along its surface. Or moving an object on the epcot dome by 10 cm.
You can believe anything you want, and I know you do, but I have to ask, why this? Why do you need to believe in something that is so obviously wrong? Is it just reactionary? Someone tells you that you are wrong so you immediately need to jump on the defensive?
Are you so insecure that you can not entertain any doubt?
In your mind, could you be wrong about how much tilt there would be for a distant object on a large, round earth?
I'm not arguing that.
You are placing a massive global fantasy out as a legitimate calculation for tilt.
You think by calculating the entire circumference over the small amount of miles to the turbines, gives you little to no tilt.
I'm telling you, if your turbines were really showing that much missing over a short distance then the tilt would be massively noticeable.
However, all you have is fantasy because this is not what's happening, anyway, as the sea is essentially flat and level barring movement and your turbines or any object is not going to tilt even by a fraction, unless it naturally went out of plumb.
The turbines lose visual height because of atmospheric dense mass not allowing light to reflect back to your eyes which only allows your eyes to get the reflected light higher up over distance.
-
I'm telling you, if your turbines were really showing that much missing over a short distance then the tilt would be massively noticeable.
Yes, you do not have to repeat you claim again, we all understand what you are claiming.
The problem is still this claim is just based on your feelings, and a simple geometric analysis shows it to be completely incorrect. An object on a sphere that is moved 0.075% along the spheres circumference does not have a "massively noticeable" tilt.
Try it with any sphere and you will see. Or learn geometry and you will understand.
Of course, you are entitled to your feelings Sceptimatic, and if you feel something, it can be hard to let go of it. For example, if you feel you can run at 1000 mph because you just ran down to the store real fast, then that is how you feel, no matter how objectively wrong you would be.
I ask again, do you have any doubt about your feelings here? Could be the tilt be different than you imagine it to be on a large sphere?
-
What is a circle in scepti fantasy language? Are you sure it is what everyone else accepts as a circle?
He acurately showed a circle and a triangle are.
What ue continues to fail and avoid is drawing the circle earth to scale.
Yeah but I'm going off what he stated in another thread saying his volume, used in his theory does not conform to volume as it is known. Yet he wants to argue as if it were. I pointed out that he was wrong in saying that two spheres with the same radius did not have the same volume. His response was that he knows what volume is in his theory.
Instead of claiming a possible mistake, no worries mistakes are made sometimes, he doubles down, thus proving he doesn't use words like volume with their known definitions. What else has a scepti definition? Are we arguing the same things? Who could even know what the conversation is about if someone is creating their own definitions of words?
Get it right.
Two spheres with the same radius but with different dense mass of structure. Then the volume differs.
Don't start twisting it or you end up back to square one like Kabool generally does.
You seriously have no idea what volume is do you? The ONE measurement you need from a sphere to get its volume is the radius. 4/3 pi *r3
Volume is the amount of space something occupys, density is the amount of mass in that volume. Can you for once just read something and stop proving how idiotic you are willing to be just to keep from admitting you were wrong about something, you narcissistic twit.
Volume is the amount of space occupied in any object. In any object.
Density is the amount of mass among that volume within that object.
Maybe you should read what I've said.
So now you are agreeing that 2 spheres with the same radius but different densities are the same volume? Because you clearly have not been. You are rather delusional. I quoted you. I didn't misread anything. You are wrong, you can't admit being wrong, even about something as trivial as misunderstanding volume. You can't admit to that because you would have to admit to yourself that your claims are all garbage and full of blatant lies.
So what is volume? I need your definition, it's wrong, but we need to start figuring out what you mean when you clearly misuse words and terms. Perhaps you aren't just a troll, maybe there is some mental damage we can adjust for.
-
No, you haven't.
You ignoring it wont magically make it go away.
Again, the math shows you are wrong, beyond any doubt. It is irrefutable.
For a RE with a circumference of 40 000 km, you would need to go 40 000 km around Earth to have the tilt go through 360 degrees.
That means if you want a tilt of 1 degree, you have to go a 360th of the way around, i.e. ~111 km.
That also means that if you only go a distance of 30 km, that means it is a tilt of 360*30/40 000 degrees = 0.27 degrees.
Again, this shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
As it is irrefutable, you just ignore it, and try to dismiss it as fantasy, even though you can find no fault with it.
Just like you continue to ignore the questions that show beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
If the math shows the proof
It does. It proves beyond any doubt that the tilt expected on a globe for those windmills is 0.27 degrees, not the massive tilt fantasy you want to go with.
The photo's of Earth from space are said to be composites.
Only some. Others are single photo.
They're certainly not from space
There you go spouting lies as facts again.
But yet....but yet, smokey lad......we get shown utter nonsense like
like your complete inability to understand how lenses work.
The list of nonsense is almost endless with this global set up.
You mean your nonsense claims about it to continue your irrational attack?
Maybe you should read what I've said.
Maybe you should read a dictionary and stop pretending words mean something completely different?
I'm not arguing that.
Stop lying.
That is what you are arguing.
You are claiming that the windmills should be tilted like crazy on the RE, even though they are only a tiny portion of the circumference around Earth.
I'm telling you
And that is the problem, all you do is tell, repeating your same pathetic, refuted lies.
Stop telling and start justifying.
-
I ask again, do you have any doubt about your feelings here? Could be the tilt be different than you imagine it to be on a large sphere?
If you lot believe your turbines are dipped well below sight like you believe going down a curve then your tilt would be massively evident.
I'm not interested in your so called global calculations, just the observations.
-
So now you are agreeing that 2 spheres with the same radius but different densities are the same volume?
Nope.
Because you clearly have not been. You are rather delusional. I quoted you. I didn't misread anything.
Clearly, you did.
You are wrong, you can't admit being wrong, even about something as trivial as misunderstanding volume.
I'm not wrong.
You can't admit to that because you would have to admit to yourself that your claims are all garbage and full of blatant lies.
I have no reason to.
So what is volume? I need your definition, it's wrong, but we need to start figuring out what you mean when you clearly misuse words and terms.
It's explained above. Pay attention to it.
Perhaps you aren't just a troll, maybe there is some mental damage we can adjust for.
Adjust what you feel the need to and think what you want to think.
-
Sceppy,
Can you explain to us what you mean by tilt?
I think it's another one of your words where you are using a different definition to the rest of us.
It's just tipping at an angle from plumb.
-
You ignoring it wont magically make it go away.
Ignoring, what?
-
So now you are agreeing that 2 spheres with the same radius but different densities are the same volume?
Nope.
Because you clearly have not been. You are rather delusional. I quoted you. I didn't misread anything.
Clearly, you did.
You are wrong, you can't admit being wrong, even about something as trivial as misunderstanding volume.
I'm not wrong.
You can't admit to that because you would have to admit to yourself that your claims are all garbage and full of blatant lies.
I have no reason to.
So what is volume? I need your definition, it's wrong, but we need to start figuring out what you mean when you clearly misuse words and terms.
It's explained above. Pay attention to it.
Perhaps you aren't just a troll, maybe there is some mental damage we can adjust for.
Adjust what you feel the need to and think what you want to think.
I don't think it, I know you are just a waste of "volume". Just trolling to be trolling.
-
I ask again, do you have any doubt about your feelings here? Could be the tilt be different than you imagine it to be on a large sphere?
If you lot believe your turbines are dipped well below sight like you believe going down a curve then your tilt would be massively evident.
Yes, I know you feel that way. You get a gold star for expressing your feelings again. You still didn't answer the question though, are you completely sure about your feelings, or is there any chance in your mind that you could be wrong?
I'm not interested in your so called global calculations
Lets be honest, you are not interested in ANY calculations whatsoever. Math is a complete enigma to you, isn't it?
Did you have a very particularly bad experience with mathematics as a child? I have met other people who also do not understand math AT ALL as adults, and normally it stems from having one or two years as a child where they just couldn't get it, often attributable to a single bad teacher. And since math is sequential, once you lose your footing it is incredibly difficult to progress any further.
The positive is that you can learn the basics of math still, even as an adult. It is difficult, but rewarding.
If not, then stick to your feelings as you normally do, but know there are simple, easily relatable reasons (beyond global indoctrination!!!!) that people will disagree with those feelings.
-
So what is your definition of an Angle?
I think it's another one of your words where you are using a different definition to the rest of us.
Anything angled away from plumb.
So what is your definition of Plumb?
I know it's another one of your words where you are using a different definition to the rest of us.
Perfectly vertical.
-
So now you are agreeing that 2 spheres with the same radius but different densities are the same volume?
Nope.
Because you clearly have not been. You are rather delusional. I quoted you. I didn't misread anything.
Clearly, you did.
You are wrong, you can't admit being wrong, even about something as trivial as misunderstanding volume.
I'm not wrong.
You can't admit to that because you would have to admit to yourself that your claims are all garbage and full of blatant lies.
I have no reason to.
So what is volume? I need your definition, it's wrong, but we need to start figuring out what you mean when you clearly misuse words and terms.
It's explained above. Pay attention to it.
Perhaps you aren't just a troll, maybe there is some mental damage we can adjust for.
Adjust what you feel the need to and think what you want to think.
I don't think it, I know you are just a waste of "volume". Just trolling to be trolling.
Obviously not enough for you not to waste your time, right?
-
are you completely sure about your feelings, or is there any chance in your mind that you could be wrong?
There's absolutely no chance in hell that I'm wrong about not believing in a spinning globe that we are told we live upon. I'm 100% rigid on this.
Lets be honest, you are not interested in ANY calculations whatsoever. Math is a complete enigma to you, isn't it?
It all depends on what those math are and when it's required.
If I do real time stuff that requires calculations, I'll do them.
I won't waste one second of effort trying to calculate a light in the sky because I'm told it's so far away it requires, blah blah blah.
Did you have a very particularly bad experience with mathematics as a child?
I was beaten very hard with a plastic number 1. ;)
I have met other people who also do not understand math AT ALL as adults, and normally it stems from having one or two years as a child where they just couldn't get it, often attributable to a single bad teacher.
Learn the stuff you need to get on in life. Leave the stuff that does not suit your needs and learn them as and when your need arises.
And since math is sequential, once you lose your footing it is incredibly difficult to progress any further.
Like anything.
The positive is that you can learn the basics of math still, even as an adult. It is difficult, but rewarding.
I can use math whenever I need to for the things I do. I have no issue with it from how I calculate.
If not, then stick to your feelings as you normally do, but know there are simple, easily relatable reasons (beyond global indoctrination!!!!) that people will disagree with those feelings.
Of course people will disagree with me, just as I disagree with them. The nature of the beast.
-
are you completely sure about your feelings, or is there any chance in your mind that you could be wrong?
There's absolutely no chance in hell that I'm wrong about not believing in a spinning globe that we are told we live upon. I'm 100% rigid on this.
But that is not what I asked. I know you are inflexible on your feelings about the shape of the earth. But what about your feelings on the tilt that would be associated by moving 0.075% of the circumference of a global earth. You feel it would be massive tilt. Could you be wrong in your feelings about that?
Did you have a very particularly bad experience with mathematics as a child?
I was beaten very hard with a plastic number 1. ;)
For me it was a plastic "i". I would go into the details but it was complex.
I have met other people who also do not understand math AT ALL as adults, and normally it stems from having one or two years as a child where they just couldn't get it, often attributable to a single bad teacher.
Learn the stuff you need to get on in life. Leave the stuff that does not suit your needs and learn them as and when your need arises.
Leave the stuff the does not suit your needs. Sounds like good advice.
However, you literally spend hours every day arguing about the shape of the world. Why though would you leave geometry behind??? It the most basic tool to use in understanding shape, size, and position, all the things you bicker endlessly about here.
Wouldn't basic geometry be something that would be useful here? Something that would allow you to move beyond your feelings and imagination?
-
I'm content in the knowledge that the spinning globe is nothing other than a fantasy story told and sold to the public.
A fiction placed on the fact shelf of libraries, or the science shelf when it should be on the fiction and pseudoscience shelves.
And you are certainly welcome to that opinion and to file it on the fiction shelf in your mind. Meanwhile, everyone else will put your story, the crazy worldwide conspiracy theory broken by a man who cant understand circles, on their own fiction shelf. It goes well next to the Magic Crystal of the North Pole and the WorldCell series (which I enjoyed by the way, thank you).
It won't change a thing. You will remain utterly, demonstrably wrong no matter how right you feel.
In your mind, yes. In the mind of many others, yes. In my mind, absolutely not.
You believe that if an object held to a sphere moves 0.075% of the way around its circumference, it will "tilt like crazy" relative to the original position. This is "right" in your mind.
0.075%
It is like taking a basketball and moving an object 0.3 mm along its surface. Or moving an object on the epcot dome by 10 cm.
You can believe anything you want, and I know you do, but I have to ask, why this? Why do you need to believe in something that is so obviously wrong? Is it just reactionary? Someone tells you that you are wrong so you immediately need to jump on the defensive?
Are you so insecure that you can not entertain any doubt?
In your mind, could you be wrong about how much tilt there would be for a distant object on a large, round earth?
I'm not arguing that.
You are placing a massive global fantasy out as a legitimate calculation for tilt.
You think by calculating the entire circumference over the small amount of miles to the turbines, gives you little to no tilt.
I'm telling you, if your turbines were really showing that much missing over a short distance then the tilt would be massively noticeable.
However, all you have is fantasy because this is not what's happening, anyway, as the sea is essentially flat and level barring movement and your turbines or any object is not going to tilt even by a fraction, unless it naturally went out of plumb.
The turbines lose visual height because of atmospheric dense mass not allowing light to reflect back to your eyes which only allows your eyes to get the reflected light higher up over distance.
Great
Draw the circle
Show us the tilt is massive
-
are you completely sure about your feelings, or is there any chance in your mind that you could be wrong?
There's absolutely no chance in hell that I'm wrong about not believing in a spinning globe that we are told we live upon. I'm 100% rigid on this.
Stated as 100% fact.
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
Would you please show us some of your calculations that show a reality?
-
Draw the circle
You draw the circle you want. I drew mine.
Over to you.
-
[I'm 100% rigid on this.
and furiously masturbating at how good a troll you think you are.
You need to calm down doing that just over me typing a few words into a forum.
Tell it to those in AR or CN.
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
Would you please show us some of your calculations that show a reality?
You first.
-
You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.
What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?
Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.
Would you please show us some of your calculations that show a reality?
You first.
No. You're the one with the "legitimate maths" and "correct calculations that show reality", not me. Time to put up or shut up.
-
Draw the circle
You draw the circle you want. I drew mine.
Over to you.
you drew a circle but failed to draw the triangle.
you've failed to PROVE your FEELINGS.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg/1200px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
this circle is 1000pixels in diameter.
my first requested triangle appears as a single straight line because the ratio 12,750,000 to 2 is inperceivable.
so i'm going to move on to the windmill.
the island shown in the center is madagascar.
the width of madagascar by map is rouhgly 600km which is over 10x that of this windmill debate.
the pixel count for that is 50pixels.
so 5pixes is what we're going for.
5/1000 = 0.005 = 0.3degrees
MASSIVELY UNMASSIVE!
so
your claim the angle is massive is wrong.
tahnks for comign out.
-
No. You're the one with the "legitimate maths" and "correct calculations that show reality", not me. Time to put up or shut up.
If you people have the truth of a globe and the math to prove it, then do so.
I won't be shutting up and I won't be offering calculations for your fictional globe.
-
whoops
dia vs radius
0.6degrees.
MASSIVE tilt!
-
I won't be shutting up and I won't be offering calculations for your fictional globe.
I'm not asking for you to offer calculations for a globe. I'm asking for you to offer your calculations for a flat earth.
-
Draw the circle
You draw the circle you want. I drew mine.
Over to you.
you drew a circle but failed to draw the triangle.
you've failed to PROVE your FEELINGS.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg/1200px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
How many more so called Earth pictures can you show me since the so called Apollo 17 storyline and so called picture of Earth?
Let's see how many you can show me and who took the pictures and from what distance.
-
forget the photo's realness or nonrealness
use it as a circle as per the exercise being asked of you for a TO SCALE circle and a triangle.
your drawings are NOT TO SCALE.
this one is.
it is a mythical CGI drawing TO SCALE.
madagascar's size is estimated TO SCALE.
the pixel count is TO SCALE.
the estimated tilt is TO SCALE.
let us know how tilted 0.6degrees is.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
here's your drawing that if we took it TO SCALE, the vertical stick is height is 1:5 the diameter of the circle.
1:5.
ONE TO FIVE
so your massive tilt is 20x that of my mathed estimate.
20x!!
your stick's altitude is roughly 2,500km in the air.
2,500KM
KILOMETER.
how high do airlines fly?
not that high.
keep failing at basic basicness
-
forget the photo's realness or nonrealness
use it as a circle as per the exercise being asked of you for a TO SCALE circle and a triangle.
your drawings are NOT TO SCALE.
this one is.
it is a mythical CGI drawing TO SCALE.
madagascar's size is estimated TO SCALE.
the pixel count is TO SCALE.
the estimated tilt is TO SCALE.
let us know how tilted 0.6degrees is.
Come back when you have something you know is real.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
here's your drawing that if we took it TO SCALE, the vertical stick is height is 1:5 the diameter of the circle.
1:5.
ONE TO FIVE
so your massive tilt is 20x that of my mathed estimate.
20x!!
your stick's altitude is roughly 2,500km in the air.
2,500KM
KILOMETER.
how high do airlines fly?
not that high.
keep failing at basic basicness
This set up proves your sun does not set and be brought back by going up a tower height.
The tilt, the tilt.
-
So if light from an object can't make it to us from a couple miles away, how can the light from the sun reach when it's several thousand miles away.
-
So if light from an object can't make it to us from a couple miles away, how can the light from the sun reach when it's several thousand miles away.
Because the sun is the light that allows us to see objects, or anything.
If that light gets obscured then it doesn't reflect back.
-
forget the photo's realness or nonrealness
use it as a circle as per the exercise being asked of you for a TO SCALE circle and a triangle.
your drawings are NOT TO SCALE.
this one is.
it is a mythical CGI drawing TO SCALE.
madagascar's size is estimated TO SCALE.
the pixel count is TO SCALE.
the estimated tilt is TO SCALE.
let us know how tilted 0.6degrees is.
Come back when you have something you know is real.
it's a circle
its a real circle.
real or not the photo but the circle is real
which is this discucsion at hand
is the tilt massive?
no,
because -
circles and triangles
address this FACT or come up with anothe rvalue of the tilt
what is the MASSIVE tilt?
you msut know what it is and the szie of it.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
here's your drawing that if we took it TO SCALE, the vertical stick is height is 1:5 the diameter of the circle.
1:5.
ONE TO FIVE
so your massive tilt is 20x that of my mathed estimate.
20x!!
your stick's altitude is roughly 2,500km in the air.
2,500KM
KILOMETER.
how high do airlines fly?
not that high.
keep failing at basic basicness
This set up proves your sun does not set and be brought back by going up a tower height.
The tilt, the tilt.
proves you have to be above 2,500km above the ground.
how far is 2,500km up?
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.
-
Yes, we have.
No, you haven't.
What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.
What difference does it make where I've flown to?
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
-
Yes, we have.
No, you haven't.
What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.
What difference does it make where I've flown to?
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
Edit: My longest was a non-stop from San Francisco (SFO) to Milan (MXP). What's yours?
-
If you lot believe your turbines are dipped well below sight like you believe going down a curve then your tilt would be massively evident.
I'm not interested in your so called global calculations, just the observations.
It is quite obvious that you aren't interested in the calculations as they irrefutably show that that claim of yours is an outright lie.
You have no way to actually object to the math, so you just do whatever you can to dismiss it or ignore it.
Ignoring, what?
The math, which irrefutably shows you are wrong.
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to claim that the RE is real or fantasy.
You made a claim about what should be happening on that RE. You claimed it would produce a massive tilt.
If that outright lie of yours was actually true you would be able to use math based upon the RE to substantiate it. Again, this is the case regardless of if you think the RE is real or fantasy.
Likewise, we can, and have, provided math based upon the RE that shows that claim is an outright lie, that the tilt is tiny. Again, this is the case regardless of if you think the RE is real or fantasy.
You dismissing the RE as fantasy doesn't mean you can then make whatever blatant lie you want to about it, and not be expected to justify it in any way.
There's absolutely no chance in hell that I'm wrong about not believing in a spinning globe that we are told we live upon. I'm 100% rigid on this.
So rigid you reject everything that shows you are wrong.
This rigidity is based upon nothing more than your irrational hatred of the globe.
If it was based upon rational thought and evidence you would deal with the math and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
It all depends on what those math are and when it's required.
Math is required to support your claim that on the RE there would be a massive tilt.
Math is required to support your claim that on the RE you would see nothing but sky through a level tube.
Math is required to support your claim that you cannot see a downwards slope through a level tube.
Yet because that math shows you to be wrong, you just pretend it isn't needed.
But guess what?
Your baseless lies in no way justify themselves.
You need the math to justify your lies.
But the math shows that they are lies.
You first.
We already have. You just ignored them.
Remember:
360 degrees * 30 km / 40000 km = 0.27 degrees.
i.e. tiny tilt.
This set up proves your sun does not set and be brought back by going up a tower height.
No, it proves your extreme dishonesty, where yet again you pretend Earth is a tiny ball and pretend we don't have a FOV and instead can magically only see along a single line.
-
So if light from an object can't make it to us from a couple miles away, how can the light from the sun reach when it's several thousand miles away.
Because the sun is the light that allows us to see objects, or anything.
If that light gets obscured then it doesn't reflect back.
What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?
-
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.
I'd advise you to calm down.
-
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
I've flown many many times on planes and I've sat in many different seats looking out of windows.
I've been short and long distances.
I see very little of Earth below me as I fly, in terms of making anything out, unless I'm coming in to land or taking off.
So how about you get to the point and if you can't use me, use you to get to that point.
-
Yes, we have.
No, you haven't.
What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.
What difference does it make where I've flown to?
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
Edit: My longest was a non-stop from San Francisco (SFO) to Milan (MXP). What's yours?
It doesn't matter what mine was.
Let's deal with yours, seeing as that's what you seem to be getting at.
Explain how you're going to prove your spinning globe?
-
It is quite obvious that you aren't interested in the calculations as they irrefutably show that that claim of yours is an outright lie.
It's quite obvious that those turbines being as low as they are over a short distance, is an issue for your globe, so to get around it you start to use yur Earth circumference as some kind of argument for no visible tilt, yet can't see how silly it is when looking at how much of those turbines are obscured but yet still plumb.
The global arguments in many cases are embarrassing.
Any answers will do when simplicity and logic calls it out.
-
What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?
The atmosphere.
I just explained it.
-
What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?
The atmosphere.
I just explained it.
No
You said its atmosphere but you definitely didnt explain it.
And
If it were atmosphere it would make things hazy, not cropped.
If you want to rxplain it show us why atmosphere crops the view.
Draw a picture as to what is ahpoening to the light as it passss through distance.
Show it how if the viewers height changes to 100ft up how magically they can see more of the bottom.
Because air density doesnt change all that drastically in 100ft.
If it did you woildnt be able to see airplanes above.
Hmmmm....
-
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.
I'd advise you to calm down.
Id advise you to not hinge your entire arguement on a very easily provable-disprovable fact on how circles and triangles work.
-
What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?
The atmosphere.
I just explained it.
No
You said its atmosphere but you definitely didnt explain it.
And
If it were atmosphere it would make things hazy, not cropped.
If you want to rxplain it show us why atmosphere crops the view.
Draw a picture as to what is ahpoening to the light as it passss through distance.
Show it how if the viewers height changes to 100ft up how magically they can see more of the bottom.
Because air density doesnt change all that drastically in 100ft.
If it did you woildnt be able to see airplanes above.
Hmmmm....
Air density massively changes.
As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.
-
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.
I'd advise you to calm down.
Id advise you to not hinge your entire arguement on a very easily provable-disprovable fact on how circles and triangles work.
You're not proving how circles and triangles work. You're trying to prove your spinning globe, so get on with it.
-
As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.
This is just what you have imagined right? This explanation is just what you feel and what you can dream up, right?
-
Good, sceptimatic, good.
Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?
"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.
What do you mean I can't figure out alts?
-
As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.
This is just what you have imagined right? This explanation is just what you feel and what you can dream up, right?
Nahhh, it's what I observe and by using simple logic and not relying on nonsensical global pretences.
-
Good, sceptimatic, good.
Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?
"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.
Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?
Are many landmasses, flattish?
The concave area the sea/waters sit in.
The water itself is flattish due to ripples.
Calm water by eye, is flat and level.
Let me make this clear to you.
Water does not sit in, nor conform to a convex curve and get to be a large body of water.
Here's why....and it's so simple when indoctrinated global spectacles are taken off.
If you set out any convex object and pour water over it, it will not stay and form part of that object. It will run off.
It will run off because water requires something concave to conform to and sit within.
The only thing that can alter that is by telling people there is a magical force that keeps it on a convex object because, if you don't, young minds get curious and ask the correct question of " but water finds its own level in a container and would run off anything that can't contain it....especially convexity."
When magic is entered into it to answer the question, young minds tend to just follow that line of thought, because further questioning of that magic will be met with ridicule and even bullying in bigger form, enough to make many take a wide berth.
To make adults believe it once they leave that bullying behind, is simple saturation of the nonsense aided by a few choice actors posing as scientists.
-
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.
I'd advise you to calm down.
Id advise you to not hinge your entire arguement on a very easily provable-disprovable fact on how circles and triangles work.
You're not proving how circles and triangles work. You're trying to prove your spinning globe, so get on with it.
What shape would the globe be if we did a 2dimensional representation of it?
What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?
Hmmm.... shapes.
And its been gott'n on.
You just have been avoiding it.
You get on.
-
As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.
This is just what you have imagined right? This explanation is just what you feel and what you can dream up, right?
Nahhh, it's what I observe and by using simple logic and not relying on nonsensical global pretences.
So it is what you make up based on what you think?
-
Good, sceptimatic, good.
Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?
"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.
What do you mean I can't figure out alts?
Scrabble doesnt rely on definitions.
Just spelling.
-
What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?
Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.
-
Good, sceptimatic, good.
Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?
"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.
Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?
No
Theybare not flat
Andnif you nnotice, when the mountain start turning away from you, you get a hypothetical line against the sky - a sort of "horizon" if you will of where the mountian side wraps away from you and yoyr eyes cease to see mountain and see sky behind.
But if you drove left 100ft, yoy wiuld see a bit more mountain than from before, but still eventually that dang side would be there again, that theoretical line against the sky.
Interesting...
Interesting....
-
What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?
Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.
A triangle.
The shape would be a triangle.
-
Good, sceptimatic, good.
Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?
"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.
Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?
No
Theybare not flat
Andnif you nnotice, when the mountain start turning away from you, you get a hypothetical line against the sky - a sort of "horizon" if you will of where the mountian side wraps away from you and yoyr eyes cease to see mountain and see sky behind.
But if you drove left 100ft, yoy wiuld see a bit more mountain than from before, but still eventually that dang side would be there again, that theoretical line against the sky.
Interesting...
Interesting....
Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.
Hence the theoretical line and why your turbines and buildings lose their bases over distance.
-
To make adults believe it once they leave that bullying behind, is simple saturation of the nonsense aided by a few choice actors posing as scientists.
Again, this is what you feel and imagine, right? You have no evidence for the global conspiracy required, it is just a flight of fancy in your mind.
Same for your imagination that you have figure it out. Somehow, someone who cant do the most basic geometric considerations has through the power of their mind unlocked the secrets of the world around us.
I mean, it makes good (well, some would think otherwise here) fiction, but it has no basis in reality outside of your own mind.
-
Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.
Again, just to be clear, this is your opinion right? That is, it has no demonstrable basis in reality and everyone should just take it as the musings of someone trying to build an alternative reality in their mind?
-
What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?
Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.
It should be calculatble this dense croping.
Heres an analogy nonanalogy.
Go look at videos of whales in the ocean.
Water has 1000x the density (conventipnal defintion) of air.
See how they hazy and then come into view?
Not cropped.
If its density-denP of air that crops heights then there should be some sort chart you could make us.
And if you cant
Then im sure you can draw us a triangle showing the extra distance of views between a person at ground level looking 30km out to sea and someone 100ft up on a tower looking at same point.
Triangles!
How much more atmoshphere does the light have to go through.
And what air density changes at 100ft?
Careful.
These are very easily measurable numbers here.
-
What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?
Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.
A triangle.
The shape would be a triangle.
When you look up or down from horizontal but never true vertical, then you angle your vision.
You're not looking at any triangle, just an angle.
If you want to draw a triangle or make one in the sand or point lasers, etc to make a triangle, then fine.
By simple sight to an object you are simply angling your view from on elevation to another or from an elevation to the ground or part of an object that is higher or lower than your level vision.
-
Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.
Again, just to be clear, this is your opinion right? That is, it has no demonstrable basis in reality and everyone should just take it as the musings of someone trying to build an alternative reality in their mind?
Haha can someone post a picture of a mountain?
-
To make adults believe it once they leave that bullying behind, is simple saturation of the nonsense aided by a few choice actors posing as scientists.
Again, this is what you feel and imagine, right? You have no evidence for the global conspiracy required, it is just a flight of fancy in your mind.
Same for your imagination that you have figure it out. Somehow, someone who cant do the most basic geometric considerations has through the power of their mind unlocked the secrets of the world around us.
I mean, it makes good (well, some would think otherwise here) fiction, but it has no basis in reality outside of your own mind.
You go with what you want but just remember that your imagination has been manipulated to make you believe you know facts in what we're arguing.
In your imagination your world is a spinning ball going around a ball of fire at 66,000 mph whilst spinning itself at over 1000 mph....and so on and so on and so on.
That imagination was handed to you from story books with pictures and films to aid your saturation.
-
Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.
Again, just to be clear, this is your opinion right? That is, it has no demonstrable basis in reality and everyone should just take it as the musings of someone trying to build an alternative reality in their mind?
You can take it for whatever you think it is. It matters not to me.
I go with what I go with because I can observe and also do experiments so simple that massively kills off a spinning globe and changes the magical stuff into more sensible and meaningful stuff for those minds who wish to go right back to logical layman's terms.
-
Quit appealing to the absurditdty of a spinningball.
Justify why circles and triangles dont work the way they supposedly do.
Because circles and triangles dont require denP.
-
Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.
Again, just to be clear, this is your opinion right? That is, it has no demonstrable basis in reality and everyone should just take it as the musings of someone trying to build an alternative reality in their mind?
You can take it for whatever you think it is. It matters not to me.
I go with what I go with because I can observe and also do experiments so simple that massively kills off a spinning globe and changes the magical stuff into more sensible and meaningful stuff for those minds who wish to go right back to logical layman's terms.
But these experiments and their conclusions are just in your imagination as well.
Im just trying to be clear here. You often write as if the things you are say are true. This may be inadvertent, or maybe not, but I just wanted to be clear that everything you say is just in your imagination.
For example, atmospheric stacking has no basis in fact, only in your imagination. You have made it up, and anything you say about it are just your own musings and should not be interpreted as anything other than your feelings and opinions. It works for your own made up reality of the world around us, and that is enough for you.
Or, the magic crystal at the north pole exists only in your imagination. You just made it up, it works for your own internal story, but has no basis in any fact.
I mean, everyone is just arguing with your imagination, right?
-
He might not even be real.
Just a series of canned responses to questions.
We re all failing johnD turing test in delevoping an ai.
-
Quit appealing to the absurditdty of a spinningball.
That's not me, that's you people.
-
Quit appealing to the absurditdty of a spinningball.
Justify why circles and triangles dont work the way they supposedly do.
Because circles and triangles dont require denP.
you're still appealing to it.
see?
because -
you missed the 2nd and 3rd part of the comment.
-
Quit appealing to the absurditdty of a spinningball.
Justify why circles and triangles dont work the way they supposedly do.
Because circles and triangles dont require denP.
you're still appealing to it.
see?
because -
you missed the 2nd and 3rd part of the comment.
Triangles and circles do work the way they're supposed to.
What are you talking about?
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
he cant and he won't, because his claim about relative tilt is not based on knowledge, but is based on his own feelings and imagination. He has no interest in exploring reality outside of what he himself imagines.
-
obviously he hasn't since it's been 50pg of me asking him to draw a fferguaheriofcking circle.
but since it takes roughly 50pg for us to determine a definition of his denP words, maybe we'll get him to draw a circle? - who knows.
meanwhile i can keep making fun of him.
-
Oh for fuck's sake, you're still here too?
-
Haha
whotf are you?
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
The proof is in the massive amount of the turbine that is obscured.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
he cant and he won't, because his claim about relative tilt is not based on knowledge, but is based on his own feelings and imagination. He has no interest in exploring reality outside of what he himself imagines.
Observation is all that's needed with that argument.
-
meanwhile i can keep making fun of him.
Well at least put some effort in if that's what you're trying to do because I keep laughing at your excuse for replies.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
he cant and he won't, because his claim about relative tilt is not based on knowledge, but is based on his own feelings and imagination. He has no interest in exploring reality outside of what he himself imagines.
Observation is all that's needed with that argument.
I observe a circle drawn to 12,750unit diameter with an arc of 30unit will have a 0.3degree angle.
Let me know if you observe such a circle differently.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
The proof is in the massive amount of the turbine that is obscured.
Sorry please clarify.
Are we talking hypothetical ball earth here or hypothetical flat with atmopheric light-dark?
What scenario caused the obscurig?
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
The proof is in the massive amount of the turbine that is obscured.
Yes, The massive turbine is massively obscured by the massive earth. It looks massively tilted back to me.
It should do on your fantasy global Earth but it doesn't. It doesn't because it's embedded in the Earth and sticking upright, plumb out of the water.
It's doing this because the Earth is not a globe.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
The proof is in the massive amount of the turbine that is obscured.
You feel this is proof, but can not show that it is in any way other than you imagine it to be so. All you can do is stamp your feet and say yes it is because you say so. You have done this at least a dozen times. Your strongest argument so far has literally been - "Im telling you!"
There are of course ways to unbiasedly evaluate such claims about the relative positions of objects. Unfortunately for you, these unbiased, logical proofs show your feelings on the matter are wrong, so we can all understand why you wouldn't want to use them.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
The proof is in the massive amount of the turbine that is obscured.
Yes, The massive turbine is massively obscured by the massive earth. It looks massively tilted back to me.
It should do on your fantasy global Earth but it doesn't. It doesn't because it's embedded in the Earth and sticking upright, plumb out of the water.
It's doing this because the Earth is not a globe.
In your imagination of course. In your imagination the water is flat, the horizon is at eye level, and yet somehow, the horizon is at the top of a massive turbine.
Doesnt make an ounce of geometric sense, but hey, its your imagination, right?
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
he cant and he won't, because his claim about relative tilt is not based on knowledge, but is based on his own feelings and imagination. He has no interest in exploring reality outside of what he himself imagines.
Observation is all that's needed with that argument.
Sure, observation is cool. For every sphere ever observed, if an object on its surface is moved 0.075% of the total circumference away, the normal direction to the surface changes by a tiny amount.
Every time. Observations.
You feel otherwise, but not because of observations.
-
It's quite obvious that those turbines being as low as they are over a short distance, is an issue for your globe
No, it isn't.
They have dropped by roughly 50 m if I recall correctly. Compared to Earth's radius that is 0.00078%, i.e. basically nothing.
So compared to Earth, it is a tiny distance and they have dropped by a tiny amount.
But compared to their size, it is a very large distance. The distance is on the order of 100 times their height.
So no, that drop is what you expect on the globe.
The base of them being obscured, with the more distant ones being more obscured, is what you expect on the globe.
So no, it is obvious that it is proof that Earth is not flat, and quite strong evidence supporting the fact that Earth is a globe.
so to get around it you start to use yur Earth circumference as some kind of argument for no visible tilt
I am using Earth's size to show that there would be no significant tilt, as opposed to you that just wants to repeatedly dismiss the RE model as nonsense instead coming up with wild speculation which you cannot justify at all.
Again, it is 30 km away. For Earth, that is roughly 0.47% of the radius, and more importantly, 0.75% of the circumference.
That is what you need to look at to determine how much it should tilt, and the simple irrefutable fact is that on a RE, with a radius of ~6371 km, or a circumference of ~40000 km, the tilt for an object 30 km away should be 0.27 degrees.
That is insignificant.
yet can't see how silly it is when looking at how much of those turbines are obscured but yet still plumb.
You mean I can see past your pathetic ridicule and instead honestly evaluate the claims and realise you are spouting pure BS.
Ignoring the elevation of the observer for simplicity, the amount hidden is ~ d^2/(2*R), and the tilt is 360*d/(2*R*pi)
So for Earth with a radius of 6371 km, in order to hide 50 m of the object you need to be 25 km from it and the tilt will be 0.23 degrees (we are ignoring the observer height, which is why the numbers are different to before).
If you shrink Earth to 100 km in radius, then the object only needs to be 3 km away and it will tilt by 1.8 degrees.
And if you instead grow Earth to a 1 million km radius, you need to be 316 km away and it will tilt by 0.018 degrees.
So no, you cannot determine just how much it should tilt just by how much is hidden. You need to factor in the radius of Earth as well.
Now stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball, and either justify your outright lie, or admit it is pure BS.
Notice the different relationship?
You can even plug some simple numbers in.
The global arguments in many cases are embarrassing.
Any answers will do when simplicity and logic calls it out.
So try providing simplicity and logic rather than blatant lies.
For example, it is completely illogical to just baselessly claim that there should be a massive tilt.
Just like it is completely illogical to just blatantly lie and claim that it wouldn't be visible through a level tube.
Conversely simplicity and logic makes it quite clear, there is no problem with the RE, just your irrational hatred of it.
You're not proving how circles and triangles work.
Yes we are.
Because you are spouting blatant lies about them.
If you set out any convex object and pour water over it, it will not stay and form part of that object. It will run off.
Likewise, if you hold a plate sideways and pour water over it, it will not stay and form part of that object. It will run off.
I guess that means water can't adhere to a flat surface either, so your FE is dead as well.
How about you try honestly comparing it to the globe.
If you want to do that, your ball needs to be outside the Roche limit of any other significant mass and in free fall.
Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Just what direction do you think the water should run off in the RE model?
You can even take your pathetic ball and rotate it around and see how it has no effect, what does, is Earth. It runs off towards Earth.
It will run off because
Because the gravitational attraction to Earth is much larger than the attraction to your tiny ball.
but water finds its own level
And notice the key word:
LEVEL
Not flat,
For a RE, that level curves around Earth.
No magic is required.
Even your delusional stacking BS would work just as well to have the water adhere to the round Earth, as you still have no justification for your directionality.
It should do on your fantasy global Earth but it doesn't.
Again, that is just your blatant lie that you are yet to justify in any way.
It should only do that on your strawman Earth, which is a tiny little ball you can hold in your hand.
It doesn't because Earth is a massive ball, with a radius of ~6371 km, making the tilt ~0.27 degrees.
Not the massive tilt you fantasise about.
-
I am using Earth's size to show that there would be no significant tilt, as opposed to you that just wants to repeatedly dismiss the RE model as nonsense instead coming up with wild speculation which you cannot justify at all.
Again, it is 30 km away. For Earth, that is roughly 0.47% of the radius, and more importantly, 0.75% of the circumference.
That is what you need to look at to determine how much it should tilt, and the simple irrefutable fact is that on a RE, with a radius of ~6371 km, or a circumference of ~40000 km, the tilt for an object 30 km away should be 0.27 degrees.
That is insignificant.
Small typo here? it is 0.075% of the circumference, right?
-
Haha
whotf are you?
Incredibly baffled at why you seem to hate everyone here and yet stick around for years. Dude. Get a hobby. Get a cat. Anything. This isn't healthy.
-
Haha no hating on everyone.
Yes text can seem agressive sometimes.
Just wondering who you are.
Did we discuss something before?
Im on hold a lot at work.
This is fun place to browse.
-
Haha
whotf are you?
Incredibly baffled at why you seem to hate everyone here and yet stick around for years. Dude. Get a hobby. Get a cat. Anything. This isn't healthy.
I'm pretty sure THK is like me and hangs around to laugh at the stupidity and enjoy the squirming of the trolls.
-
good - circles are circles and triangles are triangles
now
jsuttify the massive tilt you claim would exist - how much of a tilt is it at the 30km distance IF (BIG IF, not saying it is or isn't, just saying IF) the globe ball was 12,750km in diameter?
because the logical argument is, if we say the ball is XXX diameter, the tilt is YYY degrees.
you showing it differs from reality will prove you are correct that the FACT (which you've stated as FACT) that the globe model is false, then it will turn up false.
The proof is in the massive amount of the turbine that is obscured.
Yes, The massive turbine is massively obscured by the massive earth. It looks massively tilted back to me.
It should do on your fantasy global Earth but it doesn't. It doesn't because it's embedded in the Earth and sticking upright, plumb out of the water.
It's doing this because the Earth is not a globe.
Hello/ Could i send you a PM to ask you about something and how would you theoritically 'solve' this
using the density theory?
-
Good, sceptimatic, good.
Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?
"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.
Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?
Are many landmasses, flattish?
The concave area the sea/waters sit in.
The water itself is flattish due to ripples.
Calm water by eye, is flat and level.
Let me make this clear to you.
Water does not sit in, nor conform to a convex curve and get to be a large body of water.
Here's why....and it's so simple when indoctrinated global spectacles are taken off.
If you set out any convex object and pour water over it, it will not stay and form part of that object. It will run off.
It will run off because water requires something concave to conform to and sit within.
The only thing that can alter that is by telling people there is a magical force that keeps it on a convex object because, if you don't, young minds get curious and ask the correct question of " but water finds its own level in a container and would run off anything that can't contain it....especially convexity."
When magic is entered into it to answer the question, young minds tend to just follow that line of thought, because further questioning of that magic will be met with ridicule and even bullying in bigger form, enough to make many take a wide berth.
To make adults believe it once they leave that bullying behind, is simple saturation of the nonsense aided by a few choice actors posing as scientists.
Oh, you mean the magical force that keeps everything falling down towards the centre of the earth? That same magical force that stops me flapping my arms and flying like a bird. Yes, I think I'm familiar with that magical force.
It's the magical force that allows water in a cup of water to fall down onto a basketball, and continue travelling down towards the ground beneath the basketball.
The name most folk know for this magical force, is gravity.
There is more magic required to believe your world view, sceptimatic. Magical properties of atmospheric stacking. Magical properties of buoyancy outside of a liquid. The magical quality of the horizon to magically compress light.
-
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
I've flown many many times on planes and I've sat in many different seats looking out of windows.
I've been short and long distances.
I see very little of Earth below me as I fly, in terms of making anything out, unless I'm coming in to land or taking off.
So how about you get to the point and if you can't use me, use you to get to that point.
Just curious if you have utilized modern plane transport even though all of those involved rely on a globe earth for navigation from point A to B, especially longer haul flights.
How do you reconcile that you use technology predicated on a globe earth, arrive where you intend to arrive, presumably safely?
If you think the airline industry is lying/faking globe earth tech for navigation, then what are they actually using instead? As in, more specifically, what flat earth non-globe maps/systems are they actually using?
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
They would not sit upright and sunk.
Let's put it more simple.
If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
To put it simply, the turbines would need to be 110km away to be tilted away from the observer 1 degree. That's all there is to it.
-
More simply, the Earth is quite a bit larger than he likes to pretend in his multiple strawman arguments. Ooh ask him about FOV and "level sight. That was a fantastic self own he did, but he doesn't realize it still.
-
Hello/ Could i send you a PM to ask you about something and how would you theoritically 'solve' this
using the density theory?
Feel free.
-
Oh, you mean the supposed magical force that supposedly keeps everything falling down towards the supposed centre of the earth? That same supposedmagical force that stops me flapping my arms and flying like a bird. Yes, I think I'm familiar with that supposed magical force.
Yep, that supposed magical force.
It's the magical force that supposedly allows water in a cup of water to fall down onto a basketball, and continue travelling down towards the ground beneath the basketball.
The name most folk know for this supposed magical force, is gravity.
Of course most know. That's what they've been bullied into.
The silly part is, none of you know what it is as a force. You just accept it because the magicians sold it to you and you basically, bought it..
There is more magic required to believe your world view, sceptimatic.
More logical. The magical is what you lot have been told to accept by the magicians.
Magical properties of atmospheric stacking.
Logical.
Magical is for your global mindset.
The magical quality of the horizon to magically compress light.
The horizon doesn't compress light, the atmosphere obscures objects that light reflects back off.
The horizon is your converbence (theoretical) line.
-
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
I've flown many many times on planes and I've sat in many different seats looking out of windows.
I've been short and long distances.
I see very little of Earth below me as I fly, in terms of making anything out, unless I'm coming in to land or taking off.
So how about you get to the point and if you can't use me, use you to get to that point.
Just curious if you have utilized modern plane transport even though all of those involved rely on a globe earth for navigation from point A to B, especially longer haul flights.
How do you reconcile that you use technology predicated on a globe earth, arrive where you intend to arrive, presumably safely?
If you think the airline industry is lying/faking globe earth tech for navigation, then what are they actually using instead? As in, more specifically, what flat earth non-globe maps/systems are they actually using?
I use lots of technology that is built on Earth.
I'm not using technology that is built on a spinning globe fantasy.
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
They would not sit upright and sunk.
Let's put it more simple.
If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
To put it simply, the turbines would need to be 110km away to be tilted away from the observer 1 degree. That's all there is to it.
If that's the case then the turbines you see that are three quarters obscured are not tilted, but they should be if that much was lost to a so called globe.
Either you can't see that or you just don't get it.
It's the same argument with your so called Earth, spinning.
You people argue it's not spinning fast because it rotates once in 24 hours and try to tell people to use a football and turn it over 24 hours and see how slow it is.Then in the next breath you tell people that the Earth's an oblate spheroid because of the spin which flattens the poles and bulges the equator.
Same type of nonsense.
It really is laughable.
-
I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?
I've flown many many times on planes and I've sat in many different seats looking out of windows.
I've been short and long distances.
I see very little of Earth below me as I fly, in terms of making anything out, unless I'm coming in to land or taking off.
So how about you get to the point and if you can't use me, use you to get to that point.
Just curious if you have utilized modern plane transport even though all of those involved rely on a globe earth for navigation from point A to B, especially longer haul flights.
How do you reconcile that you use technology predicated on a globe earth, arrive where you intend to arrive, presumably safely?
If you think the airline industry is lying/faking globe earth tech for navigation, then what are they actually using instead? As in, more specifically, what flat earth non-globe maps/systems are they actually using?
I use lots of technology that is built on Earth.
I'm not using technology that is built on a spinning globe fantasy.
Unfortunately for you when you fly on a plane you're traveling via globe earth tech/navigation. Which seems oddly contradictory. At a minimum, ironic. Unless of course you can say what tech/maps/navigation they use that is based on your flat earth. If so, what flat earth tech/maps/navigation do they use?
-
Been away for a bit. I see scepti is just as clueless as always. How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?
At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.
There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.
If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.
They would not sit upright and sunk.
Let's put it more simple.
If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.
However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.
It's nonsense.
To put it simply, the turbines would need to be 110km away to be tilted away from the observer 1 degree. That's all there is to it.
If that's the case then the turbines you see that are three quarters obscured are not tilted, but they should be if that much was lost to a so called globe.
Should they? Why? Why are you of this opinion? Why do you imagine this should be the case?
We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why? What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?
Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?
Could you be wrong here?
-
Unfortunately for you when you fly on a plane you're traveling via globe earth tech/navigation. Which seems oddly contradictory. At a minimum, ironic. Unless of course you can say what tech/maps/navigation they use that is based on your flat earth. If so, what flat earth tech/maps/navigation do they use?
Nobody is using any globe to navigate so you can sit and argue it all day long if you want....but, just remember, you do not have a clue.
You've red up on it and decided it's true and that's absolutely fine with me. I don't expect you to think any other way than what you're trained to think.
You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.
Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
-
Should they? Why? Why are you of this opinion? Why do you imagine this should be the case?
We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why? What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?
Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?
Could you be wrong here?
Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.
Not only that but yourself would be angled the opposite way and yet you would be looking level.
It doesn't add up to logic because it doesn't happen.
What does happen is very clear logic if people actually bothered to use it.
Atmospheric mass over a level distance through varying layers of the stacked atmosphere at that eye height, creates a lower light shut out against the upper light.
A convergence of light shades in which the below cannot reflect back to the eye, so you lose whatever is within that part and see what is above it, which is why you see the upper parts of objects.
-
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
You can believe it is fantasy, that's fine.
But a legitimate question in response would be to ask how do they navigate in your own fantasy world of a WorldCell under an Ice Dome lit by the holographic projections from the Magic Crystal at the north pole?
How does a plane choose a direction to take in your imaginary world? It is curving and sloping, with areas that are magically protected that need to be avoided. Is there some sort of magical map that only pilots can see but can not share with anyone?
-
Should they? Why? Why are you of this opinion? Why do you imagine this should be the case?
We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why? What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?
Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?
Could you be wrong here?
Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.
Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.
Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree.
Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry? What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt?
If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.
-
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
You can believe it is fantasy, that's fine.
But a legitimate question in response would be to ask how do they navigate in your own fantasy world of a WorldCell under an Ice Dome lit by the holographic projections from the Magic Crystal at the north pole?
How does a plane choose a direction to take in your imaginary world? It is curving and sloping, with areas that are magically protected that need to be avoided. Is there some sort of magical map that only pilots can see but can not share with anyone?
You need to have a little bit of understanding of my theory if you want answers.
Just coming out with what you did above tells me you have taken no real notice.
The best thing to do if you want to understand, even if you sit back and laugh,....is to put your global model to the side of your brain; file it away under, to be adhered to once alternate theory is understood. Or something like that.
To understand my theory you need to start at the beginning.
You need to understand how low pressure works from my side.
You need to understand how molecules work from my side.
You then need to start doing a jigsaw, ensuring you have all the pieces handed to you, in the places selected for you to see the alternate picture to the one you have filed away.
Now here's the key.
You're not going to get anywhere if you ride on the back of those who cannot, will not understand and prefer ridicule.
You will never understand if you put barriers up at every answer.
You will understand if you try your utmost to see it from my side.
What you do with that when you feel you understand it, is entirely up to you but it will save you a lot of time just throwing in comments like you do and taking many steps back, like Kabool and Jackblack, etc, who think attempted ridicule will gain them some kind of upper hand.
It's meat and drink to me.
If you want to carry on the way you're going then, I'm absolutely fine with it and you'll need to be fine with the same stuff you're getting.
If it interests you then put the effort in and don't ride the coat tails of the posse. Ride your own machine and follow your own track.
-
Should they? Why? Why are you of this opinion? Why do you imagine this should be the case?
We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why? What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?
Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?
Could you be wrong here?
Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.
Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.
Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree.
Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry? What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt?
If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.
You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.
Like I said about your so called spin of your Earth being so slow as to be one revolution in 24 hours as an argument how we aren't feeling anything and then the next minute it's bulging out at your equator, due to this so called fast spin.
The nonsense is painfully laughable.
-
You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.
It doesn't look perfectly plumb to me, especially in the lower left of the image. It appears to be tilted slightly(or if I change the meaning of words as you do, MASSIVELY ) backwards.
Can you prove that it is plumb (with respect to the observer) and not tilted backwards? Just how different do you think it would appear even if was massively tilted? What angle is massive tilt? Do you think it should be tilted 90°?
Like I said about your so called spin of your Earth being so slow as to be one revolution in 24 hours as an argument how we aren't feeling anything and then the next minute it's bulging out at your equator, due to this so called fast spin.
No one is claiming the bulge is caused by a fast spin. It is because it has been spinning slowly for a MASSIVE amount of time.
Your nonsense strawman is painfully laughable.
Once you reach 100 posts I'll go in depth with you.
-
Unfortunately for you when you fly on a plane you're traveling via globe earth tech/navigation. Which seems oddly contradictory. At a minimum, ironic. Unless of course you can say what tech/maps/navigation they use that is based on your flat earth. If so, what flat earth tech/maps/navigation do they use?
Nobody is using any globe to navigate so you can sit and argue it all day long if you want....but, just remember, you do not have a clue.
You've red up on it and decided it's true and that's absolutely fine with me. I don't expect you to think any other way than what you're trained to think.
I already gave you evidence that airlines do use globe tech/maps/navigation. Referencing the WGS-84 spheroid earth model. It's not me "deciding it's true". It's called evidence. Something which you never seem to provide. So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?
What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?
You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.
Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?
Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model? I've provided evidence that they do. Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't. See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.
-
What a piss weak dodge of questions you are unable to answer.
After 100 posts you get all the answers you require.
Put the effort in.
-
I already gave you evidence that airlines do use globe tech/maps/navigation. Referencing the WGS-84 spheroid earth model. It's not me "deciding it's true".
It's called evidence. Something which you never seem to provide.
No it's not. It's called massively appealing to authority.
So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?
Water level.
That's all that's really needed.
What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?
An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.
You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.
Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?
Water level.
Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?
Water level.
I've provided evidence that they do.
No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.
Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.
Water level.
See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.
I have.
-
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
You can believe it is fantasy, that's fine.
But a legitimate question in response would be to ask how do they navigate in your own fantasy world of a WorldCell under an Ice Dome lit by the holographic projections from the Magic Crystal at the north pole?
How does a plane choose a direction to take in your imaginary world? It is curving and sloping, with areas that are magically protected that need to be avoided. Is there some sort of magical map that only pilots can see but can not share with anyone?
You need to have a little bit of understanding of my theory if you want answers.
Just coming out with what you did above tells me you have taken no real notice.
The best thing to do if you want to understand, even if you sit back and laugh,....is to put your global model to the side of your brain; file it away under, to be adhered to once alternate theory is understood. Or something like that.
To understand my theory you need to start at the beginning.
You need to understand how low pressure works from my side.
You need to understand how molecules work from my side.
You then need to start doing a jigsaw, ensuring you have all the pieces handed to you, in the places selected for you to see the alternate picture to the one you have filed away.
Now here's the key.
You're not going to get anywhere if you ride on the back of those who cannot, will not understand and prefer ridicule.
You will never understand if you put barriers up at every answer.
You will understand if you try your utmost to see it from my side.
What you do with that when you feel you understand it, is entirely up to you but it will save you a lot of time just throwing in comments like you do and taking many steps back, like Kabool and Jackblack, etc, who think attempted ridicule will gain them some kind of upper hand.
It's meat and drink to me.
If you want to carry on the way you're going then, I'm absolutely fine with it and you'll need to be fine with the same stuff you're getting.
If it interests you then put the effort in and don't ride the coat tails of the posse. Ride your own machine and follow your own track.
Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small. I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars.
I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world. I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind?
Is this even possible in your imagination? Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world?
It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.
-
Should they? Why? Why are you of this opinion? Why do you imagine this should be the case?
We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why? What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?
Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?
Could you be wrong here?
Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.
Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.
Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree.
Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry? What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt?
If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.
You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively[/i] away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.
Yes, for maybe the 10th time, I understand you believe this.
Your belief that there would have to be a "massive tilt" is not in doubt.
What I am asking is WHY you believe this? Why do you think there has to be a massive tilt if the lower part is obscured? Why can not the tilt be tiny?
What reasoning, if any, do you use to come to this opinion?
If you can not answer, are we not left with the conclusion that you have no reasoning, and this is just your simple belief?
-
I already gave you evidence that airlines do use globe tech/maps/navigation. Referencing the WGS-84 spheroid earth model. It's not me "deciding it's true".
It's called evidence. Something which you never seem to provide.
No it's not. It's called massively appealing to authority.
Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence. Is trusting a pilot to safely get all the passengers from A to B using all of their skill, training, and tech an "appeal to authority"?
What would be a non-appeal to authority? Only things you can verify for yourself? That means you would have to know exactly how to fly and navigate a commercial airliner and actually do it yourself.
If pilots and airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid model as they claim they do and all references they have show that they do, that's referred to as evidence. Apparently you have no idea what evidence is.
So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?
Water level.
That's all that's really needed.
"Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
Got it. So you concede the fact that you have no evidence to counter that airlines use the WGS-84 spheroid model. Check.
What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?
An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.
That's not counter evidence. That's you just appealing to your own opinion. Your argument is basically, "Because I said so..." That is pathetically weak. Evidence is required - Directly countering the fact that airlines use the WGS-84 model for navigation.
You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.
Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?
Water level.
Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?
Water level.
Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. You need to provide evidence that they don't. Even though all references point to the fact that they do. Stomping your feet yelling "water level" has nothing to do with the systems and models used in modern air travel/navigation.
I've provided evidence that they do.
No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.
You obviously have no idea what evidence is.
Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.
Water level.
That's not evidence against the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. Try and stick to the actual topic and show us what flat earth maps/navigation airliners use. Btw, ships travel on water, planes fly in the air.
See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.
I have.
No you haven't. What evidence have you provided that counters the fact that airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model as referenced? What flat earth maps do they use? What flat earth routes do they use? Do they use the map in your avatar? There's gobs of evidence that they don't. Flying times alone, well documented, prove they don't use your avatar map. So which one do you claim they use?
Evidence is required. If you have none, well, then you just simply concede the point. Opinion or belief has no place here. Just evidence.
-
Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small. I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars.
I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world. I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind?
Is this even possible in your imagination? Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world?
It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.
All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.
-
Should they? Why? Why are you of this opinion? Why do you imagine this should be the case?
We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why? What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?
Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?
Could you be wrong here?
Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.
Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.
Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree.
Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry? What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt?
If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.
You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively[/i] away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.
Yes, for maybe the 10th time, I understand you believe this.
Your belief that there would have to be a "massive tilt" is not in doubt.
What I am asking is WHY you believe this? Why do you think there has to be a massive tilt if the lower part is obscured? Why can not the tilt be tiny?
What reasoning, if any, do you use to come to this opinion?
If you can not answer, are we not left with the conclusion that you have no reasoning, and this is just your simple belief?
Let's get this right so you understand me better.
They say the horizon to our view is generally about 3 miles.
By view we see many objects from boarts and turbines and buildings sitting atop of the horizon
(theoretical) line as we perceive it to be.
Globaiists have us believe the horizon line is the hump in the Earth. The curve up then atop then down with whatever objects go down with it.
This is what you people believe/are told.
At just 3 miles the drop would be 6 feet by global calculations, as we're told.
Basically it would have to be a tilt enough to lose 6 feet of the object. It cannot be anything else if the Earth was a globe.
Now tell me at just 5 miles how much you would lose of a turbine?
And remember when you calculate this you have to understand that you need to tip the turbine at a more acute angle to have more of the bottom disappear whilst you are stood looking level and yet also be tilted back from he object, meaning you would need to angle your view to the level.
Can't you see how stupid it all is?
-
Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small. I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars.
I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world. I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind?
Is this even possible in your imagination? Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world?
It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.
All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.
How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?
-
Let's get this right so you understand me better.
Globaiists have us believe the horizon line is the hump in the Earth. The curve up then atop then down with whatever objects go down with it.
This is what you people believe/are told.
What??? You seriously think that when people look out over the water, they think the water rises up like a hump in front of them???
How did you come to this point? This is certainly nothing I have ever been told or believe.
At just 3 miles the drop would be 6 feet by global calculations, as we're told.
Basically it would have to be a tilt enough to lose 6 feet of the object. It cannot be anything else if the Earth was a globe.
And how much tilt do you think this would be and WHY? Is it "massive" or is it tiny and again, WHY?
-
Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence.
Your so called evidence is entirely based on your appeal to authority.
Is trusting a pilot to safely get all the passengers from A to B using all of their skill, training, and tech an "appeal to authority"?
Trusting a pilot to get you safely to your destination proves nothing more than having faith in your pilot to follow navigation channels and flight instructions of handling and maintenance.
What would be a non-appeal to authority?
Only things you can verify for yourself?
Yep.
Things which you can verify after being told, then you can appeal to your own knowledge based on what you found to be correct.
Other than that you are reliant on a story which you do not know whether it is fiction or non-fiction.
That means you would have to know exactly how to fly and navigate a commercial airliner and actually do it yourself.
Anyone would have to learn how to navigate an airliner to fly i themselves if they wanted to be a pilot.
If pilots and airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid model as they claim they do and all references they have show that they do, that's referred to as evidence. Apparently you have no idea what evidence is.
Evidence of what?
They're flying, so tell me what they're doing in the plane to fly over a globe, like you say.
Tell me how they know.
So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?
Water level.
That's all that's really needed.
"Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
There is no fact of a spheroid model of Earth to get you from A to B.
Water level is more than enough to counter that nonsense.
Got it. So you concede the fact that you have no evidence to counter that airlines use the WGS-84 spheroid model. Check.
Yes, I do. Water level.
What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?
An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.
That's not counter evidence. That's you just appealing to your own opinion. Your argument is basically, "Because I said so..." That is pathetically weak. Evidence is required - Directly countering the fact that airlines use the WGS-84 model for navigation.
No. I'm appealing to legitimate physical, observable, testable and repeatable data that water conforms to any container it is n and it is level and always finds its level, because the Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk/run/sail or fly upon.
You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.
Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?
Water level.
Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
Once again, there is no fact of a spheroid Earth and water level dismisses the spheroid model very easily.
Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?
Water level.
Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. You need to provide evidence that they don't. Even though all references point to the fact that they do. Stomping your feet yelling "water level" has nothing to do with the systems and models used in modern air travel/navigation.
I'm not yelling for water level, I'm simply telling you water level is there for all to see, test and repeatedly test which shows we do not walk, run, sail or fly on or over a spheroid Earth.
I've provided evidence that they do.
No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.
You obviously have no idea what evidence is.
Clearly you do not.
Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.
Water level.
That's not evidence against the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
Water level says they don't. As simple and as easy as that.
Try and stick to the actual topic and show us what flat earth maps/navigation airliners use. Btw, ships travel on water, planes fly in the air.
Correct, ships do travel on water and planes do fly in air....but none of them do this on or over any oblate spinning spheroid.
See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.
I have.
No you haven't. What evidence have you provided that counters the fact that airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model as referenced?
Water level.
What flat earth maps do they use?
Whatever they use.
What flat earth routes do they use?
It depends on the terrain.
Water or ground if they can avoid going over mountains and hills, etc.
Do they use the map in your avatar?
I don't know what map they use. One that navigates the known parts of Earth, which none of it being an oblate spinning spheroid.
There's gobs of evidence that they don't. Flying times alone, well documented, prove they don't use your avatar map. So which one do you claim they use?
There's no real proof of anything to do with a spinning global Earth.
Any so called evidence is nothing more than story telling.
Evidence is required. If you have none, well, then you just simply concede the point.
I won't be conceding any point.
Water level is more than enough to keep any point against a global spinning Earth nonsense, valid as a legitimate argument.
You have nothing.
Opinion or belief has no place here. Just evidence.
Opinions and beliefs have places everywhere, just as much as potential truth's.
The issue arises when investigating/debating them.
-
Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small. I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars.
I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world. I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind?
Is this even possible in your imagination? Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world?
It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.
All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.
How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?
Follow the pattern set out by the navigators.
Numbered headings seems to be the way to those points.
-
What??? You seriously think that when people look out over the water, they think the water rises up like a hump in front of them???
I'm sure you can grasp it.
If you're stood on a ball and looking at something in the distance, on that ball you have to be tilted and so does the object you are looking towards.
No matter where you would be on a ball you would be looking over a curve that is down and away from you. If a person was looking right back at you from a distance then that person would also be looking over a curve that is down an away from their view.
It means that, to an observer at it, that observer would see two people tilted backward whilst facing each other and if they were looking horizontally level toward each other, then they would never see each others eyes.
Let's be clear. The globe is complete nonsense, it really is. Logic goes out of the window when a globe is argued for.
-
Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small. I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars.
I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world. I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind?
Is this even possible in your imagination? Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world?
It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.
All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.
How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?
Follow the pattern set out by the navigators.
Numbered headings seems to be the way to those points.
How do the navigators know which direction to point the straight line in your world?
A simple compass.
-
Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small. I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars.
I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world. I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind?
Is this even possible in your imagination? Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world?
It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.
All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.
How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?
Follow the pattern set out by the navigators.
Numbered headings seems to be the way to those points.
So in your imagined world, there are a group of "Navigators" who provide patterns for travelers to use? Cool.
How do you imagine they do it? Do they have a secret "true" map of the world they use?
-
So in your imagined world, there are a group of "Navigators" who provide patterns for travel? Cool.
Do they have a secret "true" map of the world to use?
Of course there'll be a group of people who set out navigational routes based on mapping out.
It's just that they are not mapping any globe.
-
So in your imagined world, there are a group of "Navigators" who provide patterns for travel? Cool.
Do they have a secret "true" map of the world to use?
Of course there'll be a group of people who set out navigational routes based on mapping out.
It's just that they are not mapping any globe.
So in your imagined world, someone has the true map of the world?
Is this how they prevent anyone from seeing the Dome in the south or the Magic Crystal in the north? They give out fake navigation patterns to keep people from traveling in the wrong direction?
I guess these "Navigators" are part of your imagined conspiracy and indoctrination effort?
-
What??? You seriously think that when people look out over the water, they think the water rises up like a hump in front of them???
I'm sure you can grasp it.
If you're stood on a ball and looking at something in the distance, on that ball you have to be tilted and so does the object you are looking towards.
No matter where you would be on a ball you would be looking over a curve that is down and away from you. If a person was looking right back at you from a distance then that person would also be looking over a curve that is down an away from their view.
It means that, to an observer at it, that observer would see two people tilted backward whilst facing each other and if they were looking horizontally level toward each other, then they would never see each others eyes.
Im not sure where the upward hump of water you said we all believe in comes in? From your description above it would seem the water would always curve down from level sight, never up?
And back to the point that for some reason you really, really, really dont want to address -
How much tilt would be there be relative to the objects on the sphere, and WHY?
Is it a lot? A tiny amount? A MASSIVE!11! amount? How do you know how much tilt there is?
You seem to go just by feeling and intuition, right? Unless there is some other method that you dont want to discuss? A magical seer or something?
-
So in your imagined world, there are a group of "Navigators" who provide patterns for travel? Cool.
Do they have a secret "true" map of the world to use?
Of course there'll be a group of people who set out navigational routes based on mapping out.
It's just that they are not mapping any globe.
So in your imagined world, someone has the true map of the world?
No.
Is this how they prevent anyone from seeing the Dome in the south or the Magic Crystal in the north?
We see the dome on a regular basis, or shall I say what's reflected off it.
As for preventing anyone getting to the centre of Earth, it can't happen.
As fr flights avoiding it. They can't do anything else but to avoid.
They give out fake navigation patterns to keep people from traveling in the wrong direction?
Not fake, no. Just patterns that fit the terrain they have planes fly over.
I guess these "Navigators" are part of your imagined conspiracy and indoctrination effort?
Most people won't know what's what. Very few will know the bigger picture. All we can do is follow the story (you) or question it (me).
-
The best thing to do if you want to understand, even if you sit back and laugh,....is to put your global model to the side of your brain; file it away under, to be adhered to once alternate theory is understood. Or something like that.
To understand my theory you need to start at the beginning.
You need to understand how low pressure works from my side.
You need to understand how molecules work from my side.
You then need to start doing a jigsaw, ensuring you have all the pieces handed to you, in the places selected for you to see the alternate picture to the one you have filed away.
Now here's the key.
You're not going to get anywhere if you ride on the back of those who cannot, will not understand and prefer ridicule.
You will never understand if you put barriers up at every answer.
You will understand if you try your utmost to see it from my side.
What you do with that when you feel you understand it, is entirely up to you but it will save you a lot of time just throwing in comments like you do and taking many steps back, like Kabool and Jackblack, etc, who think attempted ridicule will gain them some kind of upper hand.
It's meat and drink to me.
If you want to carry on the way you're going then, I'm absolutely fine with it and you'll need to be fine with the same stuff you're getting.
If it interests you then put the effort in and don't ride the coat tails of the posse. Ride your own machine and follow your own track.
A lot of pleading here
However you constantly scoff ialwasy revert back to the beginning.
Because guess what
Your theory never leaves the beginning
It stays in the beginning because you never complete a thought or finalize a proof.
Draw the circle.
Draw the triangle.
Put them together.
-
I believe you do need to justify peer reviewed data if you're going to hand it out as being a purveyor of facts.
Otherwise you're just arguing by simple appeals to your believed authority.
I didnt see this one.
Again how hypicritucal
Sceppy the king of dodge
The king of troll
The king of hippos.
Appealing to YOUR authortiy while not providing an ounce a shred a tidbit of justification to the MASSSIVE tilt of the turbine.
Draw the circle.
Draw the triangle.
Lets see the massive tilt.
-
What does happen is very clear logic if people actually bothered to use it.
Atmospheric mass over a level distance through varying layers of the stacked atmosphere at that eye height, creates a lower light shut out against the upper light.
A convergence of light shades in which the below cannot reflect back to the eye, so you lose whatever is within that part and see what is above it, which is why you see the upper parts of objects.
Chartt hus word salad
How dense is the air?
At what distance?
Why doent this happen under water or in a fog?
A right angled triangle at 100ft opposite, gains you how much hyponsue vs bottom length (bottom being 3mi)?
How much air is between ground and an airliner?
Why is it cropped vs hazy?
-
So in your imagined world, there are a group of "Navigators" who provide patterns for travel? Cool.
Do they have a secret "true" map of the world to use?
Of course there'll be a group of people who set out navigational routes based on mapping out.
It's just that they are not mapping any globe.
So in your imagined world, someone has the true map of the world?
No.
Is this how they prevent anyone from seeing the Dome in the south or the Magic Crystal in the north?
We see the dome on a regular basis, or shall I say what's reflected off it.
As for preventing anyone getting to the centre of Earth, it can't happen.
As fr flights avoiding it. They can't do anything else but to avoid.
They give out fake navigation patterns to keep people from traveling in the wrong direction?
Not fake, no. Just patterns that fit the terrain they have planes fly over.
I guess these "Navigators" are part of your imagined conspiracy and indoctrination effort?
Most people won't know what's what. Very few will know the bigger picture. All we can do is follow the story (you) or question it (me).
So in your imagined world no one knows its true shape?
In this world, what stops people from piecing together an accurate map of the real world through triangulation of the patterns provided by the Navigators? Is this because geometry doesn't work the same way in your imagination as the traditional way the rest of us have been taught? Or perhaps is it just in your world that people are not clever enough to do basic geometry to figure out shapes? After all, it seems like you have dreamed up a dumb bunch of sheep according to your description of how they behave in your imagination.
Also, what keeps planes away from the Dome and the Magic Crystal? What do you imagine would happen if you just pointed a plane north and flew?
Same thing with south?
-
Let's get this right so you understand me better.
They say the horizon to our view is generally about 3 miles.
By view we see many objects from boarts and turbines and buildings sitting atop of the horizon
(theoretical) line as we perceive it to be.
Globaiists have us believe the horizon line is the hump in the Earth. The curve up then atop then down with whatever objects go down with it.
This is what you people believe/are told.
At just 3 miles the drop would be 6 feet by global calculations, as we're told.
Basically it would have to be a tilt enough to lose 6 feet of the object. It cannot be anything else if the Earth was a globe.
Now tell me at just 5 miles how much you would lose of a turbine?
And remember when you calculate this you have to understand that you need to tip the turbine at a more acute angle to have more of the bottom disappear whilst you are stood looking level and yet also be tilted back from he object, meaning you would need to angle your view to the level.
Can't you see how stupid it all is?
If it hasnt already been captured (im behind
Losts of chatter last night.
2pg worth)
Ohooooo new information!!!!
Am i to the understanding if i read this
Sceppy things the object is TILTED such that it looses its appeared height?
Not rhat the bottom is obscured?
Hes misapplied two concepts and smooshed them togethrr, in his mind.
Can someone draw a pov of a viewer seeing a triange where the bisector shows a drop of 6ft?
Thats his MASSIVE tilt?
Ahh i see bored caught it but concluded it was atmospheric compression.
-
Let's get this right so you understand me better.
Side note
And for the umptieth time
If you cared to draw us a picture instead of your word salad - we would understadn ypu better ANd much quicker
-
You just accept it because
Because of the plentiful evidence supporting it and nothing to refute it.
Magical is for your global mindset.
No, as clearly highlighted in plenty of the threads you have been on, you are the one which requires so much magic, all to pretend your irrational hatred of the globe is justified.
The horizon doesn't compress light, the atmosphere obscures objects that light reflects back off.
Which means you end up with the region of darkness like I demonstrated and you rejected.
Again, this means your nonsense does not match reality.
I'm not using technology that is built on a spinning globe fantasy.
It is based upon a spinning globe Earth REALITY!
You not liking that wont magically make it fantasy, no matter how much you hate it.
If that's the case then the turbines you see that are three quarters obscured are not tilted, but they should be if that much was lost to a so called globe.
That is just your repeatedly lie that you are yet to justify which has been refuted countless times.
Repeating the same blatant lie to try to prop up your irrational hatred of the globe will not magically make it the truth.
Stop just repeating the same pathetic refuted lie and start trying to justify it.
Either you can't see that or you just don't get it.
We don't "get" your blatant lie, because it is a blatant lie that you cannot justify and instead just continually repeat to irrationally attack the globe.
You are right that it is the same argument with lots of blatant lies you spout against the globe which you are completely incapable of justifying.
Same type of nonsense.
It really is laughable.
The same nonsense you repeatedly spout is laughable.
Again, stop just spouting garbage and start trying to justify it.
Water level.
You mean the thing being discussed indirectly due to the picture above, where level water manages to obscure the base of the turbine, even though both the observer and the turbine are above water level, showing beyond any sane doubt that this level water is curved, clearly refuting the FE nonsense you spout.
I have.
No, you haven't. All you have done is continually spout pathetic lies and repeatedly refused to justify them.
All you can do is dismiss the RE as nonsense, with no justification as to why it is nonsense.
This shows your position is not based upon evidence or rational thought.
It is just irrational of the globe.
Basically it would have to be a tilt enough to lose 6 feet of the object. It cannot be anything else if the Earth was a globe.
And that tilt required is insignificant. You not liking that fact will not change it.
The amount of tilt required to cause a drop can be estimated as 360*sqrt(h*2*R)/(2*pi*R) degrees.
With R=6371 km, and h=2 m, that tilt works out to be 0.045 degrees, i.e. basically nothing.
Again, irrefutable math shows you are spouting BS.
Can't you see how stupid it all is?
We can see how stupid your BS is. Why can't you?
Logic goes out of the window when a globe is argued for.
No, logic goes out the window when you "argue" against it.
Nothing you have said even remotely resembles logic. It is just repeatedly blatant lies, refuted trivially by simple math.
You can't even answer these simple questions, which are enough to show your claims are pure BS:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
-
A lot of pleading here
However you constantly scoff ialwasy revert back to the beginning.
Because guess what
Your theory never leaves the beginning
It stays in the beginning because you never complete a thought or finalize a proof.
Draw the circle.
Draw the triangle.
Put them together.
To be fair, you do struggle.....but, I'm ok with it even though it does become tedious.
-
What does happen is very clear logic if people actually bothered to use it.
Atmospheric mass over a level distance through varying layers of the stacked atmosphere at that eye height, creates a lower light shut out against the upper light.
A convergence of light shades in which the below cannot reflect back to the eye, so you lose whatever is within that part and see what is above it, which is why you see the upper parts of objects.
Chartt hus word salad
How dense is the air?
At what distance?
Why doent this happen under water or in a fog?
A right angled triangle at 100ft opposite, gains you how much hyponsue vs bottom length (bottom being 3mi)?
How much air is between ground and an airliner?
Why is it cropped vs hazy?
Try and be specific.
-
So in your imagined world no one knows its true shape?
That makes no sense.
In this world, what stops people from piecing together an accurate map of the real world through triangulation of the patterns provided by the Navigators?
Nothing for some of the Earth until it gets to areas where people and machines will not work.
Is this because geometry doesn't work the same way in your imagination as the traditional way the rest of us have been taught?
Nothing wrong with geometry for real stuff.
Or perhaps is it just in your world that people are not clever enough to do basic geometry to figure out shapes?
There's some really clever people out there. Genius people.
The reality is we are all genius in our own way, it just depends on if it ever reaches realisation. Sadly for many, it won't due to many reasons.
After all, it seems like you have dreamed up a dumb bunch of sheep according to your description of how they behave in your imagination.
I've certainly dreamed up a lot of stuff by imagination but done it based on experiments.
Whether i'm wholly correct or partly correct or incorrect with 99% of it, I suppose I'll never get to find out.
However, what counts is how I understand what we are not living on, which is the nonsense global model we were bullied into accepting.
Also, what keeps planes away from the Dome and the Magic Crystal?
Fuel and ability for fuel to propel any vehicle. Extreme cold and lack of oxygen....etc.
What do you imagine would happen if you just pointed a plane north and flew?
It would run out of propellant and crash.
Same thing with south?
Same thing.
-
You just accept it because
Because of the plentiful evidence supporting it and nothing to refute it.
What evidence?
-
What a piss weak dodge of questions you are unable to answer.
After 100 posts you get all the answers you require.
Put the effort in.
That's something wise used to say. Except for him it was 1000 posts.
So, have you proven the globe to be wrong, sceptimatic? When you do, get back to me.
-
That's something wise used to say. Except for him it was 1000 posts.
So, have you proven the globe to be wrong, sceptimatic? When you do, get back to me.
Already proven so no need to get back to you other than tell you now.
Feel free to come up with anything you think you may have that proves different to what I've already shown.
Water level is the only thing needed....but there's plenty of other stuff.
You people have nothing.
-
So in your imagined world no one knows its true shape?
That makes no sense.
I know, right! You imagine a world that no one knows the true shape of. It's definitely a weird thing to make up and doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone I think.
In this world, what stops people from piecing together an accurate map of the real world through triangulation of the patterns provided by the Navigators?
Nothing for some of the Earth until it gets to areas where people and machines will not work.
So in your world, why don't the Navigators show these areas with their waypoints and markers? It would be incredibly useful for people to know where machines and people stop working, no?
Also, what keeps planes away from the Dome and the Magic Crystal?
Fuel and ability for fuel to propel any vehicle. Extreme cold and lack of oxygen....etc.
What do you imagine would happen if you just pointed a plane north and flew?
It would run out of propellant and crash.
Same thing with south?
Same thing.
Why don't people talk about this in your world? Seems like everyone would know that every attempt to fly directly south or north was lost and everyone died, right? Why have you made it in your world that no one seems to know this?
-
What does happen is very clear logic if people actually bothered to use it.
Atmospheric mass over a level distance through varying layers of the stacked atmosphere at that eye height, creates a lower light shut out against the upper light.
A convergence of light shades in which the below cannot reflect back to the eye, so you lose whatever is within that part and see what is above it, which is why you see the upper parts of objects.
Chartt hus word salad
How dense is the air?
At what distance?
Why doent this happen under water or in a fog?
A right angled triangle at 100ft opposite, gains you how much hyponsue vs bottom length (bottom being 3mi)?
How much air is between ground and an airliner?
Why is it cropped vs hazy?
Try and be specific.
that was very specifc
specifc requests in individual specific questions
you're obviously dodging
try and dodge less and be more clear with your theory.
-
Draw the circle
You draw the circle you want. I drew mine.
Over to you.
you drew a circle but failed to draw the triangle.
you've failed to PROVE your FEELINGS.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg/1200px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
this circle is 1000pixels in diameter.
my first requested triangle appears as a single straight line because the ratio 12,750,000 to 2 is inperceivable.
so i'm going to move on to the windmill.
the island shown in the center is madagascar.
the width of madagascar by map is rouhgly 600km which is over 10x that of this windmill debate.
the pixel count for that is 50pixels.
so 5pixes is what we're going for.
5/1000 = 0.005 = 0.3degrees
MASSIVELY UNMASSIVE!
so
your claim the angle is massive is wrong.
tahnks for comign out.
here
see the link
it's a circle.
see the estimation?
i even had a correction as it's 0.6degrees due to radius vs diameter mistake.
eitehr way.
still very close to jackB's math and bored's math.
you even responded to this post.
thanks for trolling me on
i fell for it.
it's a circle to scale.
pelase feel free to provide a different circle, to scale, the shows a different angle of tilt.
-
Draw the circle
You draw the circle you want. I drew mine.
Over to you.
you drew a circle but failed to draw the triangle.
you've failed to PROVE your FEELINGS.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg/1200px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
this circle is 1000pixels in diameter.
my first requested triangle appears as a single straight line because the ratio 12,750,000 to 2 is inperceivable.
so i'm going to move on to the windmill.
the island shown in the center is madagascar.
the width of madagascar by map is rouhgly 600km which is over 10x that of this windmill debate.
the pixel count for that is 50pixels.
so 5pixes is what we're going for.
5/1000 = 0.005 = 0.3degrees
MASSIVELY UNMASSIVE!
so
your claim the angle is massive is wrong.
tahnks for comign out.
here
see the link
it's a circle.
see the estimation?
i even had a correction as it's 0.6degrees due to radius vs diameter mistake.
eitehr way.
still very close to jackB's math and bored's math.
you even responded to this post.
thanks for trolling me on
i fell for it.
it's a circle to scale.
pelase feel free to provide a different circle, to scale, the shows a different angle of tilt.
You didn't draw that.
You believe it was a picture took by someone in so called space on a so called Apollo 17 carry on.
-
Sure i didnt DRAW it.
But the exercise was show a circle to scale.
You want to play semantics ina clear dodge of the point made.
It being real or not is not inquestion.
It being a circle - to scale - and what your massive tilt shows.
Point being - its to scale.
If you have a different drawjng TO SCALE then let us see it.
Because 5pixels out of 1000 is not a lot and it does not make a very large tilt.
-
Sure i didnt DRAW it.
But the exercise was show a circle to scale.
You want to play semantics ina clear dodge of the point made.
It being real or not is not inquestion.
It being a circle - to scale - and what your massive tilt shows.
Point being - its to scale.
If you have a different drawjng TO SCALE then let us see it.
Because 5pixels out of 1000 is not a lot and it does not make a very large tilt.
It being real is the question, otherwise how can it be drawn to scale?
iIs the picture real and if so, do you honestly know this to be the truth or are you appealing to, authority?
-
11 replies, bored.... you're getting there...well done.
-
Sure i didnt DRAW it.
But the exercise was show a circle to scale.
You want to play semantics ina clear dodge of the point made.
It being real or not is not inquestion.
It being a circle - to scale - and what your massive tilt shows.
Point being - its to scale.
If you have a different drawjng TO SCALE then let us see it.
Because 5pixels out of 1000 is not a lot and it does not make a very large tilt.
It being real is the question, otherwise how can it be drawn to scale?
iIs the picture real and if so, do you honestly know this to be the truth or are you appealing to, authority?
Woweee it being real is irrelevent!!!
Its a circle showing distances to scale
Are you now denying circles are only real circles if they dont show a picture of the earth?
Are you of the position that the roundness is somehow not real because it also happenes to show a landmakred scale image of madagascar?
Is this or is this not a representation of a circle?
-
Sure i didnt DRAW it.
But the exercise was show a circle to scale.
You want to play semantics ina clear dodge of the point made.
It being real or not is not inquestion.
It being a circle - to scale - and what your massive tilt shows.
Point being - its to scale.
If you have a different drawjng TO SCALE then let us see it.
Because 5pixels out of 1000 is not a lot and it does not make a very large tilt.
It being real is the question, otherwise how can it be drawn to scale?
iIs the picture real and if so, do you honestly know this to be the truth or are you appealing to, authority?
Woweee it being real is irrelevent!!!
Its a circle showing distances to scale
Are you now denying circles are only real circles if they dont show a picture of the earth?
Are you of the position that the roundness is somehow not real because it also happenes to show a landmakred scale image of madagascar?
Is this or is this not a representation of a circle?
You're saying it's to scale. How do you know this?
-
Sure i didnt DRAW it.
But the exercise was show a circle to scale.
You want to play semantics ina clear dodge of the point made.
It being real or not is not inquestion.
It being a circle - to scale - and what your massive tilt shows.
Point being - its to scale.
If you have a different drawjng TO SCALE then let us see it.
Because 5pixels out of 1000 is not a lot and it does not make a very large tilt.
It being real is the question, otherwise how can it be drawn to scale?
iIs the picture real and if so, do you honestly know this to be the truth or are you appealing to, authority?
Woweee it being real is irrelevent!!!
Its a circle showing distances to scale
Are you now denying circles are only real circles if they dont show a picture of the earth?
Are you of the position that the roundness is somehow not real because it also happenes to show a landmakred scale image of madagascar?
Is this or is this not a representation of a circle?
You're saying it's to scale. How do you know this?
Because based on measurements, its to scale.
Prove its not to scale.
Keep saying stupid sht.
Proved its false!!!
Thisbis what you claim youce done through experimentation and verifiable FACT, that its false.
So go
Prove it.
Orve rhe tilt
Prove the model is inaccruate as claimed.
Go ahead.
As requested 168pg now.
And for 68pg - draw your own cricle you pos.
-
Because based on measurements, its to scale.
Prove its not to scale.
Keep saying stupid sht.
Proved its false!!!
How about you prove it's real.
-
Prove the circle is a real circle?
Look at it.
Its a circle.
Its round
It has not corners
Thanks for confirming you dont knwo what a circle is.
Go back and watch some sesame street before trying to challenge you know better than all of modern science.
-
Since Sceptimatic is so convinced that we do not live on a spinning globe then perhaps he would explain what other mechanism causes the sky to rotate over our heads every day carrying the Sun, Moon, stars and planets with it.
While he is at it perhaps he could also explain why the positions of the planets (or dots of light in the sky as he likes to call them) changes relative to the stars over time. Then perhaps he could also explain why a ring system appears around one of these planets (we call it Saturn) as soon as you look at it through a telescope and why four additional dots of light appear to move around a second planet (we call it Jupiter) as soon as you look at it through a telescope. And why Jupiter shows bands across its disk and why you can see an oval shaped red spot quite clearly.
I realise that Sceptimatic thinks that the stars and planets are just dots of light in the sky. Be that as it may they are most definitely moving lights in the sky so that movement must be accounted for. If the Earth is not spinning then something else must be causing that movement. The Sun makes one complete circuit of the ecliptic over one year while the Moon completes a circuit in just one month. Why the difference?
-
You just accept it because
Because of the plentiful evidence supporting it and nothing to refute it.
What evidence?
We have been over this countless times. You asking for evidence is an exercise in dishonesty.
You either dismiss it as fake, or claim that it is wrong and that it is actually based upon a FE, or claim it shouldn't happen on a RE and should on a FE. But what is consistent is the fact you are never able to justify those lies.
Some examples of the evidence would be the photos provided earlier on in the thread, showing the horizon clearly below eye level, or the photos of distant objects, where the bottom is obscured by level water, even though both the object and observer are above the water.
But there is plenty more. My favourite is the fact that there are 2 celestial poles which you can circle, keeping them on one side of you, and these poles are always 180 degrees apart. This is impossible on a FE.
And do you know what is better than evidence to show you are wrong?
Irrefutable logical arguments and simple questions you refuse to answer.
That is because you can't simply dismiss those arguments as fake like you can with evidence.
Like those which show that the tilt would be insignificant and that you can see the ground through a level tube.
Arguments you are yet to refute and just do whatever you can to avoid.
Again, 360 degrees * 30 km / 40000 km= 0.27 degrees. That is the tilt expected for those windmills.
There is no way out of this for you.
The amount hidden, based upon a 2 m observation height is h=(d-sqrt(2*o*R))^2/(2*R) = (30 km - sqrt(2 * 2 m * 6371 km))^2/(2*6371 km) = 49 m.
So plenty can be hidden without any significant tilt.
Again, simple math that shows beyond any doubt that your claims are pure BS, that you are blatantly lying to everyone to try to dismiss evidence for the globe and pretend it is evidence against the globe, all because of your irrational hatred of the globe.
Just like the simple questions you continually avoid show you know you are spouting BS.
You refuse to answer them because I have intentionally set them up in a way which does not depend on the shape of Earth, so you either admit you can see the ground through a level tube, including on a RE, or you lie and say you can't, which would apply on a FE and we go back to the tree.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Already proven
Your repeated lies are not proof.
The only thing you have proven is how little you care for the truth.
Water level is the only thing needed
Which proves that Earth is round.
You are the one with nothing but lies.
It being real is the question, otherwise how can it be drawn to scale?
Quite easily.
You know the claimed distances, you can thus draw it to scale.
Why does something need to exist in reality to be drawn to scale?
This occurs quite often in the construction industry.
Buildings are drawn to scale before they are constructed. So before the building is real, to scale diagrams exist of them.
This also typically happens in manufacturing, where before components exist in reality, i.e. before they are real, to scale drawings exist of them.
But even things purely in fantasy can have to scale drawings and models made.
Drawing something to scale does not require it to exist in reality. All it requires is that the sizes are known.
Again, if you want to go down this path, the only honest thing for you to do is for you to say you have no idea what the tilt would be because you don't think Earth is real, and you have no idea if the ground should be visible through a level tube because you don't think Earth is real.
By claiming the tilt should be massive you are claiming to know the scales involved such that it would produce a massive tilt.
So either accept the fact that the tilt is insignificant, or accept the fact that you can determine what the tilt would be (numerically, not just "massive") even for an object that doesn't exist, and prove just what this tilt is, or claim that you cannot know what the tilt is and that you claiming it was massive was just wild speculation, or another blatant lie from you.
To be fair, you do struggle.....but, I'm ok with it even though it does become tedious.
The only one struggling in this thread (at least now) is you.
You continually struggle to justify your blatant lies against the RE.
Instead you just continually repeat them to pretend your irrational hatred is justified.
Nothing wrong with geometry for real stuff.
But there is a massive problem with the lies and strawmen you present against the RE.
For example, their is nothing wrong with the geometry for the real RE, which clearly shows the tilt is insignificant and you typically can see the ground through a level tube, even when that ground is curved or a downwards slope.
The problems only seem to arise when you start spouting BS.
what counts is how I understand what we are not living on, which is the nonsense global model we were bullied into accepting.
And what "counts" is that that "understanding" is based upon nothing more than irrational hatred.
You are completely incapable of justifying your irrational hatred of the globe.
Instead, all the evidence and logical thought indicates we do live on a globe.
-
That's something wise used to say. Except for him it was 1000 posts.
So, have you proven the globe to be wrong, sceptimatic? When you do, get back to me.
Already proven so no need to get back to you other than tell you now.
Feel free to come up with anything you think you may have that proves different to what I've already shown.
Water level is the only thing needed....but there's plenty of other stuff.
You people have nothing.
I keep looking for the punch line in your posts, sceptimatic, but it never seems to arrive. ??? Are you sure you didn't forget to post at the end of this post of yours above, "I'm joking, you idiots!!!!!" ???
Otherwise, your standard of proof is somewhat lower than mine, sceptimatic, like, thousands of kilometres under the deepest oceanic floor bed ever recorded. :'(
If you were to present your standard of proof in front of Judge Judy for instance, the standard of proof you would have to reach is on the balance of probabilities. That standard is low, but could you imagine Judge Judy's verdict on your "evidence"? Can you imagine the look on her face? Yeah, so can I. So, it doesn't even reach near the bottom level of the balance of probabilities.
But for me, as you well know, the standard of proof you need to reach, is, "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think it"s fair to say anybody over the age of four and of sound mind reading your logic and rationale demonstrated in these posts, is reasonably doubtful of all your evidence. Reasonably is being kind, and in this case should be substituted with the word, "extremely".
I love your sense of humor big guy, you haven't broken character even once! Jump on a plane to Australia, Sceptimatic, and I'll shout you to a scenic day flight over Antarctica. I'm still thinking of working in the Australian division of the Antarctic Treaty, and I think the joy flight will help me make up my mind. We can drink beer, swap war stories, and look out the plane windows.
In the event you're not putting it all on, you need to see with your own two eyes Antarctica is a continent, not a shelf or an ice wall ring.
-
Because based on measurements, its to scale.
Prove its not to scale.
Based on what measurements?
Prove it is to scale.
-
Prove the circle is a real circle?
Look at it.
Its a circle.
Its round
It has not corners
Thanks for confirming you dont knwo what a circle is.
Go back and watch some sesame street before trying to challenge you know better than all of modern science.
You're struggling and scraping the barrel.
Put some real effort in.
-
Since Sceptimatic is so convinced that we do not live on a spinning globe then perhaps he would explain what other mechanism causes the sky to rotate over our heads every day carrying the Sun, Moon, stars and planets with it.
While he is at it perhaps he could also explain why the positions of the planets (or dots of light in the sky as he likes to call them) changes relative to the stars over time. Then perhaps he could also explain why a ring system appears around one of these planets (we call it Saturn) as soon as you look at it through a telescope and why four additional dots of light appear to move around a second planet (we call it Jupiter) as soon as you look at it through a telescope. And why Jupiter shows bands across its disk and why you can see an oval shaped red spot quite clearly.
I realise that Sceptimatic thinks that the stars and planets are just dots of light in the sky. Be that as it may they are most definitely moving lights in the sky so that movement must be accounted for.
If the Earth is not spinning then something else must be causing that movement. The Sun makes one complete circuit of the ecliptic over one year while the Moon completes a circuit in just one month. Why the difference?
This might give you a big clue.
Humans are simply learning how to recreate, piece by piece what's naturally occuring.
What we are told, is another thing. In my opinion.
-
We have been over this countless times. You asking for evidence is an exercise in dishonesty.
No, it's not. It's an exercise is showing you people that your answers are totally reliant on appeals to authority.
You do not know the truth. You really don't.
If you do then show me and shut me up.
-
I keep looking for the punch line in your posts, sceptimatic, but it never seems to arrive. ??? Are you sure you didn't forget to post at the end of this post of yours above, "I'm joking, you idiots!!!!!" ???
Otherwise, your standard of proof is somewhat lower than mine, sceptimatic, like, thousands of kilometres under the deepest oceanic floor bed ever recorded. :'(
What is thousands of kilometres under the ocean floor?
If you were to present your standard of proof in front of Judge Judy for instance, the standard of proof you would have to reach is on the balance of probabilities. That standard is low, but could you imagine Judge Judy's verdict on your "evidence"? Can you imagine the look on her face? Yeah, so can I. So, it doesn't even reach near the bottom level of the balance of probabilities.
I think if showed judge Judy flat water and what not and you showed her photo's of a ball Earth, I think she would likely laugh at your effort.......if.....and I say........IF....she wasn't otherwise indoctrinated into he mainstream ideal, which she surely would.....so, she would not be unbiased.
But for me, as you well know, the standard of proof you need to reach, is, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And you have nothing that stands up to that.
I think it"s fair to say anybody over the age of four and of sound mind reading your logic and rationale demonstrated in these posts, is reasonably doubtful of all your evidence. Reasonably is being kind, and in this case should be substituted with the word, "extremely".
It's fair to say that water level would make most people sit up and notice if they had a clear and unbiased mind.
I love your sense of humor big guy, you haven't broken character even once! Jump on a plane to Australia, Sceptimatic, and I'll shout you to a scenic day flight over Antarctica. I'm still thinking of working in the Australian division of the Antarctic Treaty, and I think the joy flight will help me make up my mind. We can drink beer, swap war stories, and look out the plane windows.
I love your sense of humour. You get to be what you want in life, on an internet forum and have a laugh with it. I like that.
In the event you're not putting it all on, you need to see with your own two eyes Antarctica is a continent, not a shelf or an ice wall ring.
Yeah, but seeing a wide expanse of ice is just that.
I don't have a wide expanse of ice as the edge of the world. There is no edge to the world I theorise on.
-
Because based on measurements, its to scale.
Prove its not to scale.
Based on what measurements?
Prove it is to scale.
"I know you are but what am i"?
Pathetic grade schooler playground response.
Keep dodging you dont know how circles work.
Thats right
You
Dont know
How
Circles
Work.
Everyone say it with me.
- "Sceppy doesnt believe in circlss".
Because this POS wants to keep trolling on and deflecting.
Doubling down.
Digging un his heels.
Hingung his whole credibilty on arguing that circles arent a thing.
Good one.
Because you stated, you stated "for a fact", that the globe is false.
Not my job to prove my circle is to scale.
Any proof i gice yoy will wave away as it "apoeals to authroity".
If its fake, it can easily be proved false.
Just like we easily prove youre a pos.
So prove it is false.
Pathetic dodge and deflect to tell me to prove something and "put effort into it".
Go do some work.
-
This might give you a big clue.
Ah right OK. So in a planetarium we have a manmade projector powered by electricity projecting images of stars onto a manmade dome. Yep I get that bit. Now what about the real sky? Where is the projector for that and who made the dome which the stars are projected onto?
Humans are simply learning how to recreate, piece by piece what's naturally occuring.
Absolutely. That's exactly what a planetarium is. A manmade system that simulates what occurs naturally.
-
Because you stated, you stated "for a fact", that the globe is false.
I stand by that.
Not my job to prove my circle is to scale.
It is your job if you want to argue it as being factual.
-
Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence.
Your so called evidence is entirely based on your appeal to authority.
Yep, it quite surely is. The said authority is what governs how commercial airplanes are to navigate around the globe. Without which, calamity would ensue.
For instance here, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an authority that is the largest modern transportation agency and a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation in that nation as well as over its surrounding international waters, makes mandates that all commercial airlines must follow. Specifically, in this case, navigational conformities. Without which, again, calamity would ensue in the skies above the earth. Some body needs to be an authority in order to make these marvels of aeronautic mech navigate the globe safely thousands of instances in a given day. Wouldn't you agree? Seems rather sage to have governing standards as to how these flying machines mess about transporting individuals and goods from A to B safely and securely. No? I mean all of this must be managed under the guidance of some authority(s). Certainly not yours or mine. Just look at it:
(https://i.imgur.com/xKBdot4.jpg)
That all requires a tremendous amount of authority and guidance. No?
Take for example FAA authority and guidance on navigation. Let's look at the FAA's U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ORDER
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, "United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design" protocols. Referenced here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8260.58.pdf
For starters, it's purpose: "1.0 Purpose of This Order. This order provides a consolidated United States Performance BasedNavigation (PBN) procedure design criteria"
If you peruse the document, you will find many references to the WGS-84 spheroid model of earth as a datum that is to be considered sacrosanct in terms of standardized navigational methodologies and execution. I won't bore you with the 82 references to the WGS-84 spheroid earth model contained therein, you can see for yourself.
So yes, this is an appeal to an authority. It's also evidence. And the appeal is to that authority that governs and contributes and defines and designs and mandates the successful transport by air of goods and humans all over the globe.
And your singular rebuttal is an appeal to your own authority regarding a simpleton response regarding water and holographically projected celestial objects emanating from a carbonite crystal laser lair at the north pole onto a dome that breathes...How precious...And authoritative...And lacking any and all evidence...And a rotating globe earth sounds strange in comparison to that? Wow!
-
Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence.
Your so called evidence is entirely based on your appeal to authority.
Yep, it quite surely is. The said authority is what governs how commercial airplanes are to navigate around the globe. Without which, calamity would ensue.
For instance here, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an authority that is the largest modern transportation agency and a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation in that nation as well as over its surrounding international waters, makes mandates that all commercial airlines must follow. Specifically, in this case, navigational conformities. Without which, again, calamity would ensue in the skies above the earth. Some body needs to be an authority in order to make these marvels of aeronautic mech navigate the globe safely thousands of instances in a given day. Wouldn't you agree? Seems rather sage to have governing standards as to how these flying machines mess about transporting individuals and goods from A to B safely and securely. No? I mean all of this must be managed under the guidance of some authority(s). Certainly not yours or mine. Just look at it:
(https://i.imgur.com/xKBdot4.jpg)
That all requires a tremendous amount of authority and guidance. No?
Take for example FAA authority and guidance on navigation. Let's look at the FAA's U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ORDER
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, "United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design" protocols. Referenced here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8260.58.pdf
For starters, it's purpose: "1.0 Purpose of This Order. This order provides a consolidated United States Performance BasedNavigation (PBN) procedure design criteria"
If you peruse the document, you will find many references to the WGS-84 spheroid model of earth as a datum that is to be considered sacrosanct in terms of standardized navigational methodologies and execution. I won't bore you with the 82 references to the WGS-84 spheroid earth model contained therein, you can see for yourself.
So yes, this is an appeal to an authority. It's also evidence. And the appeal is to that authority that governs and contributes and defines and designs and mandates the successful transport by air of goods and humans all over the globe.
And your singular rebuttal is an appeal to your own authority regarding a simpleton response regarding water and holographically projected celestial objects emanating from a carbonite crystal laser lair at the north pole onto a dome that breathes...How precious...And authoritative...And lacking any and all evidence...And a rotating globe earth sounds strange in comparison to that? Wow!
Let's be clear on this.
There are a lot of clever idea and clever stuff invented that cater for safe travel and safe workings on many many levels.
It's just not done on a spinning globe around a big fiery sn in a space vacuum.
-
Because you stated, you stated "for a fact", that the globe is false.
I stand by that.
Not my job to prove my circle is to scale.
It is your job if you want to argue it as being factual.
Good
By that same merit
It is your job ti orove your tilt is massive.
Go prove it.
Guess im a sucker
The pixel diameter was 12,750km :1000pixels
Madagascar is about 400km wide and it was 50pixels.
0.035 vs 0.05 is very close given the big error in my estiamtion.
See how simple to provide a proof?
Back over to you dodger mcdodgyface
-
Because you stated, you stated "for a fact", that the globe is false.
I stand by that.
Not my job to prove my circle is to scale.
It is your job if you want to argue it as being factual.
Good
By that same merit
It is your job ti orove your tilt is massive.
Go prove it.
Guess im a sucker
The pixel diameter was 12,750km :1000pixels
Madagascar is about 400km wide and it was 50pixels.
0.035 vs 0.05 is very close given the big error in my estiamtion.
See how simple to provide a proof?
Back over to you dodger mcdodgyface
You are providing nothing of any proof.
Carry on if you want but you are achieving nothing.
-
N
More than youce orovided.
"Maasive tilt".
Keep dodging.
-
N
More than youce orovided.
"Maasive tilt".
Keep dodging.
Still waiting for your proof.
-
Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence.
Your so called evidence is entirely based on your appeal to authority.
Yep, it quite surely is. The said authority is what governs how commercial airplanes are to navigate around the globe. Without which, calamity would ensue.
For instance here, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an authority that is the largest modern transportation agency and a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation in that nation as well as over its surrounding international waters, makes mandates that all commercial airlines must follow. Specifically, in this case, navigational conformities. Without which, again, calamity would ensue in the skies above the earth. Some body needs to be an authority in order to make these marvels of aeronautic mech navigate the globe safely thousands of instances in a given day. Wouldn't you agree? Seems rather sage to have governing standards as to how these flying machines mess about transporting individuals and goods from A to B safely and securely. No? I mean all of this must be managed under the guidance of some authority(s). Certainly not yours or mine. Just look at it:
(https://i.imgur.com/xKBdot4.jpg)
That all requires a tremendous amount of authority and guidance. No?
Take for example FAA authority and guidance on navigation. Let's look at the FAA's U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ORDER
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, "United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design" protocols. Referenced here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8260.58.pdf
For starters, it's purpose: "1.0 Purpose of This Order. This order provides a consolidated United States Performance BasedNavigation (PBN) procedure design criteria"
If you peruse the document, you will find many references to the WGS-84 spheroid model of earth as a datum that is to be considered sacrosanct in terms of standardized navigational methodologies and execution. I won't bore you with the 82 references to the WGS-84 spheroid earth model contained therein, you can see for yourself.
So yes, this is an appeal to an authority. It's also evidence. And the appeal is to that authority that governs and contributes and defines and designs and mandates the successful transport by air of goods and humans all over the globe.
And your singular rebuttal is an appeal to your own authority regarding a simpleton response regarding water and holographically projected celestial objects emanating from a carbonite crystal laser lair at the north pole onto a dome that breathes...How precious...And authoritative...And lacking any and all evidence...And a rotating globe earth sounds strange in comparison to that? Wow!
Let's be clear on this.
There are a lot of clever idea and clever stuff invented that cater for safe travel and safe workings on many many levels.
It's just not done on a spinning globe around a big fiery sn in a space vacuum.
It's just not done so sayeth you. But you have no evidence to the contrary. It's literally just you saying, "I don't believe..." Which is fine. But it's just an opinion. A belief. What is your evidence to the contrary? Where's your map? Where's your Flat Earth guidance for how all of those 1000's of planes navigate without calamity, all appealing to an authority as to how not make calamitous events occur? They are guided by authority instructing them to conform to standards that are shared worldwide. The evidence is in the fact that it all works. What's your evidence that it doesn't?
Water is level? That's your simpleton argument? I could get all marine geodesy on you, but it would be completely lost on you at the same time. That's all you got?
Read the documentation, absorb it. This authority is not just running around with the intent to obscure the shape of the earth or drive FEer's crazy. The authority is literally governing and standardizing how safe air transport can happen so goods and humans can get where they need to go...safely. It's not rocket science.
At the end of the day, where's your map? We, out here, have a map that gets us to anywhere we want to go to on the planet. And very verifiable journeys verify the distances necessary to get where we want to get to. Where's your map?
In the absence of all that, you have no evidence to support your belief system and have continually shirked any responsibility to provide evidence other than proclamations.
Counter the documentation already provided with actual evidentiary documentation or similar, or produce a map, or simply concede.
-
It's just not done so sayeth you. But you have no evidence to the contrary.
Water level/flatness.
Very simple.
It's literally just you saying, "I don't believe..." Which is fine. But it's just an opinion.
I say I don't believe because I have simple proof.
A belief. What is your evidence to the contrary?
Water level/flatness.
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Where's your Flat Earth guidance for how all of those 1000's of planes navigate without calamity, all appealing to an authority as to how not make calamitous events occur?
Already is use by those who use them.
They are guided by authority instructing them to conform to standards that are shared worldwide.
Conforming to what standards?
Simply navigation over Earth which is not a spinning globe.
The evidence is in the fact that it all works. What's your evidence that it doesn't?
Water is level?
Yep, water is level and flat when not disturbed.
That's your simpleton argument?
That's one very simple argument and proof....yes.
I could get all marine geodesy on you, but it would be completely lost on you at the same time. That's all you got?
Go for it. Let's see what you have because you have absolutely nothing as of yet.
Read the documentation, absorb it. This authority is not just running around with the intent to obscure the shape of the earth or drive FEer's crazy.
No ned to.
Also I don't see anyone going crazy.
The authority is literally governing and standardizing how safe air transport can happen so goods and humans can get where they need to go...safely.
Yep but it's not done on a spinning globe.
Your own logic should kick in with this but you refuse to allow it.
It's not rocket science.
Actually it sort of, is.
Very similar operations but in varying set ups..
At the end of the day, where's your map?
The maps are all over. We use them every day.
We, out here, have a map that gets us to anywhere we want to go to on the planet.
Yep and so do we. They're the same maps.
They're just not maps of a spinning globe.
And very verifiable journeys verify the distances necessary to get where we want to get to.
Yep, but not on a spinning globe.
Where's your map?
I have a few maps for varying travel. They're similar to your maps that do not use a spinning globe.
In the absence of all that, you have no evidence to support your belief system and have continually shirked any responsibility to provide evidence other than proclamations.
Water level/flatness.
Just that one piece is more than enough to wipe out the spinning global set up.
Counter the documentation already provided with actual evidentiary documentation or similar, or produce a map, or simply concede.
How about you concede because water level/flatness is there in front of you and you know it.
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
-
Setting aside shape for a moment, what makes you so convinced that the Earth is not spinning?
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
Nice try and feel free to think like that. You know what I think of gravity so ....well, you know.
-
Yep and so do we. They're the same maps.
They're just not maps of a spinning globe.
I have a few maps for varying travel. They're similar to your maps that do not use a spinning globe.
So are the distances the same as they would be on a globe? They would be with our maps and They're the same maps.
No. There's no map for a globe that we're told we walk upon.
-
Setting aside shape for a moment, what makes you so convinced that the Earth is not spinning?
Born senses, observation, steady waters, aircraft, the list is long.
-
N
More than youce orovided.
"Maasive tilt".
Keep dodging.
Still waiting for your proof.
The visual image reasonably, when scaled and compared, matched the document measured distances.
Proof.
Youve yet to do anything other than "sceppy says so".
Keep failing
Keep dodigng
Keep being a pos.
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
Nice try and feel free to think like that. You know what I think of gravity so ....well, you know.
Nope water level clearly disproves a flat Earth. I explained it clearly enough. What aren't you understanding about it?
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
Nice try and feel free to think like that. You know what I think of gravity so ....well, you know.
Nope water level clearly disproves a flat Earth. I explained it clearly enough. What aren't you understanding about it?
Youre asking the guy who cant conprehend circles and triangles to understand concentric circles and that all things go "down" towards the center (and not down in general down to eventually fall off the bottom).
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
Nice try and feel free to think like that. You know what I think of gravity so ....well, you know.
Nope water level clearly disproves a flat Earth. I explained it clearly enough. What aren't you understanding about it?
Youre asking the guy who cant conprehend circles and triangles to understand concentric circles and that all things go "down" towards the center (and not down in general down to eventually fall off the bottom).
But there is no explanation of down in the FE model. Why do thing tend to go down, what is down, what causes it?
Gravity more precisely describes what down is, it has been thoroughly tested and measured. It makes sense without magic, unlike every single FE proposal.. Does it have some unexplained portions? Yeah, at the quantum level, but it isn't that it disagrees with itself or requires magical components, it's things we have not yet been able to test.
So, using the known and tested definition of level, which is perpendicular to the apparent force of gravity, water finding its level debunks FE. The atmospheric gradient disproves the FE since they have no downward process that better describes what down is. Water being fluid and therefore conforming to the container disproves FE. I could go on for days just listing the things that prove FE is horseshit.
-
Born senses, observation, steady waters, aircraft, the list is long.
How does any of that provide evidence that the Earth is not spinning? Beyond just what you believe?
For example in exactly what way do aircraft provide evidence that the Earth is not spinning? For instance why are flight times from the US back to the UK always shorter than flights from the UK to the US?
-
Prevailing winds.
-
You're struggling and scraping the barrel.
Put some real effort in.
Stop projecting your own inadequacies and put some real effort in.
Stop just making baseless claims which are shown to be outright lies and instead put in some effort and try to justify those lies of yours.
We have been over this countless times. You asking for evidence is an exercise in dishonesty.
No, it's not.
Yes it is, as you will just dismiss any evidence that is provided that shows you are wrong.
You are not willing to accept anything anyone provides which shows you are wrong.
As such, asking for it is an exercise in dishonesty.
If you do then show me and shut me up.
You mean show you and then just have you call it fake, or blatantly lie about the RE?
Again, this is why I use logical arguments rather than evidence, you can't dismiss it as fake.
But even that can't shut you up as you don't care about the truth at all.
If you actually cared about the truth you would have admitted that the tilt should not be massive, or provided the math to show it is.
It's fair to say that water level would make most people sit up and notice if they had a clear and unbiased mind.
Notice that Earth is round, with how this level water obscures the bottom of distant objects.
It is only with an extreme bias like your irrational hatred of the globe that would lead them to think level water is magically flat.
Still waiting for your proof.
No you aren't.
You have been provided the proof and you just ignore it, because you cannot refute it.
Again (30 km / 40000 km) * 360 degrees = 0.27 degrees.
The tilt is insignificant.
We are still waiting on you to either do the impossible and refute this trivial math and provide the math to show there is massive tilt, or admit you are wrong and that the tilt isn't massive.
Just like we are still waiting on you answering trivial questions which clearly show you are wrong.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
-
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth. Unless of course, you have one that is not. If so, what map is it that you use that is "in use" that is based upon a flat earth?
And as evidenced above, the airlines use a spheroid earth model for navigation. Again, unless of course you have a flat earth map/tech that is actually used instead. If so, what is it?
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
-
Sceptimatic, how's your scale model of the "flattish" Earth coming along? I have a couple of scale models of the globe earth I live on, and have personally measured distances I've actually travelled, as correct. I'm currently using one to make a scale model with the moon.
I figured a trip over Antarctica would do you some good, considering all the jargon you've picked up along the way from the flat earth priests, who unanimously agree that Antarctica is a ring of ice around the rim of the coin shaped earth. Oh, and let's not overlook your specially chosen avatar of hubcap flattish earth. Yes, we would see a lot of ice on our trip, but also a lot of mountains and valleys, and coastline. If you speak nicely with the pilots, perhaps they will let you see the cockpit, and how the plane is not constantly turning and banking, and then see what things look like, when the plane does bank, to turn around and return to Australia.
As for your argument, water is always flat, well, have you tried taking a shower, instead of always jumping in the bath with your little yellow duckies? Yes, I know the water in your bathtub looks very flat, scepti. But, in a shower, you get to have up close and personal time, with water droplets. I could post up some photos of water droplets for you to point out their flat sides, but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.
When you have a spare 5 minutes, explain how the sun sets below the horizon on your flattish earth model, when you have explained dozens of times, the horizon is theoretical. While you're at it, show me a photo of a plane, setting below the horizon as it recedes also? Then, explain how a lunar eclipse works on your scale model of flattish earth. Just to jog your memory, yes, a lunar eclipse occurs when the earth gets between the sun and the moon, in that black vastness we have all come to refer to as space, and you refer to as fantasy.
On your flattish earth scale model, does your sun and moon sit high in earth's atmosphere under the dome ceiling, like they do above your bed, or are they outside the transparent, glass like dome?
Post up some photos of your to scale flattish earth model, and I'll post up some photos of my to scale, earth and moon model.
-
So many pointa there
Hes still yet to draw a circle and a triangle to scale.
-
N
More than youce orovided.
"Maasive tilt".
Keep dodging.
Still waiting for your proof.
The visual image reasonably, when scaled and compared, matched the document measured distances.
Proof.
Youve yet to do anything other than "sceppy says so".
Keep failing
Keep dodigng
Keep being a pos.
What visual image. What does it match?
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
Nice try and feel free to think like that. You know what I think of gravity so ....well, you know.
Nope water level clearly disproves a flat Earth. I explained it clearly enough. What aren't you understanding about it?
You're very welcome to that thought.
You unconditionally believe what you were massively indoctrinated into, so I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
-
Born senses, observation, steady waters, aircraft, the list is long.
How does any of that provide evidence that the Earth is not spinning? Beyond just what you believe?
For example in exactly what way do aircraft provide evidence that the Earth is not spinning? For instance why are flight times from the US back to the UK always shorter than flights from the UK to the US?
Jet stream.
-
Stop projecting your own inadequacies and put some real effort in.
Come on Jack, you can do better.
-
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth.
You're told they are but you have no clue that they are.
Unless of course, you have one that is not.
Yep. I have the maps that we generally use. One's that get us to our destinations.
They're not global maps...just maps of terrain.
If so, what map is it that you use that is "in use" that is based upon a flat earth?
The one's normal people use.
And as evidenced above, the airlines use a spheroid earth model for navigation.
No, they don't.
Again, unless of course you have a flat earth map/tech that is actually used instead. If so, what is it?
I have maps that offer me routes through terrain, same as you.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
-
N
More than youce orovided.
"Maasive tilt".
Keep dodging.
Still waiting for your proof.
The visual image reasonably, when scaled and compared, matched the document measured distances.
Proof.
Youve yet to do anything other than "sceppy says so".
Keep failing
Keep dodigng
Keep being a pos.
What visual image. What does it match?
Play your shitass gamss
No onss buying it - Put up or shutup.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
So in your delusion laden mind,, What else is reflected by the dome? Or is it magic?
Where is the sun then.
-
Sceptimatic, how's your scale model of the "flattish" Earth coming along?
Absolutely smashing.
I have a couple of scale models of the globe earth I live on,
No you don't. You may have a few globes but they are not scale models of what you live on. In my opinion, of course.
and have personally measured distances I've actually travelled, as correct.
Such as?
I'm currently using one to make a scale model with the moon.
A scale model of something you have no clue about other than reading in books or seeing a light in the sky or harking back to men supposedly walking upon it in the most laughable pictures and actions.
Soon enough you'll tell me you've built a new house on your moon. I'll wait for that one.
I figured a trip over Antarctica would do you some good, considering all the jargon you've picked up along the way from the flat earth priests, who unanimously agree that Antarctica is a ring of ice around the rim of the coin shaped earth.
If you'd paid attention earlier on you would know by now that I do not have Antarctica as any ring around a rim.
There is no edge to my Earth. It's a cell....remember?
Oh, and let's not overlook your specially chosen avatar of hubcap flattish earth.
Keep that in mind as a yardstick to go from.
Yes, we would see a lot of ice on our trip, but also a lot of mountains and valleys, and coastline.
Yep, hence the flattish Earth.
If I say flat then you people go into pancake mode and disc mode, so it's best to keep you lot on an understanding.
If you speak nicely with the pilots, perhaps they will let you see the cockpit, and how the plane is not constantly turning and banking, and then see what things look like, when the plane does bank, to turn around and return to Australia.
I've never mentioned turning and banking.
Again your attention span is weak.
Point to point in a line or zig zag and only turning when about to reach an airport, or to deviate from weather....etc.
As for your argument, water is always flat, well, have you tried taking a shower, instead of always jumping in the bath with your little yellow duckies?
Again your attention span is weak.
You forgot the conforming to a container it is in.
If you want to argue water droplets we can do that.
Yes, I know the water in your bathtub looks very flat, scepti. But, in a shower, you get to have up close and personal time, with water droplets.
Yep, so let's see your reasoning for water droplets and I'll happily give you mine.
If you're going to appeal to gravity then let me see how it all works with your explanation. Don't just say, gravity does it because it makes you appear like you're hanging on to massive appeals to authority.
I could post up some photos of water droplets for you to point out their flat sides, but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.
I have no need to point out flat sides on water droplets.
Your intelligence is dipping like a lead sinker on a snapped line.
When you have a spare 5 minutes, explain how the sun sets below the horizon on your flattish earth model, when you have explained dozens of times, the horizon is theoretical.
The sun moves away and around and down the dome and is obscured from your sight because the reflection does not hit back to your sight. It hits water or land away from your sight.
Remember the sun is angled light, not level light.
While you're at it, show me a photo of a plane, setting below the horizon as it recedes also?
Nothing sets below any horizon. It becomes obscured by atmospheric mass.
Then, explain how a lunar eclipse works on your scale model of flattish earth.
It works as the reflections get obscured as they meet within the centre of Earth to wipe out reflection.
What you see outside against the dome is what's happening inside.
Just to jog your memory, yes, a lunar eclipse occurs when the earth gets between the sun and the moon, in that black vastness we have all come to refer to as space, and you refer to as fantasy.
No, it doesn't. Not in the way you think, anyway. IMO.
On your flattish earth scale model, does your sun and moon sit high in earth's atmosphere under the dome ceiling, like they do above your bed, or are they outside the transparent, glass like dome?
There is no transparent glass dome.
Everything you see is inside the cell you are in, called Earth.
You see nothing outside of that. other than the absence of light or blackness as a reflective barrier to the ice dome and back to your vision, from actions within.
Post up some photos of your to scale flattish earth model, and I'll post up some photos of my to scale, earth and moon model.
Be careful with yours. Try not to spin it or the drinks will likely all clatter around it and shatter the bottles and drinks glasses.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
So in your delusion laden mind,, What else is reflected by the dome? Or is it magic?
Where is the sun then.
Everything you see in that sky barring man made objects and icicles, etc, are reflections.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
It gives us points of light and holographic images of what's going on inside.
In my theory.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth.
You're told they are but you have no clue that they are.
Yep. I have the maps that we generally use. One's that get us to our destinations.
They're not global maps...just maps of terrain.
Why do distances south of the equator show a decreasing circumference, like on a globe?
Maybe you can elaborate on what you're saying.
Explain what you're trying to get across.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
If the atmosphere can block the reflected light from the windmills causing them to disappear behind the horizon, why can we see the reflected light of the sun off the dome. Why isn't the atmosphere blocking it as well.
-
Everything you see in that sky barring man made objects and icicles, etc, are reflections.
Manmade objects in the sky = planes. Yes get that bit.
Ice crystals in the sky = contrails or high level clouds eg cirrus
Icicles in the sky = ?
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
So the Sun actually exists in the centre of the Earth and what we see is a reflection off the inside surface of a dome which nobody has so far been able to confirm the physical existence of. That' brilliant. It takes some considerable amount of genius to come up with that one. Just a couple of questions at this point. How and when did this dome get put in place and what is it made of? Is this dome an actual 'thing' which I could reach out and touch as in a planetarium or is it just a perspective effect? Without that information I can't be convinced.
Come to think of it how did the Sun come to form in the centre of the Earth in the first place?!? This theory of Sceptimatics seems to create more questions than it does answers.
-
Sceptimatic, how's your scale model of the "flattish" Earth coming along?
Absolutely smashing.
No you don't. You may have a few globes but they are not scale models of what you live on. In my opinion, of course.
Ohooo.NOW its your opinion that the globe is false?
Thought befroe it was 100% fact ?!
Why dont you draw a 100% circle with a 0.1% wedge cut out.
-
Water conforms to its "container". Level is not synonymous with flat, level is perpendicular to the direction of the apparent force of gravity.
Water "level" proves spherical Earth.
Nice try and feel free to think like that. You know what I think of gravity so ....well, you know.
Nope water level clearly disproves a flat Earth. I explained it clearly enough. What aren't you understanding about it?
You're very welcome to that thought.
You unconditionally believe what you were massively indoctrinated into, so I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
It's not indoctrination if you can test it for yourself. It's indoctrination if it requires faith, magic, or conspiracyTM.
Ill just be here in reality watching the cult members like you do your moronic dance. It's fun and it actually forces me to verify.
Dance a bit more fool, im not quite bored yet.
-
Stop projecting your own inadequacies and put some real effort in.
Come on Jack, you can do better.
There you go yet again.
I would say you can do better, but I really don't think you can.
You are arguing for pure BS, with literally nothing to back up your outright lies.
Again, the math is irrefutable.
The tilt you claim should be massive is a tiny 0.27 degrees.
You have nothing to refute or challenge this.
A simple 1 inch wide tube, 10 inches long, when 2 m above Earth, can see the ground.
Again, the math is irrefutable and you have nothing at all to refute it.
You can't even answer trivial questions which show you are wrong.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
That is just how pathetic your position is.
You really need to figure out how to do better, even if it is just admitting that you are wrong, as you have been repeatedly.
-
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth.
You're told they are but you have no clue that they are.
I'm not "told", I (and you) are shown they are. As in evidence.
Unless of course, you have one that is not.
Yep. I have the maps that we generally use. One's that get us to our destinations.
They're not global maps...just maps of terrain.
Can you share an example of a terrain map you have used?
If so, what map is it that you use that is "in use" that is based upon a flat earth?
The one's normal people use.
Can you share an example of a map you have used?
And as evidenced above, the airlines use a spheroid earth model for navigation.
No, they don't.
Ummm, yeah, they actually do. And I can prove it. In the States, the FAA governs all flights, commercial and otherwise. As such, all commercial airlines, and ultimately pilots, are required to use the FAA mandated "Aeronautical Sectional Charts" for flight planning/navigation. There are about 37 different sectional charts for the mainland US, as seen here:
(https://i.imgur.com/1bx5u2g.png)
Notice the arcing Longitude & Latitude lines? That's because these required maps/charts use a projection. That's right, a globe projection. But I'll get to that in a second.
For an example of one of the 37 sectional charts, here's what the "San Francisco FAA Aeronautical Chart" looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/NCRMvuu.jpg)
It provides all kinds of information regarding terrain, elevations, radio towers, airfields, restricted zones, etc. Everything a pilot needs and is required to have.
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
Created much like this:
(https://gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/North-America-Lambert-Conformal-Conic-Projection-678x322.png)
So, you see, you are wrong, airlines do use a globe model and are required to do so. And magically, those globe charts get the thousands of flights a day to where they need to go.
Again, unless of course you have a flat earth map/tech that is actually used instead. If so, what is it?
I have maps that offer me routes through terrain, same as you.
Great, share an example of one of these maps you use.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
So in your delusion laden mind,, What else is reflected by the dome? Or is it magic?
Where is the sun then.
Everything you see in that sky barring man made objects and icicles, etc, are reflections.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
It gives us points of light and holographic images of what's going on inside.
In my theory.
So the blue of the sky, the clouds, etc are reflections? What is the blue sky a reflection of? I wont ask about the clouds as I think you misspoke and meant to include them as things not reflected.
-
The distance to Circumnavigate the earth anywhere south of the equator shows that distance to decrease the further south one chooses to circumnavigate. How does this work on your world?
Still not sure what you're trying to get at.
Elaborate further.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
If the atmosphere can block the reflected light from the windmills causing them to disappear behind the horizon, why can we see the reflected light of the sun off the dome. Why isn't the atmosphere blocking it as well.
It's higher up the dome and you see it by angle from below dense atmosphere to above less dense atmosphere.
-
Everything you see in that sky barring man made objects and icicles, etc, are reflections.
Manmade objects in the sky = planes. Yes get that bit.
Ice crystals in the sky = contrails or high level clouds eg cirrus
Icicles in the sky = ?
What we see and are told are, comets, meteorites and what not.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
So the Sun actually exists in the centre of the Earth and what we see is a reflection off the inside surface of a dome which nobody has so far been able to confirm the physical existence of.
Not in the way we're told.
It exists as a carbon arc.
Like a big welding arc.
That' brilliant. It takes some considerable amount of genius to come up with that one.
It actually just takes a bit of logical thinking and a few simple experiments.
Just a couple of questions at this point. How and when did this dome get put in place and what is it made of?
The dome is natural. It is near dormant ice. Not the below ice we see but a nitrogen, helium, hydrogen etc, like ice that forms s part of the stacking system I mentioned.
It becomes dormant because of the much lessening pressure as it sits within that stack, high above.
Is this dome an actual 'thing' which I could reach out and touch as in a planetarium or is it just a perspective effect?
You'd never reach it. You're not equipped to reach it and nor is any machine., In my opinion.
Without that information I can't be convinced.
I dn't ask nor expect you be convinced. You go with whatever you want to go with. You are asking me questions and I'm providing answers.
What you do with those answers is entirely up to you.
Come to think of it how did the Sun come to form in the centre of the Earth in the first place?!?
How does any cell form?
This theory of Sceptimatics seems to create more questions than it does answers.
If it was nailed on provable then the Earth would be nailed on habitable by us mere humans throughout, to explore.
Unfortunately we can't do that, throughout for many reasons. In my opinion.
My theory is far from complete and I have many many many questions which I will come to conclusions with over time, in as many as I can.
-
Good, sceptimatic, good! Was that a whiff of anger I smell?
I got you to admit you think the sky is encased in a dome and that the sun zooms around like the head of a kid on a merry go round. I also got you to admit you think the shape of the earth is circular, even though you keep protesting you dont know what shape it is.
So, is the top of the dome, or cell, shaped like the dome of a snow globe, or like the top of a cylinder? Because if it were a dome, your amazing sun would need to decrease altitude everytime
If you think the earth is the inside of a cell, then you must think the dome or cylinder, is made of the same material the earth is - rock and soil. Rock and soil is brown. How does your magical whirling sun shine down on everything on the ground revealing all the colors we see, but yet, when it shines to the ceiling of your sky dome, it is sky blue?
Did the rabbit give you anything other than magic mushrooms to eat, when you fell down the rabbit hole?
Never underestimate the value of scale models, sceptimatic. I'll bet yours is smashing indeed. Smashes common sense and all the known laws of physics, doesn't it?
-
It's not indoctrination if you can test it for yourself.
But you can't, so you're entirely reliant on the story.
It's indoctrination if it requires faith, magic, or conspiracyTM.
Which is exactly what your model does.
Ill just be here in reality watching the cult members like you do your moronic dance.
Whatever you can picture that keeps you happy, then go for it.
It's fun and it actually forces me to verify.
I'm glad I can help.
Dance a bit more fool, im not quite bored yet.
Good. Keep imagining me dancing and you'll banish your boredom.
-
There you go yet again.
What do you mean?
-
Sceptimatic, how's your scale model of the "flattish" Earth coming along?
Absolutely smashing.
No you don't. You may have a few globes but they are not scale models of what you live on. In my opinion, of course.
Ohooo.NOW its your opinion that the globe is false?
Thought befroe it was 100% fact ?!
Why dont you draw a 100% circle with a 0.1% wedge cut out.
It's still my opinion.
-
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth.
You're told they are but you have no clue that they are.
I'm not "told", I (and you) are shown they are. As in evidence.
Unless of course, you have one that is not.
Yep. I have the maps that we generally use. One's that get us to our destinations.
They're not global maps...just maps of terrain.
Can you share an example of a terrain map you have used?
If so, what map is it that you use that is "in use" that is based upon a flat earth?
The one's normal people use.
Can you share an example of a map you have used?
And as evidenced above, the airlines use a spheroid earth model for navigation.
No, they don't.
Ummm, yeah, they actually do. And I can prove it. In the States, the FAA governs all flights, commercial and otherwise. As such, all commercial airlines, and ultimately pilots, are required to use the FAA mandated "Aeronautical Sectional Charts" for flight planning/navigation. There are about 37 different sectional charts for the mainland US, as seen here:
(https://i.imgur.com/1bx5u2g.png)
Notice the arcing Longitude & Latitude lines? That's because these required maps/charts use a projection. That's right, a globe projection. But I'll get to that in a second.
For an example of one of the 37 sectional charts, here's what the "San Francisco FAA Aeronautical Chart" looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/NCRMvuu.jpg)
It provides all kinds of information regarding terrain, elevations, radio towers, airfields, restricted zones, etc. Everything a pilot needs and is required to have.
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
Created much like this:
(https://gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/North-America-Lambert-Conformal-Conic-Projection-678x322.png)
So, you see, you are wrong, airlines do use a globe model and are required to do so. And magically, those globe charts get the thousands of flights a day to where they need to go.
Again, unless of course you have a flat earth map/tech that is actually used instead. If so, what is it?
I have maps that offer me routes through terrain, same as you.
Great, share an example of one of these maps you use.
Planes take off and angle up, then fly to a destination, then angle down.
There's your so called Earth arcing, nothing else.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
So in your delusion laden mind,, What else is reflected by the dome? Or is it magic?
Where is the sun then.
Everything you see in that sky barring man made objects and icicles, etc, are reflections.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
It gives us points of light and holographic images of what's going on inside.
In my theory.
So the blue of the sky, the clouds, etc are reflections? What is the blue sky a reflection of? I wont ask about the clouds as I think you misspoke and meant to include them as things not reflected.
They sky is simply down to colour spectrum to our eyes through wavelengths.
Clouds are just expanded molecules taking their place in the stack after breakdown.
-
The distance to Circumnavigate the earth anywhere south of the equator shows that distance to decrease the further south one chooses to circumnavigate. How does this work on your world?
Still not sure what you're trying to get at.
Elaborate further.
Try harder, it is written in English. You are thinking with a frenzied 'refuse to understand, as it shows I'm wrong again' mindset.
You know very well what I'm asking. You just don't have an answer, so your dodging.
No. I'm not sure what you're saying.
Do you know what circumnavigate means?
Is it going around a circle?
What do you think t is?
Do you know what equator means?
Would it be a centralised area where the sun stays sort of regular in pattern around a circle as it reflects off the dome?
What do you think it is?
Do you know what south of the equator means?
Would it be the outer portion of the circle?
What do you think it is and why?
-
Good, sceptimatic, good! Was that a whiff of anger I smell?
If you can sense anything you'd sense a wry smile.
I got you to admit you think the sky is encased in a dome
You actually didn't. I already mentioned it so many times way before you came on the scene.
However, I'm not one to want to burst your comfort bubble so you feel free to believe anything you wish.
and that the sun zooms around like the head of a kid on a merry go round.
Not quite but feel free.
I also got you to admit you think the shape of the earth is circular, even though you keep protesting you dont know what shape it is.
A cell. It depends on how you want to view a cell.
I'd say it's more slightly oval but I won't bother playing argument games on it.
So, is the top of the dome, or cell, shaped like the dome of a snow globe,
A dome.
or like the top of a cylinder? Because if it were a dome, your amazing sun would need to decrease altitude everytime
Yep, it goes over and around the dome by reflection, like I mentioned so many times.
If you think the earth is the inside of a cell, then you must think the dome or cylinder, is made of the same material the earth is - rock and soil.
No.
The dome is made of ice.
Rock and soil is brown. How does your magical whirling sun shine down on everything on the ground revealing all the colors we see, but yet, when it shines to the ceiling of your sky dome, it is sky blue?
Because the dome is made of ice against a background that creates a mirror for reflection and refraction.
Did the rabbit give you anything other than magic mushrooms to eat, when you fell down the rabbit hole?
I didn't fall down one so I can't help you.
Just picture whatever story you want and go with it. It'll make you feel a little bit fuzzy.
Never underestimate the value of scale models , sceptimatic.
I won't, whether the model is of reality of not.
Many models hold value to some people.
How much would you pay for a star ship enterprise model?
I'll bet yours is smashing indeed.
Yep, it's not too shabby.
Smashes common sense and all the known laws of physics, doesn't it?
It smashes pseudoscience, I believe.
As for smashing the laws of physics. No, I don't believe it does. I believe it conforms to the laws of physics.
Unlike the model you go with, which defies the laws of physics.
-
What we see and are told are, comets, meteorites and what not.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
So the Sun actually exists in the centre of the Earth and what we see is a reflection off the inside surface of a dome which nobody has so far been able to confirm the physical existence of.
Not in the way we're told.
It exists as a carbon arc.
Like a big welding arc.
That' brilliant. It takes some considerable amount of genius to come up with that one.
It actually just takes a bit of logical thinking and a few simple experiments.
Please tell us, what simple experiment you have done that proves to you that there is a big carbon arc at the centre of the earth?
Have you been there?
That doesn't sound very simple, as experiments go.
I don't need to go there to know what Earth hands us on a plate.
It's all there in simple experiments and simple everyday uses.
The problem is, people just refuse to see it and instead opt for a big ball of fire in a space vacuum.
You people want to argue about this stuff and yet swallow with gusto, silly stories about a new planet being found just like Earth that is supposedly 300 light years away and other planets that rain diamonds.
It just gets sillier and sillier and yet you people sit back and gobble it all up like pac-man.
No wonder you refuse to look at logic.
-
The distance to Circumnavigate the earth anywhere south of the equator shows that distance to decrease the further south one chooses to circumnavigate. How does this work on your world?
Still not sure what you're trying to get at.
Elaborate further.
Try harder, it is written in English. You are thinking with a frenzied 'refuse to understand, as it shows I'm wrong again' mindset.
You know very well what I'm asking. You just don't have an answer, so your dodging.
No. I'm not sure what you're saying.
Do you know what circumnavigate means?
Is it going around a circle?
What do you think t is?
Do you know what equator means?
Would it be a centralised area where the sun stays sort of regular in pattern around a circle as it reflects off the dome?
What do you think it is?
Do you know what south of the equator means?
Would it be the outer portion of the circle?
What do you think it is and why?
So if you circle around the "outer portion of the circle", using the maps you agree to. The circle gets smaller the more south of the equator you go.
No.
If you're going south then you won't be going around any circle.
-
So once again. You don't have an answer. The world is a globe, I rest my case.
Then rest it.
-
I don't need to go there to know what Earth hands us on a plate.
So the earth is plate shaped? and you've never been there?
If that's what you think then you're entitled to think that.
-
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth.
You're told they are but you have no clue that they are.
I'm not "told", I (and you) are shown they are. As in evidence.
Unless of course, you have one that is not.
Yep. I have the maps that we generally use. One's that get us to our destinations.
They're not global maps...just maps of terrain.
Can you share an example of a terrain map you have used?
If so, what map is it that you use that is "in use" that is based upon a flat earth?
The one's normal people use.
Can you share an example of a map you have used?
And as evidenced above, the airlines use a spheroid earth model for navigation.
No, they don't.
Ummm, yeah, they actually do. And I can prove it. In the States, the FAA governs all flights, commercial and otherwise. As such, all commercial airlines, and ultimately pilots, are required to use the FAA mandated "Aeronautical Sectional Charts" for flight planning/navigation. There are about 37 different sectional charts for the mainland US, as seen here:
(https://i.imgur.com/1bx5u2g.png)
Notice the arcing Longitude & Latitude lines? That's because these required maps/charts use a projection. That's right, a globe projection. But I'll get to that in a second.
For an example of one of the 37 sectional charts, here's what the "San Francisco FAA Aeronautical Chart" looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/NCRMvuu.jpg)
It provides all kinds of information regarding terrain, elevations, radio towers, airfields, restricted zones, etc. Everything a pilot needs and is required to have.
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
Created much like this:
(https://gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/North-America-Lambert-Conformal-Conic-Projection-678x322.png)
So, you see, you are wrong, airlines do use a globe model and are required to do so. And magically, those globe charts get the thousands of flights a day to where they need to go.
Again, unless of course you have a flat earth map/tech that is actually used instead. If so, what is it?
I have maps that offer me routes through terrain, same as you.
Great, share an example of one of these maps you use.
Informative post! Thank you.
-
Where's your map?
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Ironic. Because the maps that are in use are based on a globe earth.
You're told they are but you have no clue that they are.
I'm not "told", I (and you) are shown they are. As in evidence.
Unless of course, you have one that is not.
Yep. I have the maps that we generally use. One's that get us to our destinations.
They're not global maps...just maps of terrain.
Can you share an example of a terrain map you have used?
If so, what map is it that you use that is "in use" that is based upon a flat earth?
The one's normal people use.
Can you share an example of a map you have used?
And as evidenced above, the airlines use a spheroid earth model for navigation.
No, they don't.
Ummm, yeah, they actually do. And I can prove it. In the States, the FAA governs all flights, commercial and otherwise. As such, all commercial airlines, and ultimately pilots, are required to use the FAA mandated "Aeronautical Sectional Charts" for flight planning/navigation. There are about 37 different sectional charts for the mainland US, as seen here:
(https://i.imgur.com/1bx5u2g.png)
Notice the arcing Longitude & Latitude lines? That's because these required maps/charts use a projection. That's right, a globe projection. But I'll get to that in a second.
For an example of one of the 37 sectional charts, here's what the "San Francisco FAA Aeronautical Chart" looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/NCRMvuu.jpg)
It provides all kinds of information regarding terrain, elevations, radio towers, airfields, restricted zones, etc. Everything a pilot needs and is required to have.
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
Created much like this:
(https://gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/North-America-Lambert-Conformal-Conic-Projection-678x322.png)
So, you see, you are wrong, airlines do use a globe model and are required to do so. And magically, those globe charts get the thousands of flights a day to where they need to go.
Again, unless of course you have a flat earth map/tech that is actually used instead. If so, what is it?
I have maps that offer me routes through terrain, same as you.
Great, share an example of one of these maps you use.
Planes take off and angle up, then fly to a destination, then angle down.
There's your so called Earth arcing, nothing else.
I just showed you the aeronautical maps/charts that the FAA requires airlines to use and how they are constructed and reference a globe earth using the "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum referencing the globe earth using the WGS-84 spheroid model and all you have to say is that "Planes take off and angle up, then fly to a destination, then angle down."??? Are you a toddler?
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
-
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
What is your evidence they are using a globe?
-
Excellent, sceptimatic, excellent!
Now I know flattish earth is oval shaped with an ice dome over the top. I thought you said there was no separation between land and sky, but now you say the sky is ice. Talk about being confused with your own model!
But you're forgetting one important property of the yellow light in the daytime sky we and you call the sun. Can you think what that other important property is, sceptimatic?
Yes. Yes. It's called HEAT. What does heat do to ice, sceptimatic? If the sun is circling near the top of the dome, the heat of the sun would have melted your ice dome. Because like the fire you get when you strike a match, the heat is closest to the source, isn't it?
But, if your merry go round sun is much lower in the atmosphere, planes would be dodging it, as their wings melt off for getting too close. Place an ice cube out on the ground in the sunlight sceptimatic, and tell us all what the sun does to it? If the sun is midway high in the dome, that same heat would be melting your ice dome. Your ice dome doesn't stand a chance from the sun.
Sceptimatic, your model and your theory has just been melted. Lap up the water left behind, and drink down the truth.
-
Excellent, sceptimatic, excellent!
Now I know flattish earth is oval shaped with an ice dome over the top. I thought you said there was no separation between land and sky, but now you say the sky is ice. Talk about being confused with your own model!
I'm far from confused.
You need to pay attention.
I said there was no edge.
But you're forgetting one important property of the yellow light in the daytime sky we and you call the sun. Can you think what that other important property is, sceptimatic?
Yes. Yes. It's called HEAT. What does heat do to ice, sceptimatic?
Do you know what heat is?
It's agitation of molecules/matter.
The denser the agitation the more heat. The more expanded molecules that are broken down into their palce in the stack, the less agitation, which means, less heat.
If the sun is circling near the top of the dome, the heat of the sun would have melted your ice dome.
It isn't circling just near the top of the dome. It's moving up and over and around the dome. It does cause a change in the ice. It becomes a superfluid for a short time as the energy moves over it but refreezes slowly back as the energy moves away, in short order.
Because like the fire you get when you strike a match, the heat is closest to the source, isn't it?
No. The reflection is well away from the real source.
But, if your merry go round sun is much lower in the atmosphere, planes would be dodging it, as their wings melt off for getting too close.
It comes from the centre so nothing is going to be impeded by the reflective properties of a centralised energy (sun).
Place an ice cube out on the ground in the sunlight sceptimatic, and tell us all what the sun does to it?
Have you ever been out in the ice or snow when there's a clear sky and a beaming sun?
Have you ever seen the snow covered tops of mountains whilst also looking at a bright sun?
If the sun is midway high in the dome, that same heat would be melting your ice dome.
At times it will but only on a part for so long until the energy reflection moves away onto the next bit...and so on...but it all refreezes and leaves icicles which,w hen hit by that energy over a period of time, will grow and then become too dense for the place they're in....and break and glow and be friction glowed back to a gas.
You'll see them as your meteorites and comets and what not, depending on how big some can get.
Your ice dome doesn't stand a chance from the sun.
It does and it's natural. It replenishes the dome and helps it breath to create the tides to keep everything moving and alive.
Sceptimatic, your model and your theory has just been melted.
For a drink and then for a popsicle (lolly) and a bit of gas.
Lap up the water left behind, and drink down the truth.
Yep...you try it too so you can leave behind the nonsense of a globe.
-
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
What is your evidence they are using a globe?
It says it on the map itself! :)
"Lambert Conformal Conic Projection Standard Parallels 33 degrees 20 minutes and 38 degrees 40 minutes
Horizontal Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (World Geodetic System of 1984"
= We constructed this specific section of map from a specific global model of the earth using a specific projection.
Pretty straightforward evidence. :) :) :)
-
There you go yet again.
What do you mean?
You know what I mean. Stop playing dumb.
Either address the massive issues or admit you have no basis at all to make the claims you have and that it is just you irrationally attacking the globe you hate so much.
Again, the simple math shows that the tilt expected is 0.27 degrees. That is insignificant, not massive like you claim.
Either admit it isn't massive, or prove that it is massive, by doing the actual math, including the distance to the object and the size of Earth.
Likewise, simple math shows that your ability to see the RE depends on your elevation about it (in terms of the radius) and the FOV, including when looking through a tube.
Likewise, simple math shows that your ability to see the ground on a downwards slope depends on the gradient and FOV.
This is all highlighted by your refusal to answer simple questions as you know they clearly expose that you have been lying to everyone.
Stop avoiding them and answer these simple questions:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
It's still my opinion.
Are you claiming it is a fact, which you know with absolute certainty, or are you now finally admitting that it is just your baseless opinion, not backed up by any rational thought?
Still not sure what you're trying to get at.
Elaborate further.
Stop playing dumb, you almost certainly know exactly what they are talking about.
The standard FE models have the north pole at the centre. As such, the further south you go has the distance between any 2 lines of longitude get larger and larger.
But in reality once you pass the equator, as you go further south, the distance gets smaller.
This shows that these lines of longitude converge on a point, the south pole, which shouldn't exist on a flat Earth.
I don't need to go there to know what Earth hands us on a plate.
There is no indication at all that the sun is just a reflection of a giant carbon arc lamp.
It is just your wild speculation to pretend you have a viable alternative to the globe.
The fact that you can observe it as roughly a sphere, with everywhere on the day side of Earth able to observe it together (and the whole day night cycle), indicates that it is roughly a sphere, quite some distance from Earth.
The problem is, people just refuse to see it and instead opt for a big ball of fire in a space vacuum.
You mean YOU refuse to see it and instead opt for whatever nonsense you can think of to pretend your delusional garbage is viable?
With appropriate filters, you can LITERALLY SEE THE SUN, yet you choose to ignore that and instead claim it is a magic carbon arc lamp.
Have you ever actually seen an arc lamp in operation?
If you do, with an appropriate filter, you see it is an arc not a ball.
You cannot get an arc lamp to appear as a sphere/circle. The closest you can get is it looking roughly circular, with a section missing as you are looking along the axis of the arc and have part of it obscured by the electrode and whatever is supporting it.
Like so much of your delusional garbage, it defies reason. Yet you happily come here and spout it as if it is fact and makes sense, even though you cannot justify it at all.
No wonder you refuse to look at logic.
There you go projecting your own inadequacies again.
Do you even understand what logic is?
Because pretty much everything you say outright defies logic.
-
Sceptimatic, how's your scale model of the "flattish" Earth coming along?
Absolutely smashing.
No you don't. You may have a few globes but they are not scale models of what you live on. In my opinion, of course.
Ohooo.NOW its your opinion that the globe is false?
Thought befroe it was 100% fact ?!
Why dont you draw a 100% circle with a 0.1% wedge cut out.
It's still my opinion.
Its your opinion that its fact.
Ya ok.
But to claim fact there must be..... facts?
Lets see the circle with the triangle on it.
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
If the atmosphere can block the reflected light from the windmills causing them to disappear behind the horizon, why can we see the reflected light of the sun off the dome. Why isn't the atmosphere blocking it as well.
It's higher up the dome and you see it by angle from below dense atmosphere to above less dense atmosphere.
But the distances involved are quite extreme.
There must be some value of density of air and distance of object that can be calculatedable.
The reflection is traveling twice the distance as it goes up-reflects-comes back down.
Where the windmill just shoots across.
And why is it CROPPED and not hazy?
It is a sudden cutting of the bottom.
-
What we see and are told are, comets, meteorites and what not.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
So the Sun actually exists in the centre of the Earth and what we see is a reflection off the inside surface of a dome which nobody has so far been able to confirm the physical existence of.
Not in the way we're told.
It exists as a carbon arc.
Like a big welding arc.
That' brilliant. It takes some considerable amount of genius to come up with that one.
It actually just takes a bit of logical thinking and a few simple experiments.
Please tell us, what simple experiment you have done that proves to you that there is a big carbon arc at the centre of the earth?
Have you been there?
That doesn't sound very simple, as experiments go.
I don't need to go there to know what Earth hands us on a plate.
It's all there in simple experiments and simple everyday uses.
The problem is, people just refuse to see it and instead opt for a big ball of fire in a space vacuum.
You people want to argue about this stuff and yet swallow with gusto, silly stories about a new planet being found just like Earth that is supposedly 300 light years away and other planets that rain diamonds.
It just gets sillier and sillier and yet you people sit back and gobble it all up like pac-man.
No wonder you refuse to look at logic.
Or show us the logical experiment where a domed reflection produces what we see as a distinct sun and doesnt create an incredible focus point in the sky where thibgs burst into flames or where people far to the left and far to the right see a distorted sun in the wrong position.
And if it were a reflection, as you say no one knows the location of the giant arc, why cant anyone know?
Is it because no one can calculate angles made from circles and triangles?
Or is it because no one can find an intensely giant hot arc in the middle of the desert?
-
If the Sun and Moon are both just reflections onto a dome made of ice, then how do you explain the blotting out of the Sun by the Moon during a solar eclipse. If they were just reflections there is no way the Moon could cut off the light from the Sun. However if you take the Moon to be a solid object which is much nearer than the Sun then that would explain it perfectly. Light cannot shine through solid rock.
-
And if it were a reflection, as you say no one knows the location of the giant arc, why cant anyone know?
Wait, no one knows even knows where the giant hydrogen/mineral slurry powered carbon arc ~is~ in Sceptimatic's imagined world??
I thought he made it up being on top of some giant rise at the North Pole? Surrounded by the magic crystals.
What do I have wrong?
-
There you go yet again.
What do you mean?
You know what I mean. Stop playing dumb.
Tell me.
-
And why is it CROPPED and not hazy?
It is a sudden cutting of the bottom.
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
-
And if it were a reflection, as you say no one knows the location of the giant arc, why cant anyone know?
You can if you use logic.
Is it because no one can calculate angles made from circles and triangles?
You can calculate angles all you want but you need to know what for.
Or is it because no one can find an intensely giant hot arc in the middle of the desert?
Middle of Earth.
-
And why is it CROPPED and not hazy?
It is a sudden cutting of the bottom.
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
ok good
why don't we see cropping in any other scenario?
like underwater whales disappearing
like airplanes flying high up.
like the TOPs of high towers or mountains still being visible even though the equivalent distance is met and air density is negligbly not applicable?
-
I don't need a map. I can navigate using the one's that are in use to get to destinations over an Earth that is not a spinning globe.
Lets go back to basics then shall we. If the Earth is not a spinning globe then lets have the Sceptimatic explanation as to why we have day and night. Nice and simple.
I emphasize explanation. Not just claim. There is a difference.
As the sun reflection moves away and around the dome from you, it becomes night.
When it comes back over and around, it becomes day.
As simple as that.
So in your delusion laden mind,, What else is reflected by the dome? Or is it magic?
Where is the sun then.
Everything you see in that sky barring man made objects and icicles, etc, are reflections.
The sun as you see it's reflection is in the centre of Earth projecting out onto the dome along with many other points of light through crystals.
It gives us points of light and holographic images of what's going on inside.
In my theory.
So the blue of the sky, the clouds, etc are reflections? What is the blue sky a reflection of? I wont ask about the clouds as I think you misspoke and meant to include them as things not reflected.
They sky is simply down to colour spectrum to our eyes through wavelengths.
Clouds are just expanded molecules taking their place in the stack after breakdown.
So simply put, the sky is blue because it's blue and the clouds float because they the same density as the layer of the pressure gradient they occupy.
Now that's all nice but it isn't what I asked. You stated the sky is a reflection. A reflection of what? Are you saying it's the scattering of the light from the sun? If so why is it as homogeneously blue and not more of a gradient as you move further from the sun? Also why is the pressure higher at lower altitudes, why isn't the atmosphere equalized inside the dome if that's the container that's holding it in?
-
If the Sun and Moon are both just reflections onto a dome made of ice, then how do you explain the blotting out of the Sun by the Moon during a solar eclipse.
If they were just reflections there is no way the Moon could cut off the light from the Sun.
However if you take the Moon to be a solid object which is much nearer than the Sun then that would explain it perfectly. Light cannot shine through solid rock.
The sun is the moon hologram maker.
The reflection on the dome will regularly cut off a good part, leaving the moon partly obscured and in rare time, almost covered.
-
And why is it CROPPED and not hazy?
It is a sudden cutting of the bottom.
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
ok good
why don't we see cropping in any other scenario?
like underwater whales disappearing
like airplanes flying high up.
like the TOPs of high towers or mountains still being visible even though the equivalent distance is met and air density is negligbly not applicable?
Look back. I explained why.
-
no, you didnt, hence me asking
also
draw the circle with the triangle or justify this massive tilt.
yet another thing you haven't done yet.
-
So simply put, the sky is blue because it's blue and the clouds float because they the same density as the layer of the pressure gradient they occupy.
Now that's all nice but it isn't what I asked. You stated the sky is a reflection. A reflection of what?
Are you saying it's the scattering of the light from the sun? If so why is it as homogeneously blue and not more of a gradient as you move further from the sun?
It is.
Also why is the pressure higher at lower altitudes, why isn't the atmosphere equalized inside the dome if that's the container that's holding it in?
More densely packed molecules below than above.
-
no, you didnt, hence me asking
also
draw the circle with the triangle or justify this massive tilt.
yet another thing you haven't done yet.
I can't help you.
-
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
What is your evidence they are using a globe?
The evidence is that they are using a globe and say so, specifically, right on the map/chart that is required by the FAA. Here again:
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
So again:
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
-
no, you didnt, hence me asking
also
draw the circle with the triangle or justify this massive tilt.
yet another thing you haven't done yet.
I can't help you.
finally quitting after 168 of such confident "claims of 100% fact"!?
come now sceppy
a right angled triangle (opposite = 50ft, adjacent = 15,840ft, hypontenuse = ?)
at 50ft up vs ground level, to see 3miles out a distance of 15,840ft.
the extra distance between is less than 1ft ground vs up high..
yet people can see further.
is the air pressure different at 50ft? no, it's less than 1% and pressure is proportional to density.
so a distance of +1ft and a variation fo 1% density some how magically crops - CROPS - some how magically the view?
come on now sceppy...
or even easier,
it's just a big circle with a tiny triangel on it.
draw it.
logical and experimental failure debunked by a circle and a triangle.
forget these other guys talking abstract concepts like GPS vs maps and flights to antarctic that nobody does - you can't even get circles and triangles to agree with you!
-
So simply put, the sky is blue because it's blue and the clouds float because they the same density as the layer of the pressure gradient they occupy.
Now that's all nice but it isn't what I asked. You stated the sky is a reflection. A reflection of what?
Are you saying it's the scattering of the light from the sun? If so why is it as homogeneously blue and not more of a gradient as you move further from the sun?
It is.
Also why is the pressure higher at lower altitudes, why isn't the atmosphere equalized inside the dome if that's the container that's holding it in?
More densely packed molecules below than above.
Why isn't the blue more gradient since the sun's light only travels so far and is a reflection? Why blue, what mechanism makes the reflection blue?
Why do the more dense packed molecules go down? What mechanism makes them pack downwards?
-
Tell me.
Address the massive issues with your garbage first.
Again, the simple math shows that the tilt expected is 0.27 degrees. That is insignificant, not massive like you claim.
Either admit it isn't massive, or prove that it is massive, by doing the actual math, including the distance to the object and the size of Earth.
Likewise, simple math shows that your ability to see the RE depends on your elevation about it (in terms of the radius) and the FOV, including when looking through a tube.
Likewise, simple math shows that your ability to see the ground on a downwards slope depends on the gradient and FOV.
This is all highlighted by your refusal to answer simple questions as you know they clearly expose that you have been lying to everyone.
Stop avoiding them and answer these simple questions:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
We have been over this plenty of times.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Things simply shrink until they shrink to nothing at the vanishing point.
The vanishing point doesn't magically cut the bottom off objects.
You are trying to use 2 fundamentally different and completely incorrect explanations for why things disappear.
If it was simply perspective/convergence/vanishing point, things would simply shrink until they are unresolvable. Nothing would be ever be hidden.
If it was due to the atmosphere obscuring the object, then you have either a region of darkness, or it fading to a blur.
You have no explanation for why this large region is magically cut out.
You can if you use logic.
Again, do you understand what logic is?
Pretty much nothing you have said follows logic.
Instead, almost everything you say outright defies logic.
-
If the Sun and Moon are both just reflections onto a dome made of ice, then how do you explain the blotting out of the Sun by the Moon during a solar eclipse.
If they were just reflections there is no way the Moon could cut off the light from the Sun.
However if you take the Moon to be a solid object which is much nearer than the Sun then that would explain it perfectly. Light cannot shine through solid rock.
The sun is the moon hologram maker.
The reflection on the dome will regularly cut off a good part, leaving the moon partly obscured and in rare time, almost covered.
Ok, sceptimatic, ok.
So, now the sun is a reflection from the real sun, and the reflection dances up down and around under your dome. Does whatever it pleases, this sun, even though we only see it arc across the sky from our viewpoint on the ground.
So, where does the real sun sit? Behind an invisible cloud? Oh, please tell us all, sceptical one!
Why is it we can only see the reflected sun and not your real sun, under the canopy of the dome?
Your reflected sun is a reflection of your extreme fantasy prone paranoia. You couldn't sell ice to an eskimo, could you?
At least you've finally come up with an explanation for meteorites in theoretical sceptimatic world. Rocks dropping off the ceiling.
-
The reflection on the dome will regularly cut off a good part, leaving the moon partly obscured and in rare time, almost covered.
And just how will it do that exactly? How can one reflection cut off any part of another.
At the moment you are just stringing words (and seemingly random words) together to form a sentence which means nothing. You are just saying stuff like this because it sounds good to you without any consideration of whether it would actually work. You do realise just how many times brighter the Sun is than the Moon do you? At the time of a solar eclipse the Moon is new. Which means you cannot actually see it. If you can't see something then there is no reflection. Yet it still manages to blot out the Sun! Explain that.
A diagram showing exactly what you mean might help if you can stretch yourself that far.
-
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
We have been over this plenty of times.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Things simply shrink until they shrink to nothing at the vanishing point.
The vanishing point doesn't magically cut the bottom off objects.
You are trying to use 2 fundamentally different and completely incorrect explanations for why things disappear.
If it was simply perspective/convergence/vanishing point, things would simply shrink until they are unresolvable. Nothing would be ever be hidden.
If it was due to the atmosphere obscuring the object, then you have either a region of darkness, or it fading to a blur.
You have no explanation for why this large region is magically cut out.
You can if you use logic.
Again, do you understand what logic is?
Pretty much nothing you have said follows logic.
Instead, almost everything you say outright defies logic.
I didnt notice he said that.
If convergence such as railway tracks is why you (sceppy) think that the bottom is disappeared, then it should proprtionally converge, not suddenly and sharply - like a crop.
It woul squish down gradually over its height.
-
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Incorrect. The WGS-84 system pulls its data from a series of smaller flat maps: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
-
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Incorrect. The WGS-84 system pulls its data from a series of smaller flat maps: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Your wiki is a cherry-picked hot mess of garbage. A quote you failed to pluck and publish from one of the documents your craptastic wiki references:
“Geocentric datums
In the last 15 years, satellite data has provided geodesists with new measurements to define the best earth-fitting spheroid, which relates coordinates to the earth's center of mass. An earth-centered, or geocentric, datum uses the earth's center of mass as the origin. The most recently developed and widely used datum is WGS 1984. It serves as the framework for locational measurement worldwide.”
As well, in you’re cherry-picking haze, your wiki quotes from the same document:
“A projected coordinate system is defined on a flat, two-dimensional surface. Unlike a geographic coordinate system, a projected coordinate system has constant lengths, angles, and areas across the two dimensions.”
And of course, your classic disingenuous move is to omit the next sentence in the paragraph:
“A projected coordinate system is always based on a geographic coordinate system that is based on a sphere or spheroid.”
Interesting why you would leave off that last bit of the paragraph…
So no, it is you who are incorrect and being slippery and not forthright by plucking quotes and omitting others from a document and then falsely claiming they mean something that they don’t.
-
is the air pressure different at 50ft?
Yes. It's different at every millimetre, inch, foot, etc. It's stacked layers.
Think about it.
-
So simply put, the sky is blue because it's blue and the clouds float because they the same density as the layer of the pressure gradient they occupy.
Now that's all nice but it isn't what I asked. You stated the sky is a reflection. A reflection of what?
Are you saying it's the scattering of the light from the sun? If so why is it as homogeneously blue and not more of a gradient as you move further from the sun?
It is.
Also why is the pressure higher at lower altitudes, why isn't the atmosphere equalized inside the dome if that's the container that's holding it in?
More densely packed molecules below than above.
Why isn't the blue more gradient since the sun's light only travels so far and is a reflection? Why blue, what mechanism makes the reflection blue?
Why do the more dense packed molecules go down? What mechanism makes them pack downwards?
The blue is down to shorter wavelength of the colour spectrum.
-
Tell me.
Address the massive issues with your garbage first.
What massive issues?
-
If the Sun and Moon are both just reflections onto a dome made of ice, then how do you explain the blotting out of the Sun by the Moon during a solar eclipse.
If they were just reflections there is no way the Moon could cut off the light from the Sun.
However if you take the Moon to be a solid object which is much nearer than the Sun then that would explain it perfectly. Light cannot shine through solid rock.
The sun is the moon hologram maker.
The reflection on the dome will regularly cut off a good part, leaving the moon partly obscured and in rare time, almost covered.
Ok, sceptimatic, ok.
So, now the sun is a reflection from the real sun, and the reflection dances up down and around under your dome. Does whatever it pleases, this sun, even though we only see it arc across the sky from our viewpoint on the ground.
So, where does the real sun sit? Behind an invisible cloud? Oh, please tell us all, sceptical one!
Why is it we can only see the reflected sun and not your real sun, under the canopy of the dome?
Your reflected sun is a reflection of your extreme fantasy prone paranoia. You couldn't sell ice to an eskimo, could you?
At least you've finally come up with an explanation for meteorites in theoretical sceptimatic world. Rocks dropping off the ceiling.
Maybe, when you have time, read back to my explanations and you wouldn't need to come out with this.
You can't argue and get somewhere if you're not paying any attention to the explanations.
By all means have some fun but you're only making yourself giggle.
-
The reflection on the dome will regularly cut off a good part, leaving the moon partly obscured and in rare time, almost covered.
And just how will it do that exactly? How can one reflection cut off any part of another.
At the moment you are just stringing words (and seemingly random words) together to form a sentence which means nothing. You are just saying stuff like this because it sounds good to you without any consideration of whether it would actually work. You do realise just how many times brighter the Sun is than the Moon do you? At the time of a solar eclipse the Moon is new. Which means you cannot actually see it. If you can't see something then there is no reflection. Yet it still manages to blot out the Sun! Explain that.
A diagram showing exactly what you mean might help if you can stretch yourself that far.
The reflections are based on what's happening from the centre.
So things are happening in the centre.
Light is obscured , washed out and also angled on the dome.
There's all sorts going on.
Lots of refractions....etc.
-
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
We have been over this plenty of times.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Things simply shrink until they shrink to nothing at the vanishing point.
The vanishing point doesn't magically cut the bottom off objects.
You are trying to use 2 fundamentally different and completely incorrect explanations for why things disappear.
If it was simply perspective/convergence/vanishing point, things would simply shrink until they are unresolvable. Nothing would be ever be hidden.
If it was due to the atmosphere obscuring the object, then you have either a region of darkness, or it fading to a blur.
You have no explanation for why this large region is magically cut out.
You can if you use logic.
Again, do you understand what logic is?
Pretty much nothing you have said follows logic.
Instead, almost everything you say outright defies logic.
I didnt notice he said that.
If convergence such as railway tracks is why you (sceppy) think that the bottom is disappeared, then it should proprtionally converge, not suddenly and sharply - like a crop.
It woul squish down gradually over its height.
It does proportionally converge to your eye view.
Light shading cuts off the bottom back to your eye view, like I said.
-
The reflections are based on what's happening from the centre.
So things are happening in the centre.
Light is obscured , washed out and also angled on the dome.
There's all sorts going on.
Lots of refractions....etc.
Exactly what is 'happening' in the centre? Have you been there to find out for yourself?
There's all sorts going on.
Like what?
Is this all based on the results of your 'simple experiments'?
-
The reflections are based on what's happening from the centre.
So things are happening in the centre.
Light is obscured , washed out and also angled on the dome.
There's all sorts going on.
Lots of refractions....etc.
Exactly what is 'happening' in the centre? Have you been there to find out for yourself?
There's all sorts going on.
Like what?
Is this all based on the results of your 'simple experiments'?
Is this all you have?
-
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Incorrect. The WGS-84 system pulls its data from a series of smaller flat maps: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Hahaha!
And I can cherry pick quotes from your own cherry pickings:
The earth is approximately spherical
-
Is this all you have?
That is exactly what I am asking you. You are talking about all this 'stuff' happening in the centre of the Earth but you've said nothing about what that actually is.
-
Is this all you have?
That is exactly what I am asking you. You are talking about all this 'stuff' happening in the centre of the Earth but you've said nothing about what that actually is.
You're actually asking me if I've been to the centre of the Earth.
If this is all you can use then save yourself the effort.
-
Is this all you have?
That is exactly what I am asking you. You are talking about all this 'stuff' happening in the centre of the Earth but you've said nothing about what that actually is.
You're actually asking me if I've been to the centre of the Earth.
If this is all you can use then save yourself the effort.
He is asking about your imagined world.
You haven't been to the ice dome, you haven't seen gobstopper molecules, you have never seen the great Carbon Arc lamp or the Magic Crystals.
Yet you made these up, these ideas exist firmly in your imagination.
Why cant you make up what is going on at the center of your made up Earth? You seem like you are free to imagine whatever you would like, is there some reason your imagination fails here?
-
The reflections are based on what's happening from the centre.
So things are happening in the centre.
Light is obscured , washed out and also angled on the dome.
There's all sorts going on.
Lots of refractions....etc.
Exactly what is 'happening' in the centre?
Quote
There's all sorts going on.
Such as what?
See above. This is what I am asking you.
-
Incorrect. The WGS-84 system pulls its data from a series of smaller flat maps
Incorrect and irrelavent.
The WGS-84 system requires Earth to be a globe to produce accurate maps.
You can produce fairly accurate flat maps based upon specific projections.
-
Tell me.
Address the massive issues with your garbage first.
What massive issues?
The ones you keep ignoring, like your blatant lie that there should be a massive tilt when the trivial math shows it should be 0.27 degrees.
Like your blatant lie that the RE and a downwards slope would magically not be visible through a level tube.
The latter is addressed by the simple questions you continually avoid, and have ignored yet again.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
It does proportionally converge to your eye view.
Light shading cuts off the bottom back to your eye view, like I said.
You are contradicting yourself again.
If it proportionally converged it would simply appear smaller. It would not have the bottom cut off.
If the atmosphere was cutting off the bottom you would have a region of darkness/blur.
You want to claim that perspective magically makes that region of darkness/blur magically drop to nothing.
It makes no sense at all.
Again, your nonsense outright defies simple logic.
-
is the air pressure different at 50ft?
Yes. It's different at every millimetre, inch, foot, etc. It's stacked layers.a
Think about it.
You cropped the part where i agred its different
Its MASSIVELY different - 1% different!
That 1% is enough to crop the view!
-
The reflection on the dome will regularly cut off a good part, leaving the moon partly obscured and in rare time, almost covered.
And just how will it do that exactly? How can one reflection cut off any part of another.
At the moment you are just stringing words (and seemingly random words) together to form a sentence which means nothing. You are just saying stuff like this because it sounds good to you without any consideration of whether it would actually work. You do realise just how many times brighter the Sun is than the Moon do you? At the time of a solar eclipse the Moon is new. Which means you cannot actually see it. If you can't see something then there is no reflection. Yet it still manages to blot out the Sun! Explain that.
A diagram showing exactly what you mean might help if you can stretch yourself that far.
The reflections are based on what's happening from the centre.
So things are happening in the centre.
Light is obscured , washed out and also angled on the dome.
There's all sorts going on.
Lots of refractions....etc.
Define refraction, because it doesnt spund like it means what we all know it means based on your context
-
Your wiki is a cherry-picked hot mess of garbage. A quote you failed to pluck and publish from one of the documents your craptastic wiki references:
“Geocentric datums
In the last 15 years, satellite data has provided geodesists with new measurements to define the best earth-fitting spheroid, which relates coordinates to the earth's center of mass. An earth-centered, or geocentric, datum uses the earth's center of mass as the origin. The most recently developed and widely used datum is WGS 1984. It serves as the framework for locational measurement worldwide.”
Actually, that's exactly what the page says. There is a 3D spheroid model involved, but the data actually comes from the flat maps.
As well, in you’re cherry-picking haze, your wiki quotes from the same document:
“A projected coordinate system is defined on a flat, two-dimensional surface. Unlike a geographic coordinate system, a projected coordinate system has constant lengths, angles, and areas across the two dimensions.”
And of course, your classic disingenuous move is to omit the next sentence in the paragraph:
“A projected coordinate system is always based on a geographic coordinate system that is based on a sphere or spheroid.”
Interesting why you would leave off that last bit of the paragraph…
So no, it is you who are incorrect and being slippery and not forthright by plucking quotes and omitting others from a document and then falsely claiming they mean something that they don’t.
It's irrelevant if anyone thinks that flat maps are ultimately based on a sphere. The fact is that the measurements come from physically flat maps and not round ones. Utah's Automatic Geographic Reference Center's article explaining that the data is coming from flat maps is titled The Earth is Not Round (https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984#The_Earth_is_Not_Round.21). It is pretty dishonest of you to read this article and conclude that it is talking about a system which distributes round earth measurements.
-
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
We have been over this plenty of times.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Things simply shrink until they shrink to nothing at the vanishing point.
The vanishing point doesn't magically cut the bottom off objects.
You are trying to use 2 fundamentally different and completely incorrect explanations for why things disappear.
If it was simply perspective/convergence/vanishing point, things would simply shrink until they are unresolvable. Nothing would be ever be hidden.
If it was due to the atmosphere obscuring the object, then you have either a region of darkness, or it fading to a blur.
You have no explanation for why this large region is magically cut out.
You can if you use logic.
Again, do you understand what logic is?
Pretty much nothing you have said follows logic.
Instead, almost everything you say outright defies logic.
I didnt notice he said that.
If convergence such as railway tracks is why you (sceppy) think that the bottom is disappeared, then it should proprtionally converge, not suddenly and sharply - like a crop.
It woul squish down gradually over its height.
It does proportionally converge to your eye view.
Light shading cuts off the bottom back to your eye view, like I said.
Yes
Like you said
But CROPPED is NOT PROPORTIONALLY CONVERGE.
cropped = cut
Proprtionally converging = the thing shrinking down gradually.
You would still see the bottom.
It would be squished.
And rhe middle would be slightly squished.
So no
You have RESPONDED to the question but
You have not ANSWERED the question.
-
You have RESPONDED to the question but
You have not ANSWERED the question.
I have answered the questions but you lot don't accept the answers. That's not my issue.
-
It's cropped because that is your vanishing point. Your convergence to meet a theoretical line and what is within it, is lost...hence why your turbine bottom is lost, or a ships hull or whatever.
We have been over this plenty of times.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Things simply shrink until they shrink to nothing at the vanishing point.
The vanishing point doesn't magically cut the bottom off objects.
You are trying to use 2 fundamentally different and completely incorrect explanations for why things disappear.
If it was simply perspective/convergence/vanishing point, things would simply shrink until they are unresolvable. Nothing would be ever be hidden.
If it was due to the atmosphere obscuring the object, then you have either a region of darkness, or it fading to a blur.
You have no explanation for why this large region is magically cut out.
You can if you use logic.
Again, do you understand what logic is?
Pretty much nothing you have said follows logic.
Instead, almost everything you say outright defies logic.
I didnt notice he said that.
If convergence such as railway tracks is why you (sceppy) think that the bottom is disappeared, then it should proprtionally converge, not suddenly and sharply - like a crop.
It woul squish down gradually over its height.
It does proportionally converge to your eye view.
Light shading cuts off the bottom back to your eye view, like I said.
Yes
Like you said
But CROPPED is NOT PROPORTIONALLY CONVERGE.
cropped = cut
Proprtionally converging = the thing shrinking down gradually.
You would still see the bottom.
It would be squished.
And rhe middle would be slightly squished.
So no
You have RESPONDED to the question but
You have not ANSWERED the question.
Fine
Follow up to the orignal question you "answered" -
How does a 1% change in air, which happens in natural weather changes, block whole chunks of an object?
I see a pattern here where you delete the undesirable parts of the questions.
Keep dodging.
Draw the circle-triangle.
-
Draw the circle-triangle.
Let me know when you've got something.
-
Aldready did
My picture reasonably matches jackb calcualtion.
Two separate sources using two different methods came to the same conclusion.
Youve yet to even provide a number.
Quit dodging.
What is the massive tilt?
-
Aldready did
My picture reasonably matches jackb calcualtion.
Two separate sources using two different methods came to the same conclusion.
Youve yet to even provide a number.
Quit dodging.
What is the massive tilt?
If you want to argue facts then present them. Don't present something you cannot prove to be real, unless you want to present it as merely an accepted theory.
-
Your wiki is a cherry-picked hot mess of garbage. A quote you failed to pluck and publish from one of the documents your craptastic wiki references:
“Geocentric datums
In the last 15 years, satellite data has provided geodesists with new measurements to define the best earth-fitting spheroid, which relates coordinates to the earth's center of mass. An earth-centered, or geocentric, datum uses the earth's center of mass as the origin. The most recently developed and widely used datum is WGS 1984. It serves as the framework for locational measurement worldwide.”
Actually, that's exactly what the page says. There is a 3D spheroid model involved, but the data actually comes from the flat maps.
As well, in you’re cherry-picking haze, your wiki quotes from the same document:
“A projected coordinate system is defined on a flat, two-dimensional surface. Unlike a geographic coordinate system, a projected coordinate system has constant lengths, angles, and areas across the two dimensions.”
And of course, your classic disingenuous move is to omit the next sentence in the paragraph:
“A projected coordinate system is always based on a geographic coordinate system that is based on a sphere or spheroid.”
Interesting why you would leave off that last bit of the paragraph…
So no, it is you who are incorrect and being slippery and not forthright by plucking quotes and omitting others from a document and then falsely claiming they mean something that they don’t.
It's irrelevant if anyone thinks that flat maps are ultimately based on a sphere. The fact is that the measurements come from physically flat maps and not round ones. Utah's Automatic Geographic Reference Center's article explaining that the data is coming from flat maps is titled The Earth is Not Round (https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984#The_Earth_is_Not_Round.21). It is pretty dishonest of you to read this article and conclude that it is talking about a system which distributes round earth measurements.
From your own wiki quote:
“Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth).”
State plane coordinate systems...are now based on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
See that, based on! From another reference in your wiki, "The Earth is Not Round": North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) "is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum.”
What is the GRS 80? "The Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS 80) is a geodetic reference system consisting of a global reference ellipsoid and a normal gravity model.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_Reference_System_1980#:~:text=The%20Geodetic%20Reference%20System%201980,and%20a%20normal%20gravity%20model.
See that? "global reference ellipsoid”. You know what an ellipsoid is, right? In case not, here’s what one looks like:
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benziane-Lotfi/publication/282298167/figure/fig2/AS:371158194114566@1465502417861/2-ECEF-NED-and-Geodetic-Coordinates-systems.png)
So no, your wiki is garbage. You have once again cherry-picked your way, removing all context, to come up with a completely incorrect, false set of statements. The data does not come from “flat maps”. Everything says the opposite if you read the entirety of each of your references and not just pluck out a line here or there out of context.
GRS 80 (Ellipsoid) > NAD83 > State Plane map converted from Longitude and Latitude (NAD83) to Cartesian Coordinates. Not the other way around.
As for WGS, the main difference between NAD 83 and WGS 84: "The North American 1983 datum (NAD83) uses the Geodetic Reference System (GRS80) ellipsoid while the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) uses the WGS 84 ellipsoid. The dimensions of these ellipsoids differ slightly.”
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-desktop/mapping/wgs84-vs-nad83/
And see that? Both ellipsoids.
Talk about dishonesty? Stop cherry-picking and plucking quotes out of context and making up a narrative that doesn't exist.
And at the end of the day, the discussion is regarding aeronautical charts the FAA requires use by all US commercial and private pilots. And as previously evidenced, these charts use a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection” - A globe projection and WGS 84 - Ellipsoid datum. Period.
-
Aldready did
My picture reasonably matches jackb calcualtion.
Two separate sources using two different methods came to the same conclusion.
Youve yet to even provide a number.
Quit dodging.
What is the massive tilt?
If you want to argue facts then present them. Don't present something you cannot prove to be real, unless you want to present it as merely an accepted theory.
The circle is a very real shape.
Are we to understand that a circle is only a circle when it physically exists in the 3d world?
Are we to understand that when circles grow to different sizes, angles will grow with them - We get more degrees?
Are circles not real shapes?
You keep digging yourself into a stupider hole each time you refuse to answer the question.
Holes
Can a hole be a circle?
Its technially an absence of something.
So... is it impossible to measure?
Maube you can ask danag how to circle.
-
So simply put, the sky is blue because it's blue and the clouds float because they the same density as the layer of the pressure gradient they occupy.
Now that's all nice but it isn't what I asked. You stated the sky is a reflection. A reflection of what?
Are you saying it's the scattering of the light from the sun? If so why is it as homogeneously blue and not more of a gradient as you move further from the sun?
It is.
Also why is the pressure higher at lower altitudes, why isn't the atmosphere equalized inside the dome if that's the container that's holding it in?
More densely packed molecules below than above.
Why isn't the blue more gradient since the sun's light only travels so far and is a reflection? Why blue, what mechanism makes the reflection blue?
Why do the more dense packed molecules go down? What mechanism makes them pack downwards?
The blue is down to shorter wavelength of the colour spectrum.
I fully understand how color works, blue is a higher frequency. But that's not what I asked. What mechanism makes the reflected light that frequency?
You also ignored the second part of my question about pressure gradients and why they are a thing and why in the direction it is. What mechanism makes the higher density go down?
-
There is a 3D spheroid model involved, but the data actually comes from the flat maps.
No, the data actually comes from Earth itself, not flat maps of Earth.
A small region can be represented on a flat map, but not all of Earth.
That spheroid model is required to put all the data together to make a model of the entire Earth which is accurate.
It's irrelevant if anyone thinks that flat maps are ultimately based on a sphere.
That's right, the fact, which is actually important, is that in order to make all the measurements work, rather than ending up with massive distortions, is to have that on a roughly spherical surface.
You cannot produce a map of Earth, which is flat, which includes the entire Earth without massive distortion.
It is pretty dishonest of you
It is pretty dishonest of you to continually quote mine and cherry pick to pretend this is based upon a FE, rather than quite clearly showing Earth is round.
But that is expected as you can't use reality to back up the FE.
-
I have answered the questions but you lot don't accept the answers. That's not my issue.
No, you deflected and refused to answer the question, instead trying to answer a different question. You have not addressed the issues raised.
And that is your issue, not ours.
If you want to argue facts then present them.
You have been presented with facts, which have been justified through the use of irrefutable logical arguments and math, and you just ignore them.
For example, it is a FACT that on the RE, the tilt for those turbines would be a tiny 0.27 degrees.
This was justified through irrefutable math.
But because that means you can't just irrational attack, you ignore those facts and instead continue to spout lies, falsely claiming the tilt should be massive.
Just like it is a fact, again proved through irrefutable logical arguments and math, that your ability to see the RE through a level tube is dependent on your FOV through that tube, how high you are above Earth, and the radius of Earth.
Plenty of things have been provided to you as facts backed up by irrefutable arguments. As you cannot argue against them, you just ignore them and continue to spout your pathetic lies.
So how about you start providing facts for a change, and not just the fact, but also a justification of those facts, or you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
Or just answer these trivial questions, by either providing an answer, which is justified through logic and/or math; or admit you don't have any idea what the answer is:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
Whats 0.3degrees on a 50ft turbine?
3in.
So massive?!!
Unless scepyy has a difderent value.
-
From your own wiki quote:
“Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth).”
State plane coordinate systems...are now based on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
See that, based on! From another reference in your wiki, "The Earth is Not Round": North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) "is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum.”
What is the GRS 80? "The Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS 80) is a geodetic reference system consisting of a global reference ellipsoid and a normal gravity model.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_Reference_System_1980#:~:text=The%20Geodetic%20Reference%20System%201980,and%20a%20normal%20gravity%20model.
See that? "global reference ellipsoid”. You know what an ellipsoid is, right? In case not, here’s what one looks like:
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benziane-Lotfi/publication/282298167/figure/fig2/AS:371158194114566@1465502417861/2-ECEF-NED-and-Geodetic-Coordinates-systems.png)
So no, your wiki is garbage. You have once again cherry-picked your way, removing all context, to come up with a completely incorrect, false set of statements. The data does not come from “flat maps”. Everything says the opposite if you read the entirety of each of your references and not just pluck out a line here or there out of context.
GRS 80 (Ellipsoid) > NAD83 > State Plane map converted from Longitude and Latitude (NAD83) to Cartesian Coordinates. Not the other way around.
As for WGS, the main difference between NAD 83 and WGS 84: "The North American 1983 datum (NAD83) uses the Geodetic Reference System (GRS80) ellipsoid while the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) uses the WGS 84 ellipsoid. The dimensions of these ellipsoids differ slightly.”
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-desktop/mapping/wgs84-vs-nad83/
And see that? Both ellipsoids.
Talk about dishonesty? Stop cherry-picking and plucking quotes out of context and making up a narrative that doesn't exist.
And at the end of the day, the discussion is regarding aeronautical charts the FAA requires use by all US commercial and private pilots. And as previously evidenced, these charts use a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection” - A globe projection and WGS 84 - Ellipsoid datum. Period.
No. You have zero sources for your interpretation. Your argument is based on the quote "The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid" and ignorantly bold "ellipsoid".
The truth is that you are just ignorant of this. The systems are explained here:
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html
Spatial Reference Systems or Coordinate Systems, include two common types:
1. Geographic Coordinate Systems: Location on an ellipsoid is defined by latitude and longitude that specifies the angle between any point and the equator, and the angle between any point and the prime meridian.
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/01%20SphericalCoordinates/LatLonOnEarth.png)
2. Projected Coordinate Systems: Location is defined on a flat surface using Cartesian coordinates (i.e., x and y) that specify horizontal and vertical position.
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Images2/projectedcs.png)
All projected coordinate systems are based on a GCS (geographic coordinate system)
Try not to confuse this with the more general terms:
- Spherical Coordinate System
- Rectangular Coordinate System
Esri uses the following terms to refer to spatial reference systems:
- Coordinate System
- Spatial Reference System
- Projection:
- The "Project" tool is really a Spatial Reference System transformation tool "PRJ" files contain an entire spatial reference, not just a projection Geographic Coordinate Systems (GCS)
A geographic coordinate system or GCS consists of:
- Datum (which includes the ellipsoid)
- Prime Meridian (almost always Greenwich England)
- Units (always degrees)
A GCS includes an ellipsoid, a prime meridian, and units. Almost every GCS in use has the prime meridian at Greenwich England and the units are always in degrees. Because of this, the GCS really just provides the datum. Since the datum just includes the ellipsoid, or shape of the earth, we can consider a GCS to just include an ellipsoid..
You can see the contents of a GCS by opening a ".prj" file for a shapefile in "Notepad" or another text editing application. Use the ".prj" from a shapefile containing data in geographic coordinates and you'll see the datum, ellipsoid, units, and prime meridian for that data set.
Projected Coordinate Systems (PCS)
Projected Coordinate Systems consist of:
- Geographic Coordinate System (see above)
- Projection Method
- Projection Parameters
- Units
Projected coordinate systems use rectangular or Cartesian Coordinates. You learned about rectangular coordinate systems in geometry and used X and Y as the values. In GIS, we use X and Y but also "Easting" for X and "Northing" for Y.
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/Images/pcs.png)
Spatial References For Spatial Analysis
For spatial analysis, we should almost always use a projected coordinate system. The most commonly used systems for Humboldt County are:
- WGS 84, UTM Zone 10 North (preferred)
- NAD 83, UTM Zone 10 North
- NAD27, California State Plane I (feet is implied)
- NAD 83, California State Plane I US Feet (feet is required because it could also be in meters)
The above systems are described as projected coordinate systems; planar x-y systems.
On the backend of it there is a round model it connects to for translation, but 'NAD27 California State Plane 1' itself is flat.
From Utah's The Earth is Not Round! article:
https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/
"Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere."
"Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, except along parallels -- individual perfectly east-west lines."
" Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83).
“ UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum ”
And
"UTM NAD83 is the best coordinate system for collecting and analyzing GIS data statewide, especially any business need that uses length, area, or geoprocessing."
It is clearly saying that it prefers the measurements in the projected (flat) coordinate system. Hence the title of the article.
Once again, the title of the article is The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections, clearly indicating that the data is not being computed on spherical assumptions. The data for the systems is coming from flat datasets.
Hence your assessment is just rubbish and I would encourage you to learn more about this.
-
Aldready did
My picture reasonably matches jackb calcualtion.
Two separate sources using two different methods came to the same conclusion.
Youve yet to even provide a number.
Quit dodging.
What is the massive tilt?
If you want to argue facts then present them. Don't present something you cannot prove to be real, unless you want to present it as merely an accepted theory.
You mean like what you're doing? All you are doing is proposing your theory (which is accepted by only one person - yourself) and allowing it to be heavily scrutinised, pulled apart, and ridiculed.
What are you planning on doing with your theory, sceptimatic? Are you writing a book on it for the flat earth book section in your local library and any irreputable book seller?
-
Once again, the title of the article is The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections, clearly indicating that the data is not being computed on spherical assumptions. The data for the systems is coming from flat datasets.
Hence your assessment is just rubbish and I would encourage you to learn more about this.
Classic and hilarious. You should teach a master class in cherry-picking what you think supports your assertions and omitting the context that clearly shows your assertions are patently false.
From the link you shared: Introduction to Coordinate Systems / Spatial Reference Systems
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html
You failed to include the second page (https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Definitions2.html) where it states:
"Definition of Projecting
The earth is an ellipsoid. To view spatial data on paper and computer screens, we need to project the data onto a 2d surface. This is called "projecting”.[/i]"
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Images2/Projecting.png)
Followed by a quick little quiz:
"Test Your Knowledge
A coordinate in a projected system is defined by:
A) (x,y) or (Easting,Northing)
B) (x,y) or (Latitude,Longitude)
c) (Latitude,Longitude)
Which of the following is the best definition of projecting in GIS?
A) Converting a rectangular data into spherical data
B) Converting a spherical data into rectangular data
C) When slides are projected on a wal[/i]l"
Specifically the second test question. I'll give you a hint, it's not A and it's not C. Go ahead and poke on those two and see how incorrect you are.
No where does it say anywhere that the "data for the systems is coming from flat datasets". It says the exact opposite. The data is coming from a spherical (ellipsoid) model. Like I stated before:
GRS 80 (Ellipsoid) > NAD83 > State Plane map converted from Longitude and Latitude (NAD83) to Cartesian Coordinates. Not the other way around.
Maybe you should go through the entirety of the Humboldt State U Geospacial course you referenced. You may actually learn something.
-
Aaa tomB aruging maps.
Like the time he used the mercator to argue his theory on why prevailing wind currents flip at the equator.
Brilliant.
-
Maube you can ask danag how to circle.
What the hell does this mean?
-
What mechanism makes the higher density go down?
Stacking.
-
Aldready did
My picture reasonably matches jackb calcualtion.
Two separate sources using two different methods came to the same conclusion.
Youve yet to even provide a number.
Quit dodging.
What is the massive tilt?
If you want to argue facts then present them. Don't present something you cannot prove to be real, unless you want to present it as merely an accepted theory.
You mean like what you're doing? All you are doing is proposing your theory (which is accepted by only one person - yourself) and allowing it to be heavily scrutinised, pulled apart, and ridiculed.
It is just a theory and you can't pull apart something you do not understand.
As for ridiculing. I see attempts that are laughable, nothing more.
What are you planning on doing with your theory, sceptimatic?
Expanding it.
Are you writing a book on it for the flat earth book section in your local library and any irreputable book seller?
I know what I'm doing. What you think I'm doing is your own imagined thoughts and you are welcome to them.
-
Aldready did
My picture reasonably matches jackb calcualtion.
Two separate sources using two different methods came to the same conclusion.
Youve yet to even provide a number.
Quit dodging.
What is the massive tilt?
If you want to argue facts then present them. Don't present something you cannot prove to be real, unless you want to present it as merely an accepted theory.
You mean like what you're doing? All you are doing is proposing your theory (which is accepted by only one person - yourself) and allowing it to be heavily scrutinised, pulled apart, and ridiculed.
It is just a theory and you can't pull apart something you do not understand.
As for ridiculing. I see attempts that are laughable, nothing more.
What are you planning on doing with your theory, sceptimatic?
Expanding it.
Are you writing a book on it for the flat earth book section in your local library and any irreputable book seller?
I know what I'm doing. What you think I'm doing is your own imagined thoughts and you are welcome to them.
Hey, I was only asking what you are doing. I know you know what you are doing. There's no harm is asking. I don't know what you are doing, and you have the right not to say.
You and I both experience this world in it's immediacy as being on a flat plane. Our view of the bigger picture of this world, is what is different. If the entire earth is flattish to you, then that is your experience. That is your reality. I don't feel a desire to explore your reality any further. It's yours and you're welcome to it.
See you in AR to say farewell.
-
What are you planning on doing with your theory, sceptimatic?
Expanding it.
Very pleased to hear this, looking forward to hearing new things about your imagined world.
-
So Sceptimatic believes that the Sun that we is a reflection off a dome made of ice of the centre of the Earth. Given the albedo of ice, just how likely is that to be true?
-
Hey, I was only asking what you are doing. I know you know what you are doing. There's no harm is asking. I don't know what you are doing, and you have the right not to say.
We all have a right to say what we want until that right is taken away.
You and I both experience this world in it's immediacy as being on a flat plane. Our view of the bigger picture of this world, is what is different.
Yep but you have the potential to look alternately to what was basically battered into your head, just like I did.
I just think you feel more comfortable going with the mass flow and that's fine....but, I thought you may be stronger than that.
If the entire earth is flattish to you, then that is your experience. That is your reality.
Yep.
I don't feel a desire to explore your reality any further. It's yours and you're welcome to it.
That's entirely up to you, as you know but like I said earlier, I think you have a mind to explore alternate ideas.
That doesn't mean you have to banish the indoctrinated view. Just place it aside and not allow it to impede alternate research.
See you in AR to say farewell.
Not sure what that means, unless it means you're leaving the forum. If that's the case I'd ask you to rethink and maybe look at things another way. You have nothing to lose and you may just gain a different, more interesting outlook.
I hope you stay around, seriously.
-
What are you planning on doing with your theory, sceptimatic?
Expanding it.
Very pleased to hear this, looking forward to hearing new things about your imagined world.
There's a lot to explain and a lot to grasp for those who want to.
It means nothing to those who just want to fight.
-
So Sceptimatic believes that the Sun that we is a reflection off a dome made of ice of the centre of the Earth. Given the albedo of ice, just how likely is that to be true?
If you actually paid attention to all of what I say then you would get a clear picture of why it works from my side.
-
What are you planning on doing with your theory, sceptimatic?
Expanding it.
Very pleased to hear this, looking forward to hearing new things about your imagined world.
There's a lot to explain and a lot to grasp for those who want to.
It means nothing to those who just want to fight.
Totally agree. There is no reason to fight with anyones imagination. You are perfectly free to make up any world in your mind at all.
-
Totally agree. There is no reason to fight with anyones imagination. You are perfectly free to make up any world in your mind at all.
And you are free to have faith in the model that's been presented to you through books and pictures, etc.
I have no issue with you following that.
-
If you actually paid attention to all of what I say then you would get a clear picture of why it works from my side.
I don't think anyone has managed to get a clear picture of how anything works from your side. However if reflection is involved in any part of how you think it 'works' then since albedo is a function of reflection it is therefore relevant.
-
So Sceptimatic believes that the Sun that we is a reflection off a dome made of ice of the centre of the Earth. Given the albedo of ice, just how likely is that to be true?
If you actually paid attention to all of what I say then you would get a clear picture of why it works from my side.
Yes, you need to pay attention Solarwind! There is a super carbon arc lamp at the north pole, fed by a whirlwind of mineral/hydrogen slurry, and whose light reflects off spinning Magic Crystals that surround it in order to produce holographic projections on a frozen hydrogen / helium ice dome above us.
So the sun is a hologram, not a standard reflection! Apparently the moon is some sort of secondary holographic reflection of the sun, but I have to admit I dont get this part of his imagined world so well, but I'm paying attention and hoping to learn more!
-
Classic and hilarious. You should teach a master class in cherry-picking what you think supports your assertions and omitting the context that clearly shows your assertions are patently false.
From the link you shared: Introduction to Coordinate Systems / Spatial Reference Systems
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html
You failed to include the second page (https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Definitions2.html) where it states:
Wait, so after all this you accept that the data and calculations are on physically flat maps, but now your argument is to post statements suggesting they think that the small local flat maps come from a sphere?
Looks like your argument has recessed to the point to where you think that WGS84 is a Flat Earth mapping system.
If you think that the data and calculations are based on physically flat maps, then it utterly destroys your case. We can clearly see that your argument had no merit if it had to degrade to this point.
-
Classic and hilarious. You should teach a master class in cherry-picking what you think supports your assertions and omitting the context that clearly shows your assertions are patently false.
From the link you shared: Introduction to Coordinate Systems / Spatial Reference Systems
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html
You failed to include the second page (https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Definitions2.html) where it states:
Wait, so after all this you accept that the data and calculations are on physically flat maps, but now your argument is to post statements suggesting they think that the small local flat maps come from a sphere?
Looks like your argument has recessed to the point to where you think that WGS84 is a Flat Earth mapping system.
If you think that the data and calculations are based on physically flat maps, then it utterly destroys your case. We can clearly see that your argument had no merit if it had to degrade to this point.
Hi Tom,
As it seems you are interested in maps, hoping I can ask you a question?
What do you feel is the biggest obstacle for the flat earth community to create an accurate flat map of the world? From an outside point of view, this seems like a fairly straightforward task, it seems we have lots of knowledge about the relative position of landmarks around the world, how far they are apart, the direction one has to travel to get from point A to point B.
What is the problem with just using what we know to construct a flat map of the world using simple triangulation? Why does this not work?
Or, if you think that flat maps are the most accurate, could we not just piece together all the flat maps into a world map? What is the problem with this?
Maps seem so basic, so simple, can you see how it seems strange to an outsider that you dont have one of the world you think you live on?
-
Yes, you need to pay attention Solarwind! There is a super carbon arc lamp at the north pole, fed by a whirlwind of mineral/hydrogen slurry, and whose light reflects off spinning Magic Crystals that surround it in order to produce holographic projections on a frozen hydrogen / helium ice dome above us.
So the sun is a hologram, not a standard reflection! Apparently the moon is some sort of secondary holographic reflection of the sun, but I have to admit I dont get this part of his imagined world so well, but I'm paying attention and hoping to learn more!
Of course! How stupid of me to fail to realise any of this...we should all be so indebted to Sceptimatic for bringing all this to our attention and explaining so fully and clearly how we've lived our lives to date indoctrinated by everything that those in 'authority' tell us..
I will spend the afternoon filling my incinerator with all my astronomy and physics texts books which are obviously full of lies.
-
Yes, you need to pay attention Solarwind! There is a super carbon arc lamp at the north pole, fed by a whirlwind of mineral/hydrogen slurry, and whose light reflects off spinning Magic Crystals that surround it in order to produce holographic projections on a frozen hydrogen / helium ice dome above us.
So the sun is a hologram, not a standard reflection! Apparently the moon is some sort of secondary holographic reflection of the sun, but I have to admit I dont get this part of his imagined world so well, but I'm paying attention and hoping to learn more!
Of course! How stupid of me to fail to realise any of this...we should all be so indebted to Sceptimatic for bringing all this to our attention and explaining so fully and clearly how we've lived our lives to date indoctrinated by everything that those in 'authority' tell us..
I will spend the afternoon filling my incinerator with all my astronomy and physics texts books which are obviously full of lies.
Keep in mind though that he never claims any of this is reality, and in fact clearly says again and again that he is NOT claiming this as reality.
He knows it is just a world he has made up in his mind. A safe little space where he has control over everything because it is all just in his imagination. It all 'fits' and 'works' for him only because he tells himself that it does and imagines that it does.
-
From your own wiki quote:
“Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth).”
State plane coordinate systems...are now based on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
See that, based on! From another reference in your wiki, "The Earth is Not Round": North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) "is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum.”
What is the GRS 80? "The Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS 80) is a geodetic reference system consisting of a global reference ellipsoid and a normal gravity model.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_Reference_System_1980#:~:text=The%20Geodetic%20Reference%20System%201980,and%20a%20normal%20gravity%20model.
See that? "global reference ellipsoid”. You know what an ellipsoid is, right? In case not, here’s what one looks like:
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benziane-Lotfi/publication/282298167/figure/fig2/AS:371158194114566@1465502417861/2-ECEF-NED-and-Geodetic-Coordinates-systems.png)
So no, your wiki is garbage. You have once again cherry-picked your way, removing all context, to come up with a completely incorrect, false set of statements. The data does not come from “flat maps”. Everything says the opposite if you read the entirety of each of your references and not just pluck out a line here or there out of context.
GRS 80 (Ellipsoid) > NAD83 > State Plane map converted from Longitude and Latitude (NAD83) to Cartesian Coordinates. Not the other way around.
As for WGS, the main difference between NAD 83 and WGS 84: "The North American 1983 datum (NAD83) uses the Geodetic Reference System (GRS80) ellipsoid while the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) uses the WGS 84 ellipsoid. The dimensions of these ellipsoids differ slightly.”
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-desktop/mapping/wgs84-vs-nad83/
And see that? Both ellipsoids.
Talk about dishonesty? Stop cherry-picking and plucking quotes out of context and making up a narrative that doesn't exist.
And at the end of the day, the discussion is regarding aeronautical charts the FAA requires use by all US commercial and private pilots. And as previously evidenced, these charts use a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection” - A globe projection and WGS 84 - Ellipsoid datum. Period.
No. You have zero sources for your interpretation. Your argument is based on the quote "The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid" and ignorantly bold "ellipsoid".
The truth is that you are just ignorant of this. The systems are explained here:
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html
Spatial Reference Systems or Coordinate Systems, include two common types:
1. Geographic Coordinate Systems: Location on an ellipsoid is defined by latitude and longitude that specifies the angle between any point and the equator, and the angle between any point and the prime meridian.
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/01%20SphericalCoordinates/LatLonOnEarth.png)
2. Projected Coordinate Systems: Location is defined on a flat surface using Cartesian coordinates (i.e., x and y) that specify horizontal and vertical position.
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Images2/projectedcs.png)
All projected coordinate systems are based on a GCS (geographic coordinate system)
Try not to confuse this with the more general terms:
- Spherical Coordinate System
- Rectangular Coordinate System
Esri uses the following terms to refer to spatial reference systems:
- Coordinate System
- Spatial Reference System
- Projection:
- The "Project" tool is really a Spatial Reference System transformation tool "PRJ" files contain an entire spatial reference, not just a projection Geographic Coordinate Systems (GCS)
A geographic coordinate system or GCS consists of:
- Datum (which includes the ellipsoid)
- Prime Meridian (almost always Greenwich England)
- Units (always degrees)
A GCS includes an ellipsoid, a prime meridian, and units. Almost every GCS in use has the prime meridian at Greenwich England and the units are always in degrees. Because of this, the GCS really just provides the datum. Since the datum just includes the ellipsoid, or shape of the earth, we can consider a GCS to just include an ellipsoid..
You can see the contents of a GCS by opening a ".prj" file for a shapefile in "Notepad" or another text editing application. Use the ".prj" from a shapefile containing data in geographic coordinates and you'll see the datum, ellipsoid, units, and prime meridian for that data set.
Projected Coordinate Systems (PCS)
Projected Coordinate Systems consist of:
- Geographic Coordinate System (see above)
- Projection Method
- Projection Parameters
- Units
Projected coordinate systems use rectangular or Cartesian Coordinates. You learned about rectangular coordinate systems in geometry and used X and Y as the values. In GIS, we use X and Y but also "Easting" for X and "Northing" for Y.
(https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/Images/pcs.png)
Spatial References For Spatial Analysis
For spatial analysis, we should almost always use a projected coordinate system. The most commonly used systems for Humboldt County are:
- WGS 84, UTM Zone 10 North (preferred)
- NAD 83, UTM Zone 10 North
- NAD27, California State Plane I (feet is implied)
- NAD 83, California State Plane I US Feet (feet is required because it could also be in meters)
The above systems are described as projected coordinate systems; planar x-y systems.
On the backend of it there is a round model it connects to for translation, but 'NAD27 California State Plane 1' itself is flat.
From Utah's The Earth is Not Round! article:
https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/
"Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere."
"Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, except along parallels -- individual perfectly east-west lines."
" Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83).
“ UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum ”
And
"UTM NAD83 is the best coordinate system for collecting and analyzing GIS data statewide, especially any business need that uses length, area, or geoprocessing."
It is clearly saying that it prefers the measurements in the projected (flat) coordinate system. Hence the title of the article.
Once again, the title of the article is The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections, clearly indicating that the data is not being computed on spherical assumptions. The data for the systems is coming from flat datasets.
Hence your assessment is just rubbish and I would encourage you to learn more about this.
Can you really not even follow the articles you cite?
It’s clearly saying that UTM NAD83 is more accurate than web Mercator, because it uses a slightly ellipsoidal projection, instead of a perfectly spherical projection.
Ellipsoidal is not flat!
-
Keep in mind though that he never claims any of this is reality, and in fact clearly says again and again that he is NOT claiming this as reality.
He knows it is just a world he has made up in his mind. A safe little space where he has control over everything because it is all just in his imagination. It all 'fits' and 'works' for him only because he tells himself that it does and imagines that it does.
Of course and 'at the end of the day' we can all make up a different world with an alternative version of 'reality' in our minds. That's what the writers of science fiction do all the time. We can make anything happen and anything possible or real in our minds eye. Sceptimatic is no exception. Belief sees no boundaries.
Equally though he dismisses our models as nonsense and obviously we cannot all be right... or wrong.
-
He said 100%fact
And then pg's later
I his opinion
Hes a pos.
-
He said 100%fact
And then pg's later
I his opinion
Hes a pos.
No, I didn't.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.
-
He said 100%fact
And then pg's later
I his opinion
Hes a pos.
No, I didn't.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.
Projecting a tad today huh.
-
He said 100%fact
And then pg's later
I his opinion
Hes a pos.
No, I didn't.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.
great
you don't like what we made up.
how about you make up a way to figure out how to calculate the massive tilt if the turbines were on a globe spaced 30km away from the viewer (viewer being at sea level).
let us konw what you come up with.
-
Classic and hilarious. You should teach a master class in cherry-picking what you think supports your assertions and omitting the context that clearly shows your assertions are patently false.
From the link you shared: Introduction to Coordinate Systems / Spatial Reference Systems
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html
You failed to include the second page (https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Definitions2.html) where it states:
Wait, so after all this you accept that the data and calculations are on physically flat maps, but now your argument is to post statements suggesting they think that the small local flat maps come from a sphere?
Looks like your argument has recessed to the point to where you think that WGS84 is a Flat Earth mapping system.
If you think that the data and calculations are based on physically flat maps, then it utterly destroys your case. We can clearly see that your argument had no merit if it had to degrade to this point.
I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems you are just manufacturing assertions at this point - From your source.
Definition of Projecting
The earth is an ellipsoid. To view spatial data on paper and computer screens, we need to project the data onto a 2d surface. This is called "projecting”.
And apparently you failed the quiz from the reference you cited - Well done:
Which of the following is the best definition of projecting in GIS?
A) Converting a rectangular data into spherical data
B) Converting a spherical data into rectangular data
C) When slides are projected on a wall
The answer is B - The best definition of projecting in GIS is Converting a spherical data into rectangular data
-
The truth is that you are just ignorant of this. The systems are explained here:
The truth is that it is based upon a RE.
Your own quotes clearly indicate it is based upon a RE.
You just ignore that because you want to pretend it is flat.
If Earth was flat why does your own source say it is best modelled as an ellipsoid?
It is clearly saying that it prefers the measurements in the projected (flat) coordinate system. Hence the title of the article.
No, it doesn't.
It clearly claims:
"surface of the earth, which is of course, best modelled as an ellipsoid"
Notice how it doesn't claim the surface of Earth is best modelled as a flat plane?
Notice how instead it explicitly states that:
"surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid"
What you are dishonestly cherry picking is that the web Mercator projection has some significant flaws, and a different flat PROJECTION of earth is better, for STATE WIDE application.
A flat map is far more convenient than a round map, and for a small area, it can work reasonably well, hence for STATE WIDE data, it is "best".
They use a single zone of this system. You cannot accurately have the entire world in a single zone. If you tried you would end up with massive distortions.
Instead if you want to have the entire world, you need an ellipsoid/sphere.
Hence your assessment is just rubbish and I would encourage you to learn more about this, and most importantly, HONESTLY represent it.
-
Does tomB believe the mecator is a relevant map?
-
Maube you can ask danag how to circle.
What the hell does this mean?
You both horribly fail at trying to make circles work.
He claims that pi is one of several different values, but not the actual value, and thus ends up getting things related to it completely wrong.
You also make wild claims, which are completely wrong.
Like claiming that an object 30 km away, on an Earth with a circumference of 40 000 km, should have a massive tilt, when the simple math you cannot refute proves conclusively that it should tilt 0.27 degrees, i.e. basically nothing.
Likewise, you claim that a circle or downwards slope will magically be impossible to see through a level tube, outright defying basic geometry which again conclusively proves that the ability to see it is dependent upon several factors; it is not a simple case of it being magically impossible to see.
And because you know you are full of pure BS, you refuse to answer trivial questions, as these trivial questions clearly show you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What mechanism makes the higher density go down?
Stacking.
That is not a mechanism which makes it higher density lower down.
If you had gravity, then it would, but you don't.
Again, if I stack a bunch of things sideways, it doesn't magically have a density/force gradient.
Yep but you have the potential to look alternately to what was basically battered into your head, just like I did.
The difference is we didn't just have it basically battered into our head, and we actually understand it.
So rather than looking for alternatives specifically to reject the globe like you did, we look for alternatives and evaluate them on their basis to explain reality.
So far all the alternatives I have looked at fail horribly, including yours.
You refuse to answer trivial question which show massive problems with your alternative.
There's a lot to explain and a lot to grasp for those who want to.
And you clearly don't want to, as you can't seem to explain anything.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.
No, that would be your problem, like you made up that it would have a massive tilt, and that the RE would not be visible through a level tube, and that air magically pushes things down, and so on.
You make up all sorts of crap in your quest to irrationally attack the globe at all costs, but you don't seem to be able to back any of it up.
-
What mechanism makes the higher density go down?
Stacking.
Not what I asked.
Why down? Why not up towards the lower density? Higher density flows towards lower density, or so I'm told by many FE people, so why doesn't this happen in the atmosphere and why is the higher density pretty much always in a downwards direction?
-
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
What is your evidence they are using a globe?
So again:
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.
-
Maube you can ask danag how to circle.
What the hell does this mean?
You both horribly fail at trying to make circles work.
He claims that pi is one of several different values, but not the actual value, and thus ends up getting things related to it completely wrong.
You also make wild claims, which are completely wrong.
Like claiming that an object 30 km away, on an Earth with a circumference of 40 000 km, should have a massive tilt, when the simple math you cannot refute proves conclusively that it should tilt 0.27 degrees, i.e. basically nothing.
What you really need to do is to measure the 8 inches per mile squared in drop at 30 km and see what that comes up with on your so called globe.
Only then will you see how silly your pretence of a tilt would be.
-
What mechanism makes the higher density go down?
Stacking.
Not what I asked.
Why down? Why not up towards the lower density? Higher density flows towards lower density, or so I'm told by many FE people, so why doesn't this happen in the atmosphere and why is the higher density pretty much always in a downwards direction?
I'm too busy dancing.
-
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
What is your evidence they are using a globe?
So again:
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.
Do you have any real evidence from your own self about what you're saying or are you reliant on what you read about?
-
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
What is your evidence they are using a globe?
So again:
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.
Do you have any real evidence from your own self about what you're saying or are you reliant on what you read about?
It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps. And these folks, pilots, airlines, commercial and private, are required to use them.
So yeah, these pilots get us safely from A to B. Using these parameters. So the questions remain:
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.
-
It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps.
How do you know it's a reference to spherical data for a spinning globe?
And these folks, pilots, airlines, commercial and private, are required to use them.
Do they have a globe sitting on a panel in front of them or a navigator ushing one around as they fly?
Or do they use a big piece of paper on their laps and mark positions on them or do they use headings programmed into a computer and shown on a screen?
So yeah, these pilots get us safely from A to B. Using these parameters. So the questions remain:
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
My evidence is water level.
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
I'm saying they use a map of the know areas of the world they navigate.
And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.
The map I go by is the map that works the best for navigation.
Usually it's just a set of road maps for parts of countries I drive through.
I cannot do anything about mapping from a plane as I'm merely a passenger in an aluminium can, etc.
-
It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps.
How do you know it's a reference to spherical data for a spinning globe?
Because of this (spinning aside, that's a whole different discussion. But spherical, yes):
The evidence is that they are using a globe and say so, specifically, right on the map/chart that is required by the FAA. Here again:
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
So again:
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
-
I'm saying they use a map of the know areas of the world they navigate.
The map I go by is the map that works the best for navigation.
Usually it's just a set of road maps for parts of countries I drive through.
I cannot do anything about mapping from a plane as I'm merely a passenger in an aluminium can, etc.
Do you believe the mercator map is a relevant map?
-
It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps.
How do you know it's a reference to spherical data for a spinning globe?
Because of this (spinning aside, that's a whole different discussion. But spherical, yes):
The evidence is that they are using a globe and say so, specifically, right on the map/chart that is required by the FAA. Here again:
Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:
(https://i.imgur.com/vTtR1HP.png)
Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:
"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."
In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.
Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:
"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."
So again:
The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.
- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?
No matter what you say you are arguing from a point of view by appeals to authority, nothing more than that.
That's not a dig at you, it's just what it is.
You read/study and believe this stuff and it becomes your truth based on your faith in those you buy into, wholeheartedly.
That's also not a dig, it's simply a truth unless you can physically prove otherwise and leave me in no doubt that you know for sure, anything of what you say.
At least admit one way or the other.
-
I'm saying they use a map of the know areas of the world they navigate.
The map I go by is the map that works the best for navigation.
Usually it's just a set of road maps for parts of countries I drive through.
I cannot do anything about mapping from a plane as I'm merely a passenger in an aluminium can, etc.
Do you believe the mercator map is a relevant map?
A relevant map for what?
-
A map of what it maps out.
What a stupid question.
Are you stupid?
You must be stupid.
-
A map of what it maps out.
What a stupid question.
Are you stupid?
You must be stupid.
Try and stop being angry.
If you want to be angry then call me out in AR or pm me and let off some steam.
All you're doing in this topic is acting like an ....ahem hole.
-
Says the pos who pretends to not know what a map is.
Mercator map.
You think its valid or not?
-
Says the pos who pretends to not know what a map is.
Mercator map.
You think its valid or not?
Do you think it's valid and if so what for and also, how do you know?
-
I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.
How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?
-
I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.
How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?
Can you show how it's valid in terms of going over a globe?
-
What you really need to do is to measure the 8 inches per mile squared in drop at 30 km and see what that comes up with on your so called globe.
Do you mean physically measure it?
If so, no, we don't.
We can clearly observe it on the image provided, and you can come up with nothing to refute it.
If you mean by math, I already did, and showed the images matches what is expected for the globe.
What you need to do, is start justifying your outright lies about the RE, or recant them.
You can start by answering the trivial question you continue to avoid as they show you are completely wrong.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Only then will you see how silly your pretence of a tilt would be.
You mean your pretence of a massive/insane tilt.
Math quite easily allows us to see just how insignificant the tilt is.
Again, for Earth, with a circumference of 40 000 km, you need to travel 40 000 km to tilt 360 degree.
Or to put it another way, the rate of tilt is 360 degrees / 40000 km = 0.009 degrees per km.
So for 30 km it would be 30 km * 0.009 degrees/km = 0.27 degrees.
Again, basic, trivial math; which clearly shows your claim is a blatant lie, and that tilt is not a problem for the globe.
No matter what you say you are arguing from a point of view by appeals to authority, nothing more than that.
No it isn't.
Anyone who understands the basics of map projections can transform between the globe and various projections of it.
From this they can easily understand that the various maps of Earth are not based upon a flat Earth, but instead are based upon a RE.
They can then test out how these maps work in various locations to confirm that the globe is an accurate representation (not perfect) of the very real round Earth we live on.
-
What mechanism makes the higher density go down?
Stacking.
Not what I asked.
Why down? Why not up towards the lower density? Higher density flows towards lower density, or so I'm told by many FE people, so why doesn't this happen in the atmosphere and why is the higher density pretty much always in a downwards direction?
I'm too busy dancing.
And you're doing great.
So you don't know why down. You have no mechanism for it. Good job disproving your idea. So dance some more, it is so entertaining. I do, however, wish you knew more than the two moves.
-
I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.
How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?
Can you show how it's valid in terms of going over a globe?
My impression if it is valid or not is not an issue for globers.
For flatties it is very much vlaid.
So
Deflect a little less and answer if you think its valid.
Simple yes no.
Are you some sort of politician?
-
What you really need to do is to measure the 8 inches per mile squared in drop at 30 km and see what that comes up with on your so called globe.
Do you mean physically measure it?
If so, no, we don't.
We can clearly observe it on the image provided, and you can come up with nothing to refute it.
How much of the turbine would you lose from a view out to 30 km by using the 8 inches per mile squared global set up?
-
How much of the turbine would you lose from a view out to 30 km by using the 8 inches per mile squared global set up?
I already told you that. And this was one of the questions I keep on asking you, and you keep on ignoring.
If you think there is a problem, or want to disagree, provide your own math.
The simple equation to use is h=d^2/(2*R).
But you need to note that the amount hidden is from the horizon, not from your position.
To find the distance to the horizon you also use that simple formula.
So first from the person to the horizon, assuming a 2 m, i.e. 0.002 km vantage point (i.e. eyes 2 m above sea level)
h=d^2/(2*R)
d^2=2*h*R = 2 * 0.002 km * 6371 km = 25.484 km^2
d=5.05 km (to 3 s.f., which is being generous).
Now, the distance from the horizon to the target is 30 km minus the distance to the horizon.
d = 30 km - 5.05 km = 24.95 km.
So the amount hidden is now given as:
h=d^2/(2*R) = (24.95 km)^2/(2*6371 km) = 0.0489 km = 48.9 m.
Of course, this doesn't account for refraction, which does change it slightly.
A simple correction for refraction is to pretend Earth has a radius 7/6 of what it actually is.
Doing the math with that gives 40.5 m hidden.
And like I have done before, to determine the tilt you instead have t=d * 360 degrees/(2*pi*R), which works out to be 0.27 degrees.
Now can you say anything to refute that?
Alternatively, how much should be hidden from view using your FE pure magic? Can you show any calculation to show that any should be hidden from view with water obstructing the view to the bottom, or can you just repeatedly claim that the FE magically hides it?
-
How much of the turbine would you lose from a view out to 30 km by using the 8 inches per mile squared global set up?
I already told you that. And this was one of the questions I keep on asking you, and you keep on ignoring.
If you think there is a problem, or want to disagree, provide your own math.
The simple equation to use is h=d^2/(2*R).
But you need to note that the amount hidden is from the horizon, not from your position.
To find the distance to the horizon you also use that simple formula.
So first from the person to the horizon, assuming a 2 m, i.e. 0.002 km vantage point (i.e. eyes 2 m above sea level)
h=d^2/(2*R)
d^2=2*h*R = 2 * 0.002 km * 6371 km = 25.484 km^2
d=5.05 km (to 3 s.f., which is being generous).
Now, the distance from the horizon to the target is 30 km minus the distance to the horizon.
d = 30 km - 5.05 km = 24.95 km.
So the amount hidden is now given as:
h=d^2/(2*R) = (24.95 km)^2/(2*6371 km) = 0.0489 km = 48.9 m.
Of course, this doesn't account for refraction, which does change it slightly.
A simple correction for refraction is to pretend Earth has a radius 7/6 of what it actually is.
Doing the math with that gives 40.5 m hidden.
And like I have done before, to determine the tilt you instead have t=d * 360 degrees/(2*pi*R), which works out to be 0.27 degrees.
Now can you say anything to refute that?
Alternatively, how much should be hidden from view using your FE pure magic? Can you show any calculation to show that any should be hidden from view with water obstructing the view to the bottom, or can you just repeatedly claim that the FE magically hides it?
Why are you dismissing the horizon?
-
How much of the turbine would you lose from a view out to 30 km by using the 8 inches per mile squared global set up?
I already told you that. And this was one of the questions I keep on asking you, and you keep on ignoring.
If you think there is a problem, or want to disagree, provide your own math.
The simple equation to use is h=d^2/(2*R).
But you need to note that the amount hidden is from the horizon, not from your position.
To find the distance to the horizon you also use that simple formula.
So first from the person to the horizon, assuming a 2 m, i.e. 0.002 km vantage point (i.e. eyes 2 m above sea level)
h=d^2/(2*R)
d^2=2*h*R = 2 * 0.002 km * 6371 km = 25.484 km^2
d=5.05 km (to 3 s.f., which is being generous).
Now, the distance from the horizon to the target is 30 km minus the distance to the horizon.
d = 30 km - 5.05 km = 24.95 km.
So the amount hidden is now given as:
h=d^2/(2*R) = (24.95 km)^2/(2*6371 km) = 0.0489 km = 48.9 m.
Of course, this doesn't account for refraction, which does change it slightly.
A simple correction for refraction is to pretend Earth has a radius 7/6 of what it actually is.
Doing the math with that gives 40.5 m hidden.
And like I have done before, to determine the tilt you instead have t=d * 360 degrees/(2*pi*R), which works out to be 0.27 degrees.
Now can you say anything to refute that?
Alternatively, how much should be hidden from view using your FE pure magic? Can you show any calculation to show that any should be hidden from view with water obstructing the view to the bottom, or can you just repeatedly claim that the FE magically hides it?
Why are you dismissing the horizon?
I'm not. In fact I have explicitly referred to it and used it several times.
Why can't you just respond to what has been said?
Again, can you find any fault with the math?
Can you provide any alternative math for the RE to try to produce a different result?
Can you provide any math from the FE to show how much should be hidden (the simple answer is none for the FE).
-
I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.
How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?
Can you show how it's valid in terms of going over a globe?
My impression if it is valid or not is not an issue for globers.
For flatties it is very much vlaid.
So
Deflect a little less and answer if you think its valid.
Simple yes no.
Are you some sort of politician?
Come on sceppy
You said if maps are useful to get from place to place then they are real.
Is the mercator map a valid map?
-
I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.
How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?
Can you show how it's valid in terms of going over a globe?
My impression if it is valid or not is not an issue for globers.
For flatties it is very much vlaid.
So
Deflect a little less and answer if you think its valid.
Simple yes no.
Are you some sort of politician?
Come on sceppy
You said if maps are useful to get from place to place then they are real.
Is the mercator map a valid map?
Does the mercator map get you from point to point, exactly?
Do you know this for certain?
If you do then explain it to me and I'll tell you if I believe it to be a perfect example of travel.
Let me put you into a mindset from my side.
I've travelled on planes but never by using a map.
I've travelled by car by using various maps of the road and got to my destination.
The maps I've used are based on a birds eye view of the terrain via a set of drawings that will include pointers to hills and mountains, etc but never a curve.
I've been on boats sailing in waters but never used a map to navigate.
How about you?
-
Whata conviluted RESPONSE to a simple question.
Is mercatir a valid msp?
-
Whata conviluted RESPONSE to a simple question.
Is mercatir a valid msp?
What the hell is all this?
Are you in a state of frenzy or something?
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
-
What the hell is all this?
Are you in a state of frenzy or something?
No, that would still be you.
Always refusing to address simple issues which show your claim is wrong.
You will happily pretend to go down the path of answering, but never to actually get to the point of addressing the issue.
Also note that again, this is you failing to stick to the issue.
Here you finally decided to start pretending again:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2317166#msg2317166
So I was nice, and responded with just that issue, providing a clear answer:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2317179#msg2317179
But as you were unable to find a fault with it, you just ask a question which makes no sense at all, to deflect from the fact that the globe model actually explains the observation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2317182#msg2317182
Then I addressed why your question made no sense:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2317190#msg2317190
And then you just ignored it.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Then the distances shown are also correct?
So in the south of the equator the circumference from east to west becomes smaller as you progress further south.
It depends on the map.
I didn't say I have no issues with all maps being real.
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Then the distances shown are also correct?
So in the south of the equator the circumference from east to west becomes smaller as you progress further south.
It depends on the map.
I didn't say I have no issues with all maps being real.
Do you think every map that shows the southern hemisphere is fake? Can you show us a non-fake map that includes the southern hemisphere?
If a map says it shows a southern hemisphere then, absolutely I believe it to be fake.
You should be under no illusions about that considering what I've been arguing against.
-
So any reference to the atmosphere is fine because you happen to need the atmosphere to exist in order for your version of 'gravity' to be valid. But any reference to a southern hemisphere is faked. Presumably because your model doesn't include a southern hemisphere as such so any reference to it must be faked. OK. So if you asked anyone living in South America, South Africa or Australia (and there are a few) which hemisphere they live in what do you think they would say?. In reply what would you say? Because Australia, South Africa and South America certainly do exist. So where the heck are they?
Why would anybody deliberately fake a map of the entire southern hemisphere?
-
So any reference to the atmosphere is fine because you happen to need the atmosphere to exist in order for your version of 'gravity' to be valid. But any reference to a southern hemisphere is faked. Presumably because your model doesn't include a southern hemisphere as such so any reference to it must be faked. OK. So if you asked anyone living in South America, South Africa or Australia (and there are a few) which hemisphere they live in what do you think they would say?. In reply what would you say? Because Australia, South Africa and South America certainly do exist. So where the heck are they?
Why would anybody deliberately fake a map of the entire southern hemisphere?
If people are told they live on a southern hemisphere or a northern hemisphere or a bulging equator of flattened poles, they will accept it without question but not have a clue what it is they're accepting.
Your argument is silly.
-
So if you asked anyone living in South America, South Africa or Australia (and there are a few) which hemisphere they live in what do you think they would say?. In reply what would you say? Because Australia, South Africa and South America certainly do exist. So where the heck are they?
Why would anybody deliberately fake a map of the entire southern hemisphere?
There is no up or down or north or south in space. Your version of Earth as viewed in space has America up top because it looks more aesthetically pleasing and perhaps represents at least symbolically how you wish the world to see you guys (up top)
There is no reason to have what we call 'North' to be 'up' or '12 o clock' and 'South' to be 'down' or '6 o clock'. We could have just as easily called the North pole the South pole and vice versa. There is no orientation like that in an infinite universe model.
To me, wherever I am, I'm up top. There is no hemisphere from my perspective. A birds eye view of me has Australia on the top, front and centre no matter how high you go. You could zoom out a billion km and then using a telescope, look down to me and 'Oh look, There is Australia, right on the top'
-
Ok
Mercator is a reasonably valid map
Amazing!!
You realize its a equator centric cylindrical projection of a ball?
You cant possibly create such a view using a north pole centric projection.
Yours or danangs south are pole centric.
The flat earth has no "side view"
My goodness
-
So if you asked anyone living in South America, South Africa or Australia (and there are a few) which hemisphere they live in what do you think they would say?. In reply what would you say? Because Australia, South Africa and South America certainly do exist. So where the heck are they?
Why would anybody deliberately fake a map of the entire southern hemisphere?
There is no up or down or north or south in space. Your version of Earth as viewed in space has America up top because it looks more aesthetically pleasing and perhaps represents at least symbolically how you wish the world to see you guys (up top)
There is no reason to have what we call 'North' to be 'up' or '12 o clock' and 'South' to be 'down' or '6 o clock'. We could have just as easily called the North pole the South pole and vice versa. There is no orientation like that in an infinite universe model.
To me, wherever I am, I'm up top. There is no hemisphere from my perspective. A birds eye view of me has Australia on the top, front and centre no matter how high you go. You could zoom out a billion km and then using a telescope, look down to me and 'Oh look, There is Australia, right on the top'
-
So if you asked anyone living in South America, South Africa or Australia (and there are a few) which hemisphere they live in what do you think they would say?. In reply what would you say? Because Australia, South Africa and South America certainly do exist. So where the heck are they?
Why would anybody deliberately fake a map of the entire southern hemisphere?
There is no up or down or north or south in space. Your version of Earth as viewed in space has America up top because it looks more aesthetically pleasing and perhaps represents at least symbolically how you wish the world to see you guys (up top)
There is no reason to have what we call 'North' to be 'up' or '12 o clock' and 'South' to be 'down' or '6 o clock'. We could have just as easily called the North pole the South pole and vice versa. There is no orientation like that in an infinite universe model.
To me, wherever I am, I'm up top. There is no hemisphere from my perspective. A birds eye view of me has Australia on the top, front and centre no matter how high you go. You could zoom out a billion km and then using a telescope, look down to me and 'Oh look, There is Australia, right on the top'
I dont bother watching when yasoooo posts his rubbish clips without summarisation or give reason as to why I should click on them so I see no reason to click on yours. Use your words. Are you yasoooo's alt?
-
Ok
Mercator is a reasonably valid map
Amazing!!
You realize its a equator centric cylindrical projection of a ball?
You cant possibly create such a view using a north pole centric projection.
Yours or danangs south are pole centric.
The flat earth has no "side view"
My goodness
Using your model of the universe, lets say I teleport you to a void between galaxies
Which way is up? Which way is down? Which way is North? Which way is South?
-
So if you asked anyone living in South America, South Africa or Australia (and there are a few) which hemisphere they live in what do you think they would say?. In reply what would you say? Because Australia, South Africa and South America certainly do exist. So where the heck are they?
Why would anybody deliberately fake a map of the entire southern hemisphere?
There is no up or down or north or south in space. Your version of Earth as viewed in space has America up top because it looks more aesthetically pleasing and perhaps represents at least symbolically how you wish the world to see you guys (up top)
There is no reason to have what we call 'North' to be 'up' or '12 o clock' and 'South' to be 'down' or '6 o clock'. We could have just as easily called the North pole the South pole and vice versa. There is no orientation like that in an infinite universe model.
To me, wherever I am, I'm up top. There is no hemisphere from my perspective. A birds eye view of me has Australia on the top, front and centre no matter how high you go. You could zoom out a billion km and then using a telescope, look down to me and 'Oh look, There is Australia, right on the top'
I dont bother watching when yasoooo posts his rubbish clips without summarisation or give reason as to why I should click on them so I see no reason to click on yours. Use your words. Are you yasoooo's alt?
Whos yaso?
The video is about how rich western came up with inflating the size of their penis and enstilling to dominance mentalty to the rest of the world.
-
Ok
Mercator is a reasonably valid map
Amazing!!
You realize its a equator centric cylindrical projection of a ball?
You cant possibly create such a view using a north pole centric projection.
Yours or danangs south are pole centric.
The flat earth has no "side view"
My goodness
Using your model of the universe, lets say I teleport you to a void between galaxies
Which way is up? Which way is down? Which way is North? Which way is South?
Orientation dossnt matter as long as theres a general consensus and sort of rosetta to dtermine position.
But wjat DOES matter is that a side view of a flat plane doenst exist.
-
Your argument is silly.
Sorry for being so thick! I will remember all you have said and remember never to refer to the southern hemisphere any more. As you say, how silly of me.
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Notice how you continually ignored the question yet again.
They were not asking if it was real.
They were asking if it is valid.
So by you accepting that it is real are you accepting that it is valid, i.e. that it accurately maps the world?
It really is a simple question, which you have to avoid to keep your fantasy alive.
Just like the other simple questions you keep on ignoring:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
I see we are trying for 200 pages.
Still talking about tubes.
Fascinating.
-
Not thst we re talking about but merely avoiding answering why they wete brought up to begin with
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Notice how you continually ignored the question yet again.
They were not asking if it was real.
They were asking if it is valid.
So by you accepting that it is real are you accepting that it is valid, i.e. that it accurately maps the world?
It really is a simple question, which you have to avoid to keep your fantasy alive.
Maps are real. Some maps represent a decent set up of the terrain we use. Some will not.
The one's that will not are the one's that tell us we are navigating a globe.
-
The one's that will not are the one's that tell us we are navigating a globe.
They seem to be the ones that work quite well. Like Google's map of a globe which allows you to zoom in far enough to easily navigate using it.
And GPS based maps which have position and distances based upon the globe.
The ones which don't work are those based upon a FE.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
The one's that will not are the one's that tell us we are navigating a globe.
They seem to be the ones that work quite well. Like Google's map of a globe which allows you to zoom in far enough to easily navigate using it.
Zoom in far enough?
You're looking at pictures of a zoom in from months before, so how do you navigate?
And GPS based maps which have position and distances based upon the globe.
Ground positioning systems.
The ones which don't work are those based upon a FE.
In your mind, yes.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
It would depend on how big the object was.
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
No. Not on your globe.
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
The fact there is no globe.
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Notice how you continually ignored the question yet again.
They were not asking if it was real.
They were asking if it is valid.
So by you accepting that it is real are you accepting that it is valid, i.e. that it accurately maps the world?
It really is a simple question, which you have to avoid to keep your fantasy alive.
Maps are real. Some maps represent a decent set up of the terrain we use. Some will not.
The one's that will not are the one's that tell us we are navigating a globe.
So this convulted response says mercator is invalid because it is a side projection of the ball along the equator.
Which is impossible and uneccessary for a flat plane.
Is that right?
Simple yes no.
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Notice how you continually ignored the question yet again.
They were not asking if it was real.
They were asking if it is valid.
So by you accepting that it is real are you accepting that it is valid, i.e. that it accurately maps the world?
It really is a simple question, which you have to avoid to keep your fantasy alive.
Maps are real. Some maps represent a decent set up of the terrain we use. Some will not.
The one's that will not are the one's that tell us we are navigating a globe.
So this convulted response says mercator is invalid because it is a side projection of the ball along the equator.
Which is impossible and uneccessary for a flat plane.
Is that right?
Simple yes no.
Let me make myself crystal clear to save you going through this, time and time and time and time and time, again.
Any map that can aid in navigation is a valid map for navigation.
Any map that represents a global Earth as we're told, is not a true representation of a real Earth, in my honest opinion, for reasons I've already given.
If you want to argue for a map that you know is a global map and is a true representation of your globe world, then show me how you know this. Do not appeal to authority.
If you haven't used a global map to navigate then at least admit that.
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
-
A simple yes or no qould have been simple.
Your response
Was not simple
You took lessons in question avoidnace from betsy devos?
-
A simple yes or no qould have been simple.
Your response
Was not simple
You took lessons in question avoidnace from betsy devos?
Can you draw this circle you are asking me to draw?
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
I did provide a to scale circle which answered a different question - tilt.
You said because the circle contained an image of a ball earth that the circular nature of the circle was therefore invalid - whoch is irrelevant.
The circle is or isnt a circle to scale.
I and others have repeatedly asked you back and repeatedly to provide your own then to prove massive tilt and to prove some tu-tube experiment.
We re stll waiting.
Yuo re still dodging.
-
Let me make myself crystal clear
Any map that can aid in navigation is a valid map for navigation.
Any map that represents a global Earth as we're told, is not a true
representation of a real Earth, in my honest opinion, for reasons I've already given
Crystal clear -
A map is valid if it gets you from A to B.
As in the distances from South america to australia.
A map that shows a globe is fake because the mercator is a SIDE CYLINDRICAL PRJODCTION of a ball earth.
Balls being 3dimensional and being able to view from... the side.
A flat plane would not reuqire a sideview because.... gee who knows
mercator "accurately" shows distances in southern hemisphere that a Polar projection for the obvious reason being the opposite hemispeher is so warped and unfolded outwards it makes no sense.
So to be crustal clear - yes-no - is the answer.
Got it.
Thanks
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
I did provide a to scale circle which answered a different question - tilt.
You said because the circle contained an image of a ball earth that the circular nature of the circle was therefore invalid.
I and others habe asked you back and repeatedly to orovide your own then to prove massive tilt and to prove some tu-tube experiment.
We re stll waiting.
Yuo re still dodging.
Can you draw a circle to the scale you are asking me to draw?
-
No
Just pointing out youre being a pos.
Is mercator map a valid map?
You said maps are real if they get pilots from A to B.
So is mercator a valid map?
I have no issue with maps being real.
Notice how you continually ignored the question yet again.
They were not asking if it was real.
They were asking if it is valid.
So by you accepting that it is real are you accepting that it is valid, i.e. that it accurately maps the world?
It really is a simple question, which you have to avoid to keep your fantasy alive.
Maps are real. Some maps represent a decent set up of the terrain we use. Some will not.
The one's that will not are the one's that tell us we are navigating a globe.
So this convulted response says mercator is invalid because it is a side projection of the ball along the equator.
Which is impossible and uneccessary for a flat plane.
Is that right?
Simple yes no.
Let me make myself crystal clear to save you going through this, time and time and time and time and time, again.
Any map that can aid in navigation is a valid map for navigation.
Any map that represents a global Earth as we're told, is not a true representation of a real Earth, in my honest opinion, for reasons I've already given.
If you want to argue for a map that you know is a global map and is a true representation of your globe world, then show me how you know this. Do not appeal to authority.
If you haven't used a global map to navigate then at least admit that.
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around? Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car? Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
-
You're looking at pictures of a zoom in from months before, so how do you navigate?
If you want a course in navigation, go find it elsewhere.
And GPS based maps which have position and distances based upon the globe.
Ground positioning systems.
No, GLOBAL positioning system.
You not liking that wont magically change it.
It is just you ignoring reality to try to prop up a fantasy.
The ones which don't work are those based upon a FE.
In your mind, yes.
And in reality.
Like those which massively overestimate the width of Australia.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
It would depend on how big the object was.
Why?
Why doesn't it just depend on the location of the bottom?
To clarify, I'm not saying centre the object that distance below and see if you can see it.
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
No. Not on your globe.
I didn't ask about the globe.
Just directly answer the question.
If the base of the tree is 1 mile below the level of the tube, can it be seen? Yes, or no?
Note that the answer to this question will apply REGARDLESS of the shape of Earth.
That is why you continually avoid it, you want to claim you can for a FE, but can't for a RE.
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
The fact there is no globe.
Is this an admission that your prior arguments against the globe are pure BS and the only thing you have to rely upon is the alleged non-existence of such a globe?
If so, that makes it entirely circular reasoning. You claim this disproves a globe, but your only justification relies upon you already assuming Earth isn't a globe. Remove that baseless and false assumption and you have nothing.
If not, then tell us what magic prevents a hypothetical person on a hypothetical RE with a radius of 6371 km from seeing the ground through a level tube.
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
Don't tell me to work it out. I have already provided the math and shown everyone that your claim is pure BS.
The tilt will not be massive.
Stop just claiming it will be massive and instead directly answer the trivial questions, showing the math to back it up.
This means providing an actual numerical answer. i.e. how many m or ft or yards or whatever unit of distance you want that will be hidden and how many degrees or radians or whatever unit of angle you want that it would be tilted.
These are all simple trivial questions which you seem to need to continually avoid as they so easily defeat your claims.
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
-
No, GLOBAL positioning system.
You not liking that wont magically change it.
You changing it will not alter my thoughts on ground positioning stations.
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
Don't tell me to work it out.
Are you scared to work it out?
-
No, GLOBAL positioning system.
You not liking that wont magically change it.
You changing it will not alter my thoughts on ground positioning stations.
I'm not changing it. And it seems nothing will alter your thoughts to accept reality rather than continually living in a fantasy.
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
Don't tell me to work it out.
Are you scared to work it out?
No. Are you?
I already did remember.
With a height of 2 m, the horizon is ~ 5 km away, leaving 25 km of distance which obscures the object leaving ~ 50 m hidden.
I did this plenty of times, the most recent being in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2317179#msg2317179
Which you seemed completely incapable of dealing with in any rational manner.
If you don't like that calculation which shows you are spouting pure BS, then explain what is wrong with it and provide your own.
But you seem terrified, because all you have are your pathetic assertions backed up by nothing.
So again, YOU DO THE MATH, YOU show how much should be hidden on a RE, and what the tilt should be.
No bold qualitative claims pulled from thin air, but actual numbers, justified through math.
While you are at it, answer the rest of the questions you keep on avoiding.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
So the ones based upon a globe.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
As they are based upon GPS, and use latitude and longitude, they most certainly do account for the curvature of Earth. Otherwise they would have no idea where you are, and no idea what the distance between 2 points is.
-
Are you scared to work it out?
No. Are you?
I already did remember.
With a height of 2 m, the horizon is ~ 5 km away, leaving 25 km of distance which obscures the object leaving ~ 50 m hidden.
Your turbines are around 21 miles away, so how about you work out the drop over that distance using the 8 inches per mile squared and see what you come up with.
-
Are you scared to work it out?
No. Are you?
I already did remember.
With a height of 2 m, the horizon is ~ 5 km away, leaving 25 km of distance which obscures the object leaving ~ 50 m hidden.
Your turbines are around 21 miles away, so how about you work out the drop over that distance using the 8 inches per mile squared and see what you come up with.
Why?
The 8 inches per mile squared is based upon the formula I used, d^2/(2*R).
If you put in a distance of 1 mile, you end up with 1/(2*3958.8) miles which is 0.00012630089 miles, which is 8.0024243904 inches.
Where did you think it came from?
Just what point does me then doing the 8 inches per mile squared do?
You already have the calculation.
Can you show any fault at all?
Can you do your own calculation?
Or can you just continually pathetically deflect?
If I provide the calculation based upon 8 inches per mile squared, will you then either admit you were completely wrong or do the calculations yourself, including the calculation to show what the expected tilt is?
If not, just what point is there for me to do it?
Again, you just seem to be doing whatever you can to avoid such trivial questions which so clearly show you are wrong.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Ok
Mercator does the job for the southern hemisphere.
Is it valid?
-
No, GLOBAL positioning system.
You not liking that wont magically change it.
You changing it will not alter my thoughts on ground positioning stations.
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
Don't tell me to work it out.
Are you scared to work it out?
1.
8in only works to a certain distance because after a certain point, a parabola is not the same shape as a circle.
2.
The tilt was worked out.
You rejected it and have yet to show a counter tilt value.
So no, YOU are scared to work it out.
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
It's kind of ironic that you use Google Maps. Considering it's predicated on a Globe earth:
Google Maps Platform
The Maps JavaScript API uses the following coordinate systems:
Latitude and longitude values, which reference a point on the world uniquely. (Google uses the World Geodetic System WGS84 standard.)
Whenever the API needs to translate a location in the world to a location on a map, it first translates latitude and longitude values into a world coordinate. The API uses the Mercator projection to perform this translation.
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/coordinates
Clearly they state they use the WGS84 spheroid model for datum and a Mercator Globe projection for presentation. How do you reconcile your use of a Globe map?
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
No. I don't mean that.
I mean, if you zoom all the way out on google maps, you will see earth is displayed as a globe. The reason they did this was to more accurately display the earth.
If you don't believe me, try it for yourself on your desktop interface, first.
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
I did provide a to scale circle which answered a different question - tilt.
You said because the circle contained an image of a ball earth that the circular nature of the circle was therefore invalid - whoch is irrelevant.
The circle is or isnt a circle to scale.
I and others have repeatedly asked you back and repeatedly to provide your own then to prove massive tilt and to prove some tu-tube experiment.
We re stll waiting.
Yuo re still dodging.
Ok, so you're asking me to draw a circle as big as the picture you showed of what you believe is your global Earth...right?
-
I'm not changing it. And it seems nothing will alter your thoughts to accept reality rather than continually living in a fantasy.
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
-
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Ok
Mercator does the job for the southern hemisphere.
Is it valid?
Not if it goes by a southern hemisphere as part of a globe, no.
-
8in only works to a certain distance because after a certain point, a parabola is not the same shape as a circle.
And what would that distance be.....roughly?
The tilt was worked out.
You rejected it and have yet to show a counter tilt value.
So no, YOU are scared to work it out.
Well let's see about it when you work out the 8 inches per mile squared to a distance of what you say only works.
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
It's kind of ironic that you use Google Maps. Considering it's predicated on a Globe earth:
Show me a google map.
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
No. I don't mean that.
I mean, if you zoom all the way out on google maps, you will see earth is displayed as a globe. The reason they did this was to more accurately display the earth.
If you don't believe me, try it for yourself on your desktop interface, first.
Ahhhh right. Zoom all the way out into your space and see Earth as a nice big ball/sphere/globe....right?
Sooooo, did they use a deep space video of it and if so, what?
Or is it a CGI representation of what they want us to believe?
You see, when you zoom in with the so called global set up you get to see stuff as it was months earlier, as if it was taken by a plane at those times.
Unless you can show me the real time stuff.....can you?
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
I did provide a to scale circle which answered a different question - tilt.
You said because the circle contained an image of a ball earth that the circular nature of the circle was therefore invalid - whoch is irrelevant.
The circle is or isnt a circle to scale.
I and others have repeatedly asked you back and repeatedly to provide your own then to prove massive tilt and to prove some tu-tube experiment.
We re stll waiting.
Yuo re still dodging.
Ok, so you're asking me to draw a circle as big as the picture you showed of what you believe is your global Earth...right?
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
becuase the exact question was
"draw a circle of diameter 12,750,000units in diameter with a 2unit stick on top"
so how "big" a circle do you need to draw?
it could be pixels.
it could be milimeters.
it could be beans.
it could be bricks.
it could be hand prints.
it could be whatever - what it NEEDS to be, is of scale.
12,750,000 to 2.
try and be less stupid.
-
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Ok
Mercator does the job for the southern hemisphere.
Is it valid?
Not if it goes by a southern hemisphere as part of a globe, no.
so how far is it from south america to australia?
because i'm saying the mercator gets a pilot from A to B.
how can a map be one - valid if it gets a pilot from A to B - yet also invalid because it requires the souther hemisphere to be real?
your invalidation is solely based on the southern hemisphere.
They can not both exist in the same reality.
so now you need a method or magical reaosn why South A to Australia is possible on mercator but not on your flat earth map.
now you need to the prove geometric distance.
you've decided to pick another really really interesting arguement.
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
It's kind of ironic that you use Google Maps. Considering it's predicated on a Globe earth:
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
Google Maps Platform
The Maps JavaScript API uses the following coordinate systems:
Latitude and longitude values, which reference a point on the world uniquely. (Google uses the World Geodetic System WGS84 standard.)
Whenever the API needs to translate a location in the world to a location on a map, it first translates latitude and longitude values into a world coordinate. The API uses the Mercator projection to perform this translation.
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/coordinates
Clearly they state they use the WGS84 spheroid model for datum and a Mercator Globe projection for presentation. How do you reconcile your use of a Globe map?
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
I did provide a to scale circle which answered a different question - tilt.
You said because the circle contained an image of a ball earth that the circular nature of the circle was therefore invalid - whoch is irrelevant.
The circle is or isnt a circle to scale.
I and others have repeatedly asked you back and repeatedly to provide your own then to prove massive tilt and to prove some tu-tube experiment.
We re stll waiting.
Yuo re still dodging.
Ok, so you're asking me to draw a circle as big as the picture you showed of what you believe is your global Earth...right?
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
becuase the exact question was
"draw a circle of diameter 12,750,000units in diameter with a 2unit stick on top"
so how "big" a circle do you need to draw?
it could be pixels.
it could be milimeters.
it could be beans.
it could be bricks.
it could be hand prints.
it could be whatever - what it NEEDS to be, is of scale.
12,750,000 to 2.
try and be less stupid.
Help me out by drawing that circle you asked me to draw with that scale.
Show me.
-
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Ok
Mercator does the job for the southern hemisphere.
Is it valid?
Not if it goes by a southern hemisphere as part of a globe, no.
so how far is it from south america to australia?
because i'm saying the mercator gets a pilot from A to B.
how can a map be one - valid if it gets a pilot from A to B - yet also invalid because it requires the souther hemisphere to be real?
your invalidation is solely based on the southern hemisphere.
They can not both exist in the same reality.
so now you need a method or magical reaosn why South A to Australia is possible on mercator but not on your flat earth map.
now you need to the prove geometric distance.
you've decided to pick another really really interesting arguement.
You are appealing to what you believe is, authority
-
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
So this is a real Earth globe...right?
-
It would depend on how big the object was.
Great!
As per you, the object is a circle woth diameter 12,750,000units and the point of view is 2units off the surface.
Draw the triangle of "level" to the "horizon"/tangent (you know what a tangent is?) from the persoective of the 2unit high line.
So simple.
72pg of asking for this circle.
How about you draw what you think it should be.
Asking me to draw a scale version of what you believe your Earth is and to then show you a tilt and also a drop should come right down to you, so let's see what you make of it seeing as you're telling me what you believe would be seen.
I did provide a to scale circle which answered a different question - tilt.
You said because the circle contained an image of a ball earth that the circular nature of the circle was therefore invalid - whoch is irrelevant.
The circle is or isnt a circle to scale.
I and others have repeatedly asked you back and repeatedly to provide your own then to prove massive tilt and to prove some tu-tube experiment.
We re stll waiting.
Yuo re still dodging.
Ok, so you're asking me to draw a circle as big as the picture you showed of what you believe is your global Earth...right?
are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
becuase the exact question was
"draw a circle of diameter 12,750,000units in diameter with a 2unit stick on top"
so how "big" a circle do you need to draw?
it could be pixels.
it could be milimeters.
it could be beans.
it could be bricks.
it could be hand prints.
it could be whatever - what it NEEDS to be, is of scale.
12,750,000 to 2.
try and be less stupid.
Help me out by drawing that circle you asked me to draw with that scale.
Show me.
quit dodging.
-
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Ok
Mercator does the job for the southern hemisphere.
Is it valid?
Not if it goes by a southern hemisphere as part of a globe, no.
so how far is it from south america to australia?
because i'm saying the mercator gets a pilot from A to B.
how can a map be one - valid if it gets a pilot from A to B - yet also invalid because it requires the souther hemisphere to be real?
your invalidation is solely based on the southern hemisphere.
They can not both exist in the same reality.
so now you need a method or magical reaosn why South A to Australia is possible on mercator but not on your flat earth map.
now you need to the prove geometric distance.
you've decided to pick another really really interesting arguement.
You are appealing to what you believe is, authority
there is some authority at somepoint.
you yourself subjected yourself to the authority that the pilots fly, and how they fly, and where they fly, by using maps that are accurate to get them to where they need to go.
so.
either pilots appeal to authority is inaccurate or you're piling on more against yourself.
and if inaccurate, then by all means, let us know the accurate stance.
so keep digging a bigger hole and showing us all what a POS you are by knowingly not answering damn question.
-
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Just work out the drop of 8 inches per mile squared.
Again, WHY?
Just what possible motivation is there for me to use archaic units rather than just use the calculation I have already done?
If I do will you admit you are wrong or alternatively show the working (i.e. math) which shows you are not wrong?
Otherwise, you already have the math provided, which you have been unable to show a fault with.
Do you accept the math which has been provided that shows on a RE ~50 m of the turbine at 30 km would be hidden?
This 8 inches per mile squared from you is just another pathetic deflection for your complete inability to defend any of your outright lies about the RE.
Bear that in mind that the drop would have to be he tilt because your object is not just going to sink, plumb into the sea.
And yet again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of even trivial matters.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for the drop to be the tilt.
The drop is a distance. The tilt is an angle.
These units are incompatible.
The drop is not the tilt.
They are 2 different values, which use different units.
Again, trivial you need to avoid at all costs:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
8in only works to a certain distance because after a certain point, a parabola is not the same shape as a circle.
And what would that distance be.....roughly?
The tilt was worked out.
You rejected it and have yet to show a counter tilt value.
So no, YOU are scared to work it out.
Well let's see about it when you work out the 8 inches per mile squared to a distance of what you say only works.
Have you actually applied your 8 inches per square mile rule in the real world? I don't know how many times it has been pointed out to you, but the 8 inches per square mile rule is inadequate for use in the real world because it does not account for observer's height and refraction. It's nothing more than a loose rule of thumb. The moment you lift your eye level up off the ground, it's erroneous.
Can you please stop elevating this wrong tool to the position of your flat earth saviour. It is not your saviour.
-
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
So this is a real Earth globe...right?
Yes. All this time you've been carrying on that Earth is flattish and definitely not a globe, you've been receiving all your directions in life from a three dimensional globe map of the earth.
How do you feel? I can tell you how you look from where I'm sitting.
-
If the earth is a globe, then any map you use is a global map.
But it isn't, so that's that sorted out.
Which flat map on paper or map app do you use to navigate around?
Any that do the job.
Do you use google maps? Have a navman in your car?
Yep.
Those apps incorporate earth curvature into the maps, don't they?
Nope. Not unless you mean hills and mountains and bumpy roads, etc. Do you mean this?
No. I don't mean that.
I mean, if you zoom all the way out on google maps, you will see earth is displayed as a globe. The reason they did this was to more accurately display the earth.
If you don't believe me, try it for yourself on your desktop interface, first.
Ahhhh right. Zoom all the way out into your space and see Earth as a nice big ball/sphere/globe....right?
Sooooo, did they use a deep space video of it and if so, what?
Or is it a CGI representation of what they want us to believe?
You see, when you zoom in with the so called global set up you get to see stuff as it was months earlier, as if it was taken by a plane at those times.
Unless you can show me the real time stuff.....can you?
No, sceptimatic, it is a cgi representation from photos from satellites, planes, and cars, of what reality is. You're familiar with google earth and street view, yes? I use both all the time before I do a raid on a house. The satellite views are very helpful in planning for problems, escape routes, areas of cover, etc. Invaluable, in fact.
Now, please tell me what the difference is, aside from time, between seeing what stuff looks like from the global set up months earlier, to seeing what stuff looks like now, in real time? How does this difference benefit your argument in any way?
If I could show you global earth in real time, would you be satisfied? You want to step outside with your laptop and watch yourself on your computer screen waving to the satellite above, in real-time? Is that what you want?
I'm guessing you live in either Europe or America, while I live in Australia. Either way, there is a very large spanse of water between you and I. Yet, if you and I swapped phone numbers and had a live video chat, you would still argue that is made possible not from satellites, but from ground towers? Yes?
-
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
I don't pass mine off as reality. I pass my stuff off as my own musings. My own theories. My own hypotheses, or whatever you people want to describe them.
I don't pass anything off as factual if I can't directly prove them.
-
8in only works to a certain distance because after a certain point, a parabola is not the same shape as a circle.
And what would that distance be.....roughly?
The tilt was worked out.
You rejected it and have yet to show a counter tilt value.
So no, YOU are scared to work it out.
Well let's see about it when you work out the 8 inches per mile squared to a distance of what you say only works.
Have you actually applied your 8 inches per square mile rule in the real world? I don't know how many times it has been pointed out to you, but the 8 inches per square mile rule is inadequate for use in the real world because it does not account for observer's height and refraction. It's nothing more than a loose rule of thumb. The moment you lift your eye level up off the ground, it's erroneous.
Can you please stop elevating this wrong tool to the position of your flat earth saviour. It is not your saviour.
The 8 inches per mile squared was made by you people. Globalists.
Refraction in your world is nonsense with your so called global curve, so that excuse is pointless.
You try to dodge the 8 inches per mile squared because it kills off your globe in terms of what we physically see....or don't see, as it stands.
-
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
So this is a real Earth globe...right?
Yes. All this time you've been carrying on that Earth is flattish and definitely not a globe, you've been receiving all your directions in life from a three dimensional globe map of the earth.
How do you feel? I can tell you how you look from where I'm sitting.
I've never looked at any global map for directions. Neither have you.
-
No, sceptimatic, it is a cgi representation from photos from satellites, planes, and cars, of what reality is.
No. It's CGI until it gets to the plane height for aerial photography/video.
You're familiar with google earth and street view, yes?
Yep where a car goes around mapping out street views.
I use both all the time before I do a raid on a house.
Ohhh, ok, tell me about it, studdddddddddddddddd. C:-) ::) ;)
The satellite views are very helpful in planning for problems, escape routes, areas of cover, etc. Invaluable, in fact.
Yes, 3/4/5/6 month out of date images will do you the world of good.
Now, please tell me what the difference is, aside from time, between seeing what stuff looks like from the global set up months earlier, to seeing what stuff looks like now, in real time? How does this difference benefit your argument in any way?
I've seen extensions go up in 4 weeks. I've seen roads added in a few months. I've seen many many changes to areas within a 3 to 6 month span....so what are you talking about?
If I could show you global earth in real time, would you be satisfied?
If you could show me I'm living on a globe I will not argue it again.
Just don't leave anything open to argument.
Can you do this?
You want to step outside with your laptop and watch yourself on your computer screen waving to the satellite above, in real-time? Is that what you want?
Yeah, that would help.
I'd like a real time hit from your satellite to my lap top of the place I'm standing at showing the reality of that time.
Show me that and how to log into it and you have me.
And to think you could've done this ages ago and put me out of my misery....eh?
I'm guessing you live in either Europe or America, while I live in Australia. Either way, there is a very large spanse of water between you and I. Yet, if you and I swapped phone numbers and had a live video chat, you would still argue that is made possible not from satellites, but from ground towers? Yes?
Undersea cables and ground towers...etc.....yes.
You keep thinking you're down under, don't you?
-
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
I don't pass mine off as reality.
You do, repeatedly, but you can never seem to back any of it up.
Unless you are willing to admit that all your claims about the RE are just wild speculation with no connection to reality.
Yet again you refuse to answer trivial question and justify your claims about reality, claims that you pass off as factual, yet cannot prove at all.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
The 8 inches per mile squared was made by you people. Globalists.
And repeatedly misused by people like you.
Refraction in your world is nonsense
And is that just your baseless belief, or something you are trying to pass off as factual?
You try to dodge the 8 inches per mile squared because it kills off your globe in terms of what we physically see....or don't see, as it stands.
No, I have already shown the math, using working better than the 8 inches per mile squared as it hasn't just arbitrarily rounded it.
The 8 inches per mile squared, when used honestly, does not kill the globe at all.
Instead it just further supports it.
I've never looked at any global map for directions. Neither have you.
You not liking that it is a global map, doesn't mean it isn't one.
-
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
I don't pass mine off as reality.
You do, repeatedly, but you can never seem to back any of it up.
No, I don't.
I've repeatedly told you this but, as usual you go into this mode no matter what is said. This is why most of your posts get overlooked.
-
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
I don't pass mine off as reality.
You do, repeatedly, but you can never seem to back any of it up.
No, I don't.
Again, if you want this to be the case admit that everything that you have said about the RE is just your baseless opinion with no connection to reality.
Admit that everything you have said about the RE is not factual.
Admit that everything you have said about the RE is not being passed off as reality and thus shows no problem with the RE and in no way indicates that in reality Earth is not round.
Unless you are willing to do that, and openly admit that nothing you say about the RE is factual, stop lying and claiming you are not passing off your beliefs as facts/reality.
I've repeatedly told you this but, as usual you go into this mode no matter what is said. This is why most of your posts get overlooked.
Yes, you do repeatedly lie, and I expose those lies.
That is why you continually overlook my post, because I have repeatedly shown you are wrong and continue to do so with each post.
You hate that, and have no interest in admitting that so much of what you say is completely false, so you continue to ignore the majority of my posts, so you can pretend you are correct.
Like the simple questions you avoid at all cost, as they show your claims are pure BS.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
Again, if you want this to be the case admit that everything that you have said about the RE is just your baseless opinion with no connection to reality.
What I state as factual about the nonsense of the spinning globe, is just that.
Observable, testable and repeatable.
-
Again, if you want this to be the case admit that everything that you have said about the RE is just your baseless opinion with no connection to reality.
What I state as factual about the nonsense of the spinning globe, is just that.
Observable, testable and repeatable.
If this is factual, why are you completely unable to demonstrate this fact to others?
-
Again, if you want this to be the case admit that everything that you have said about the RE is just your baseless opinion with no connection to reality.
What I state as factual about the nonsense of the spinning globe, is just that.
Observable, testable and repeatable.
If this is factual, why are you completely unable to demonstrate this fact to others?
You can demostrate it to yourself by testing water level and then also testing that same water conforming to the container it is put in.
You can then pour that water onto any slightly convex surface and see that it absolutely does not conform to it and in fact runs off.
Easily observable, testable and repeatable.
-
Again, if you want this to be the case admit that everything that you have said about the RE is just your baseless opinion with no connection to reality.
What I state as factual about the nonsense of the spinning globe, is just that.
Observable, testable and repeatable.
If this is factual, why are you completely unable to demonstrate this fact to others?
You can demostrate it to yourself by testing water level and then also testing that same water conforming to the container it is put in.
You can then pour that water onto any slightly convex surface and see that it absolutely does not conform to it and in fact runs off.
Easily observable, testable and repeatable.
I understand you think this is a factual test of whether we are on a spinning round sphere or not.
Why though can you not get anyone else to think this is a factual test of this idea?
-
I understand you think this is a factual test of whether we are on a spinning round sphere or not.
Why though can you not get anyone else to think this is a factual test of this idea or not?
I can...just not people like you or others on here and those that think water can sit on a spinning ball in a space vacuum.
What chance is there with people who believe that?
People follow mass opinion and trust official llnes by what they believe is their authority, whether that's a school teacher or professor or a government figure.....etc.
When people are under peer pressure to follow a set goal, nothing will stand in that way and if anything does, it's ridiculed.
Logic goes right out of the window with this space and spinning globe stuff.
-
I understand you think this is a factual test of whether we are on a spinning round sphere or not.
Why though can you not get anyone else to think this is a factual test of this idea or not?
can...just not people like you or others on here and those that think water can sit on a spinning ball in a space vacuum.
What chance is there with people who believe that?
People follow mass opinion and trust official llnes by what they believe is their authority, whether that's a school teacher or professor or a government figure.....etc.
When people are under peer pressure to follow a set goal, nothing will stand in that way and if anything does, it's ridiculed.
Logic goes right out of the window with this space and spinning globe stuff.
So you think people who believe crazy things can ignore plain facts that are put out in front of them that contradict those crazy things?
-
So you think people who believe crazy things can ignore plain facts that are put out in front of them that contradict those crazy things?
There are no facts for a spinning globe, so what are you talking about?
-
So you think people who believe crazy things can ignore plain facts that are put out in front of them that contradict those crazy things?
There are no facts for a spinning globe, so what are you talking about?
I know you are of the opinion that there are no facts for a spinning globe.
I also know that you think you have facts that contradict a spinning globe.
The question is why you can not get others to see these facts. You say it is because of indoctrination, right? that they believe something crazy and cant be forced out of that belief by any facts?
Is this right? Or are there other reasons why you can not demonstrate that the world is not a spinning sphere convincingly to anyone?
-
So you think people who believe crazy things can ignore plain facts that are put out in front of them that contradict those crazy things?
There are no facts for a spinning globe, so what are you talking about?
I know you are of the opinion that there are no facts for a spinning globe.
I also know that you think you have facts that contradict a spinning globe.
The question is why you can not get others to see these facts. You say it is because of indoctrination, right? that they believe something crazy and cant be forced out of that belief by any facts?
Is this right? Or are there other reasons why you can not demonstrate that the world is not a spinning sphere convincingly to anyone?
I don't think people are crazy for believing in a globe. I actually feel sorry for them being severely bullied into that belief.
My issue isn't with global believers who have never took the time to or dare to look at alternatives. My issue is with those that should know better. People like you.
-
So you think people who believe crazy things can ignore plain facts that are put out in front of them that contradict those crazy things?
There are no facts for a spinning globe, so what are you talking about?
I know you are of the opinion that there are no facts for a spinning globe.
I also know that you think you have facts that contradict a spinning globe.
The question is why you can not get others to see these facts. You say it is because of indoctrination, right? that they believe something crazy and cant be forced out of that belief by any facts?
Is this right? Or are there other reasons why you can not demonstrate that the world is not a spinning sphere convincingly to anyone?
I don't think people are crazy for believing in a globe. I actually feel sorry for them being severely bullied into that belief.
My issue isn't with global believers who have never took the time to or dare to look at alternatives. My issue is with those that should know better. People like you.
Thats a great starting point! People like me.
Im here, on a flat earth forum, reading about a few peoples beliefs and ideas on the matter.
One of those opinions is that you really really really think that the earth is not a spinning sphere.
So I'm asking, why can you not convincingly demonstrate to me that the earth ~is~ not a spinning sphere?
You say: water level, it looks flat, and if you pour water onto a sphere, it doesn't stick, but instead, always finds the lowest point available to it.
Why is this not a convincing argument, a slam dunk, 100% proof, to someone like myself?
-
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
I don't pass mine off as reality.
You do, repeatedly, but you can never seem to back any of it up.
No, I don't.
Again, if you want this to be the case admit that everything that you have said about the RE is just your baseless opinion with no connection to reality.
What I state as factual about the nonsense of the spinning globe, is just that.
And there you go showing that you are lying yet again, and showing that I was correct.
You claim you are not passing it off as factual and aren't passing it off as reality, but then go and directly contradict that, claiming that it is factual.
Stop lying and claiming you are not passing things off as reality or factual, when you repeatedly do.
Observable, testable and repeatable.
That would be the globe, that you continually reject without cause, with simple questions clearly exposing your lies against it to be pure garbage.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
You can demostrate it to yourself by testing water level
Such as by observing how level water obstructs the view to distant objects even though both the observer and the object are above water level, showing that water curves.
You are not disproving the globe by you not being able to measure the expected curvature in your sink.
Likewise, as Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of another much larger ball, you are not disproving it by pouring water onto a small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
I understand you think this is a factual test of whether we are on a spinning round sphere or not.
Why though can you not get anyone else to think this is a factual test of this idea or not?
I can...just not people like you or others on here and those that think water can sit on a spinning ball in a space vacuum.
Yes, when people aren't willing to just outright reject reality, it can be quite difficult to get them to accept your BS.
The only people you can convince are those who want an excuse to dismiss reality. They have already rejected it and just want to pretend that that rejection is justified.
But to those who aren't that irrational, who don't just want to reject reality, you can't convince them, because your claims are pure BS.
Logic goes right out of the window with this space and spinning globe stuff.
Only with your pathetic attacks against it.
They have no semblance of logic at all.
It is quite difficult to use logic to argue against reality like you seem to want to.
Instead all you have are lies and strawmen and repeated contradictions.
You can't even bring yourself to answer such trivial questions as those above because you demand one answer for the RE, while rejecting that same answer for the FE, to the exact same question which has no connection to the shape of Earth.
-
There are no facts for a spinning globe, so what are you talking about?
What you mean is that there are no facts for a spinning globe that you are personally willing to accept as such. Mainly because you have got your mind set on the belief that the Earth isn't a spinning globe. Fair enough.
I would personally disagree with you as I'm sure a lot of others would do as well. But that's just the way we think compared to the way you do. I can actually think of quite a few ways of evidencing that the Earth is a globe. But that's just my experience up to now. I don't find any of your arguments about water level etc etc the slightest bit convincing and so to me those are not facts disproving globe theory. They are just personal views you have which in your mind 'proves' your beliefs. An real 'fact' or 'proof' must be universal and provable by anyone. Not just the views of one person.
Indoctrination is acceptance of a truth or reality without any form of questioning whatsoever. However science is just the opposite of that. Scientists continually question everything they do and everything we experience. If I read something or I was told something and it didn't seem to 'add up' I would question it without hesitation.
-
8in only works to a certain distance because after a certain point, a parabola is not the same shape as a circle.
And what would that distance be.....roughly?
The tilt was worked out.
You rejected it and have yet to show a counter tilt value.
So no, YOU are scared to work it out.
Well let's see about it when you work out the 8 inches per mile squared to a distance of what you say only works.
Have you actually applied your 8 inches per square mile rule in the real world? I don't know how many times it has been pointed out to you, but the 8 inches per square mile rule is inadequate for use in the real world because it does not account for observer's height and refraction. It's nothing more than a loose rule of thumb. The moment you lift your eye level up off the ground, it's erroneous.
Can you please stop elevating this wrong tool to the position of your flat earth saviour. It is not your saviour.
The 8 inches per mile squared was made by you people. Globalists.
Refraction in your world is nonsense with your so called global curve, so that excuse is pointless.
You try to dodge the 8 inches per mile squared because it kills off your globe in terms of what we physically see....or don't see, as it stands.
You don't understand basic maths, so, the 8 inches per mile squared rule of thumb is already easy way over your head. When applied correctly, taking into account elevation and refraction, it works perfectly.
You have zero qualifications and zero credibility when it comes to basic maths, science, or geography, and all your fantastic ideas come out of the "how to be a flat earther" handbook. No wonder nobody can take your theories seriously.
-
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
So this is a real Earth globe...right?
Yes. All this time you've been carrying on that Earth is flattish and definitely not a globe, you've been receiving all your directions in life from a three dimensional globe map of the earth.
How do you feel? I can tell you how you look from where I'm sitting.
I've never looked at any global map for directions. Neither have you.
This image in this post, is a three dimensional map in globe shape, zoomed out, of the maps you use for directions. It's a global map, and that's what you use.
Tell me how and why it is wrong.
-
Thats a great starting point! People like me.
Im here, on a flat earth forum, reading about a few peoples beliefs and ideas on the matter.
One of those opinions is that you really really really think that the earth is not a spinning sphere.
So I'm asking, why can you not convincingly demonstrate to me that the earth ~is~ not a spinning sphere?
You say: water level, it looks flat, and if you pour water onto a sphere, it doesn't stick, but instead, always finds the lowest point available to it.
Why is this not a convincing argument, a slam dunk, 100% proof, to someone like myself?
Because you are in no mind to pay attention to anything other than the global model you were indoctrinated with.
Water level is a slam dunk in my eyes but, until the masters/authority tell you otherwise, your globe is your globe.
I get it. Nobody wants to be an outcast. It's massively easier to basically follow the common consensus.
-
And there you go showing that you are lying yet again, and showing that I was correct.
You claim you are not passing it off as factual and aren't passing it off as reality, but then go and directly contradict that, claiming that it is factual.
I said I'm not passing my theory off as fact.
I have no qualms about saying the Earth is not a globe and using one simple observation which is also testable and repeatable, with water level, to be clear on a fact that the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk/sail/fly upon/over.
-
There are no facts for a spinning globe, so what are you talking about?
What you mean is that there are no facts for a spinning globe that you are personally willing to accept as such. Mainly because you have got your mind set on the belief that the Earth isn't a spinning globe. Fair enough.
I would personally disagree with you as I'm sure a lot of others would do as well. But that's just the way we think compared to the way you do. I can actually think of quite a few ways of evidencing that the Earth is a globe. But that's just my experience up to now. I don't find any of your arguments about water level etc etc the slightest bit convincing and so to me those are not facts disproving globe theory. They are just personal views you have which in your mind 'proves' your beliefs. An real 'fact' or 'proof' must be universal and provable by anyone. Not just the views of one person.
It can be proved by anyone but when magic is installed as a barrier to it and the threat of ridicule is put out for anyone who dares to use their own logic, it's not surprising people just go with the mass flow.
Indoctrination is acceptance of a truth or reality without any form of questioning whatsoever.
No.
Indoctrination is the acceptance of anything, true or not, without questioning.
However science is just the opposite of that.
Science is everything we are and everything we are part of.
It's about whether we can understand it all, which we cannot understand it all, yet we are also scuppered by being fed pseudoscience passed off as scientific by pseudoscientists passing them selves off as a scientific authority/expert.
We're all scientists but finding a truth and passing it off as something else is, snakery.
Scientists continually question everything they do and everything we experience.
Many do. I accept that.
I would guess that many question the globe in their own way...just not in public.
Nobody wants to lose their jobs or be cast out as a nut job for questioning authority.
If I read something or I was told something and it didn't seem to 'add up' I would question it without hesitation.
It appears you don't in these cases now, does it?
-
You don't understand basic maths, so, the 8 inches per mile squared rule of thumb is already easy way over your head. When applied correctly, taking into account elevation and refraction, it works perfectly.
You still can't work it out, can you?
This is why you're going into raptures.
It wasn't long ago when you tried to argue 8 inches per square mile, so don't be giving me that old pony.
No wonder nobody can take your theories seriously.
You have no clue who takes my stuff seriously.
You could well be correct that nobody does but it's just speculation based on your not liking what I say and getting frustrated.
-
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
So this is a real Earth globe...right?
Yes. All this time you've been carrying on that Earth is flattish and definitely not a globe, you've been receiving all your directions in life from a three dimensional globe map of the earth.
How do you feel? I can tell you how you look from where I'm sitting.
I've never looked at any global map for directions. Neither have you.
This image in this post, is a three dimensional map in globe shape, zoomed out, of the maps you use for directions. It's a global map, and that's what you use.
Tell me how and why it is wrong.
Are you telling me that this so called globe is a real globe?
Or is it a drawing?
-
Show me a google map.
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4m4SoW.jpg)
So this is a real Earth globe...right?
Yes. All this time you've been carrying on that Earth is flattish and definitely not a globe, you've been receiving all your directions in life from a three dimensional globe map of the earth.
How do you feel? I can tell you how you look from where I'm sitting.
I've never looked at any global map for directions. Neither have you.
This image in this post, is a three dimensional map in globe shape, zoomed out, of the maps you use for directions. It's a global map, and that's what you use.
Tell me how and why it is wrong.
Are you telling me that this so called globe is a real globe?
Or is it a drawing?
No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you it's a 3d map of the earth. Nobody said it was a photo of the actual earth. It's not a drawing, either. It's a render.
The question put to you, was how is this global map, wrong?
-
No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you it's a 3d map of the earth.
You have no clue whether it's a 3d map of Earth.
Nobody said it was a photo of the actual earth. It's not a drawing, either. It's a render.
Was it drawn?
The question put to you, was how is this global map, wrong?
How do you know it's right?
-
Thats a great starting point! People like me.
Im here, on a flat earth forum, reading about a few peoples beliefs and ideas on the matter.
One of those opinions is that you really really really think that the earth is not a spinning sphere.
So I'm asking, why can you not convincingly demonstrate to me that the earth ~is~ not a spinning sphere?
You say: water level, it looks flat, and if you pour water onto a sphere, it doesn't stick, but instead, always finds the lowest point available to it.
Why is this not a convincing argument, a slam dunk, 100% proof, to someone like myself?
Because you are in no mind to pay attention to anything other than the global model you were indoctrinated with.
Water level is a slam dunk in my eyes but, until the masters/authority tell you otherwise, your globe is your globe.
I get it. Nobody wants to be an outcast. It's massively easier to basically follow the common consensus.
Okay, I understand, you don't actually think you have objective proof, you just have your own opinion about the consequences of an observation ("in your eyes").
Thats okay, but it does seem a little strange that you think the reason no one will accept it is because they are all scared of going against the grain and inviting ridicule and being an outcast.
I've been made fun of plenty in my life and been an outcast of sorts at various points. Sure, it isn't nice, but I cant see that as a reason to just blindly follow along with something when you have objective facts that would contradict it.
-
Okay, I understand, you don't actually think you have objective proof, you just have your own opinion about the consequences of an observation ("in your eyes").
Thats okay, but it does seem a little strange that you think the reason no one will accept it is because they are all scared of going against the grain and inviting ridicule and being an outcast.
I've been made fun of plenty in my life and been an outcast of sorts at various points. Sure, it isn't nice, but I cant see that as a reason to just blindly follow along with something when you have objective facts that would contradict it.
You are blindly following it. There's no getting away from that because you have absolutely no proof of a spinning globe, if you are honest with yourself.
You are massively reliant on your belief in authority.
-
You don't understand basic maths, so, the 8 inches per mile squared rule of thumb is already easy way over your head. When applied correctly, taking into account elevation and refraction, it works perfectly.
You still can't work it out, can you?
This is why you're going into raptures.
It wasn't long ago when you tried to argue 8 inches per square mile, so don't be giving me that old pony.
No wonder nobody can take your theories seriously.
You have no clue who takes my stuff seriously.
You could well be correct that nobody does but it's just speculation based on your not liking what I say and getting frustrated.
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
Saying nobody takes your life's work seriously was a bit harsh. Shifter, John Davis, Danang, and Tom Bishop would be a few of your biggest fans. It's not about not liking, it's about taking it seriously.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners. It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out. I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
-
No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you it's a 3d map of the earth.
You have no clue whether it's a 3d map of Earth.
Nobody said it was a photo of the actual earth. It's not a drawing, either. It's a render.
Was it drawn?
The question put to you, was how is this global map, wrong?
How do you know it's right?
I have the biggest clue. All distances on the 3d global map, to scale, match distances in reality. Show me a flat earth map you can do the same with? Flat earth maps dont even have a scale, do they? You don't even have that with your flattish earth speculation. Pick a distance that is wrong on the global render.
Antarctica being a continent and not a ring of ice, pulls the whole show together as a globe.
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
-
And there you go showing that you are lying yet again, and showing that I was correct.
You claim you are not passing it off as factual and aren't passing it off as reality, but then go and directly contradict that, claiming that it is factual.
I said I'm not passing my theory off as fact.
I have no qualms about saying the Earth is not a globe and using one simple observation which is also testable and repeatable, with water level, to be clear on a fact that the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk/sail/fly upon/over.
right
you're passing your debunkings as fact.
so fact away.
oooh right... your debunkings have been debunked.
try again.
you can start by providing us a circle, to scale, of a 6ft observer standing on its surface.
or definiing what the tilt is of the supposed the massive tilt.
or a photo of your tu-tube experiment.
or why a mercator map is usable for pilots in the southern hemisphere yet at the same time unusable because it requires a ball earth to make sense.
or any of the other many unaddressed issues you continue to dodge.
all hail the dodge king.
-
I have the biggest clue. All distances on the 3d global map, to scale, match distances in reality.
You honestly have no clue at all. You just believe you do because you see a drawing/render that you believe is your Earth.
Show me a flat earth map you can do the same with?
Are there any flat maps that people use or do they actually use globes?
Flat earth maps dont even have a scale, do they?
Are there any flat maps or do you go by a globe in your car or helicopter or jet ot speed boat or dingy or Aussie swat mobile?
You don't even have that with your flattish earth speculation.
I'd find it hard to draw a genuine map with not having the resources to actually do the necessaries....and even then I'd likely only get so much with plenty being out of reach.
Pick a distance that is wrong on the global render.
Pick a distance that is right on your globe.
Antarctica being a continent and not a ring of ice, pulls the whole show together as a globe.
You have absolutely no clue what Antarctica is other than what you're told by the storytellers.
Just be honest about it.
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
-
Okay, I understand, you don't actually think you have objective proof, you just have your own opinion about the consequences of an observation ("in your eyes").
Thats okay, but it does seem a little strange that you think the reason no one will accept it is because they are all scared of going against the grain and inviting ridicule and being an outcast.
I've been made fun of plenty in my life and been an outcast of sorts at various points. Sure, it isn't nice, but I cant see that as a reason to just blindly follow along with something when you have objective facts that would contradict it.
You are blindly following it. There's no getting away from that because you have absolutely no proof of a spinning globe, if you are honest with yourself.
You are massively reliant on your belief in authority.
But unlike you, I am not claiming I have "proof".
Yes, my current conceptualization presumes I am not being lied to by a huge sprawling massive worldwide conspiracy theory. It seems silly to believe that without any evidence, no?
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
Good job. Now factor in elevation and refraction index. Use the earth curvature calculator. It's free.
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
My goodness, how many times have we been over this and you still can't seem to conceptualize it. This from Feb:
As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point? It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
How much longer distance?
For short distances it's fine. At 1000 miles it starts to diverge to the point the error makes it no longer viable. Further than that the error gets bigger and bigger extremely quickly.
The blue line is the 8 inches per mile squared rule. It eventually diverges from the circle pretty badly as you can see.
(https://i.imgur.com/Eoq0K3N.jpg)
-
I have the biggest clue. All distances on the 3d global map, to scale, match distances in reality.
You honestly have no clue at all. You just believe you do because you see a drawing/render that you believe is your Earth.
Show me a flat earth map you can do the same with?
Are there any flat maps that people use or do they actually use globes?
Flat earth maps dont even have a scale, do they?
Are there any flat maps or do you go by a globe in your car or helicopter or jet ot speed boat or dingy or Aussie swat mobile?
You don't even have that with your flattish earth speculation.
I'd find it hard to draw a genuine map with not having the resources to actually do the necessaries....and even then I'd likely only get so much with plenty being out of reach.
Pick a distance that is wrong on the global render.
Pick a distance that is right on your globe.
Antarctica being a continent and not a ring of ice, pulls the whole show together as a globe.
You have absolutely no clue what Antarctica is other than what you're told by the storytellers.
Just be honest about it.
It all depends which app I'm using on my iPad or phone. If I'm using Google earth or google maps, I'm navigating off a globe map. Just like you do all the time. Zoom out every once in a while to remind yourself the shape of the world, sceptimatic.
I can pick any distance I like on the global render which is correct. Any distance I like. Do yourself a favor, buy yourself a decent sized earth globe with scale printed on, and a tape measure, and manually start measuring distances and compare with real world distances.
I have many clues what Antarctica is, from my future employers down there, and from all those videos telling very compelling and convincing stories from passengers in the Antarctic joy flights.
-
I have many clues what Antarctica is, from my future employers down there, and from all those videos telling very compelling and convincing stories from passengers in the Antarctic joy flights.
I was there once. It was pretty cool.
-
I have many clues what Antarctica is, from my future employers down there, and from all those videos telling very compelling and convincing stories from passengers in the Antarctic joy flights.
I was there once. It was pretty cool.
I'm sure I'm in for a frosty reception when I get down there.
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
Sceppy can math!
Great
Time to calculate circles and tilts.
Lets go.
The 8in has alrwady been explained.
Unless you want to re-explain why you still feel its valid.
-
I have the biggest clue. All distances on the 3d global map, to scale, match distances in reality.
You honestly have no clue at all. You just believe you do because you see a drawing/render that you believe is your Earth.
Show me a flat earth map you can do the same with?
Are there any flat maps that people use or do they actually use globes?
Just be honest about it.
Yes
Lets be honest about the distances between south america and australia.
There are flights between them.
So there are pilots who travel routes based on "flat" maps.
So is the mercator map valid or not?
Or is it a prjoection of the side of the globe pasted onto a flat piece of paoer?
You want to dance semantics or you want to actually answer a question?
Its flat paper of a globe or not?
Because if not - your flat map in your names picture must somehow account for the distance.
If you know th map to be invlaid, then produce a reason.
And "globe is not real" isnt reason.
Or maybe produce a method on your flat map for getting from SA to australia.
Pacman style.
-
No.
Indoctrination is the acceptance of anything, true or not, without questioning.
Quite agree and that is what sets science apart from indoctrination. I don't know what your understanding is of science but my understanding is that science is about questioning everything in nature. From observation comes hypothesis and from hypothesis comes testing, experiment and more observations and from that comes the conclusion about whether the original hypothesis was correct. If the evidence supports the hypothesis then it develops into a theory and finally a model. If not then we question why not and then change the hypothesis.
You on the other hand now have assigned yourself a fixed conclusion that the Earth is not a spinning globe. If your observations and 'simple experiments' have convinced you of that then fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinions. But how an equatorial mount could work successfully in the southern hemisphere (as they do - There are millions of amateur astronomers south of the equator who will testify that they do) according to your model I haven't a clue.
Clearly the distances involved in interstellar and intergalactic space are a bit too overwhelming for your mind to deal with and so you can't understand it. Therefore you automatically dismiss it all as completely false. 'It can't be true!' your brain tells you and therefore you conclude that it isn't true. Those who say the stars are all distant suns must be deliberately trying to dupe you!! Why on Earth they would waste time trying to dupe you and everyone else is beyond me. So instead you try to collapse it all down into something that makes more sense to you. The stars to you become simple lights in the sky. Ahhh bless.
-
Over complicating it.
His hatted for the "indoctrined" goes so unreasobaly far that he cant accecpt basic motion physcis, how circles work, how eyeballs work and how toilet tubes work.
All easily provable things that also indepently dont rely on a denP cellular flat world.
-
This thread could easily pass 200 or even 300 pages and Sceptimatic would still be pouting on about the same stuff for the same reasons. It's a shame he develops a hatred for everything he doesn't understand. Some people put the effort in to try and understand it while others simply create their own fantasy worlds instead where they can make up the rules. But there you go. Science isn't for everyone.
You have no clue who takes my stuff seriously.
You could well be correct that nobody does but it's just speculation based on your not liking what I say and getting frustrated.
I actually love you what you have to say... we all need something to entertain us in this day and age. As for taking it seriously.. obviously there are some who do.... Like bigfoot... I'm sure they are out there somewhere but we just haven't found them yet.
-
And there you go showing that you are lying yet again, and showing that I was correct.
You claim you are not passing it off as factual and aren't passing it off as reality, but then go and directly contradict that, claiming that it is factual.
I said I'm not passing my theory off as fact.
You sure do love lying to avoid admitting you are wrong.
You claimed you don't pass your BELIEFS off as reality:
I believe you're the one living in a fantasy world, so we seem to be rigid in our thoughts.
And like so many of your beliefs, that one has no basis in reality.
I don't pass mine off as reality.
But you repeatedly do.
You continually claim this to avoid admitting you have no justification for any of the lies you spout about the RE.
I have no qualms about saying the Earth is not a globe and using one simple observation which is also testable and repeatable, with water level
Which clearly shows Earth is round.
Water level does not disprove the globe.
It is strong evidence supporting it.
You are yet to demonstrate how water level magically disproves the globe at all. Instead all you can provide are repeated strawmen.
That is the level of your dishonesty. You have no issues at all with using observations which show Earth is round and blatantly lying about them to pretend Earth is flat.
It is extremely dishonest.
Just like you have no issues with repeatedly contradicting yourself and repeatedly lying to try to prop up your fantasy.
All while avoiding trivial questions which expose your lies.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Because you are in no mind to pay attention to anything other than the global model you were indoctrinated with.
You mean he is in no mind to accept your delusional claims which you cannot justify and need to continually avoid simple questions which expose them as lies.
Water level is a slam dunk in my eyes
But to any sane person, it quite clearly demonstrates that Earth is curved.
Again, the fact that level water obstructs the view to a distant object, even though both the object and the observer are above water level, shows quite clearly that this level water curves.
You have nothing that shows level water does not curve.
The best you get is the inability to measure that insignificant curve in your sink.
It can be proved by anyone
Your garbage can't.
It can only be "proven" by those who do not care about accurately representing the RE model and instead are happy to completely ignore scale and other facts and pretend the RE model has Earth as a tiny ball you can hold in your hand, sitting on top of a much larger ball.
But anyone who is honest and rational will very quickly realise that that is NOT in any way an accurate representation of the RE.
Instead they see the water flowing towards Earth.
Those who choose to actually use logic, see your claims as pure BS.
It appears you don't in these cases now, does it?
We do. We repeatedly question your BS, which simply does not add up.
Conversely there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the globe. Instead you just keep on lying about it.
you have absolutely no proof of a spinning globe, if you are honest with yourself.
That is if we are dishonest with ourselves and believe your blatant lies.
Although normally we would call it evidence, rather than proof (at least some of us).
You not liking that abundant evidence and continually wanting to pretend it doesn't exist, doesn't magically mean it doesn't.
Just because you blindly reject it and blindly follow your fantasy, even though your fantasy makes no sense at all, doesn't mean that those who follow the RE model just follow it blindly.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
Not in any honest, rational way.
Instead you just continually use whatever dishonest BS you can to deflect.
We are apparently so hard to deal with you can't even answer basic questions without manipulating them into something else or just entirely deflecting from them.
Flat earth maps dont even have a scale, do they?
Are there any flat maps
And there you go with more dishonesty.
There is a fundamental difference between a flat map of a round Earth, based upon projecting that RE, introducing known distortions which can be corrected for and a map of a flat Earth.
The question is not if you have flat maps of the RE, it is if you have maps of the flat Earth.
-
Okay, I understand, you don't actually think you have objective proof, you just have your own opinion about the consequences of an observation ("in your eyes").
Thats okay, but it does seem a little strange that you think the reason no one will accept it is because they are all scared of going against the grain and inviting ridicule and being an outcast.
I've been made fun of plenty in my life and been an outcast of sorts at various points. Sure, it isn't nice, but I cant see that as a reason to just blindly follow along with something when you have objective facts that would contradict it.
You are blindly following it. There's no getting away from that because you have absolutely no proof of a spinning globe, if you are honest with yourself.
You are massively reliant on your belief in authority.
But unlike you, I am not claiming I have "proof".
Yes, my current conceptualization presumes I am not being lied to by a huge sprawling massive worldwide conspiracy theory. It seems silly to believe that without any evidence, no?
Oh, ok, so you're not claiming you have any proof for a spinning globe.
Fair enough.
I gave you mine.
Whether you think that's not enough is down to you and you're welcome to it.
-
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
Good job. Now factor in elevation and refraction index. Use the earth curvature calculator. It's free.
You already messed up. Forget refraction, you're supposed to be backing up your Earth curvature and no way in hell do you need to factor in anything other than your Earth curvature in 8 inches per mile squared.
So let's have it, if you can.
-
Old pony? My argument about 8 inches per square mile has always been the same. That you need to factor in elevation and refraction. Those are the two ingredients, all flat earthers flatly refuse to acknowledge and incorporate into the formula. Why? ???
It isn't 8 inches per square mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared.
You're digging yourself a right big hole.
I love watching you paint yourself into corners.
And you fail to realise you are covered in it.
It brings out your creativity as you try to squirm your way out.
It's easy to deal with people like you.
I also love how you're quick to flatter yourself that you've succeeded in frustrating people.
I don't think about flattering myself. I can see it by the way you answer me.
I just tend not to try and get into too much too and fro with people like you in terms of trying to counteract your attempted digs under severe frustration.
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
My goodness, how many times have we been over this and you still can't seem to conceptualize it. This from Feb:
As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point? It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
How much longer distance?
For short distances it's fine. At 1000 miles it starts to diverge to the point the error makes it no longer viable. Further than that the error gets bigger and bigger extremely quickly.
The blue line is the 8 inches per mile squared rule. It eventually diverges from the circle pretty badly as you can see.
(https://i.imgur.com/Eoq0K3N.jpg)
We're only talking a short distance. 21 miles is short enough....right?
How about you work it out.
-
It all depends which app I'm using on my iPad or phone. If I'm using Google earth or google maps, I'm navigating off a globe map. Just like you do all the time. Zoom out every once in a while to remind yourself the shape of the world, sceptimatic.
I can pick any distance I like on the global render which is correct. Any distance I like. Do yourself a favor, buy yourself a decent sized earth globe with scale printed on, and a tape measure, and manually start measuring distances and compare with real world distances.
I have many clues what Antarctica is, from my future employers down there, and from all those videos telling very compelling and convincing stories from passengers in the Antarctic joy flights.
I rest my case with this jumble.
-
No.
Indoctrination is the acceptance of anything, true or not, without questioning.
Quite agree and that is what sets science apart from indoctrination. I don't know what your understanding is of science but my understanding is that science is about questioning everything in nature.
I totally agree. Questioning everything about nature. That we can observable, testable and repeatable.
This is not something I'm arguing...and you know this.
From observation comes hypothesis and from hypothesis comes testing, experiment and more observations and from that comes the conclusion about whether the original hypothesis was correct.
If it is/was correct.
If it cannot be proven then it becomes nothing more than a theory.
If the evidence supports the hypothesis then it develops into a theory and finally a model. If not then we question why not and then change the hypothesis.
The evidence does not support the hypotheses in anything to do with a spinning globe and trimmings.
You on the other hand now have assigned yourself a fixed conclusion that the Earth is not a spinning globe.
I'm absolutely sure of it.
If your observations and 'simple experiments' have convinced you of that then fair enough.
They have and I'm 100% happy with it.
We are all entitled to our opinions.
Absolutely.
But how an equatorial mount could work successfully in the southern hemisphere (as they do - There are millions of amateur astronomers south of the equator who will testify that they do) according to your model I haven't a clue.
Briefly explain why it shows a globe. Try to be as honest as you can and as simple as you can in explanation.
Clearly the distances involved in interstellar and intergalactic space are a bit too overwhelming for your mind to deal with and so you can't understand it.
Noooo. They're simply absolute nonsense for the reasons I've given.
They're too overwhelming for people like yourself but you go along with it because of that. Because you have no clue but it seems so complicated so let's just follow as much of it as you can.
The story of it all is brilliant. It's a great fantasy story and I have no qualms about people wanting to believe it's a reality.
People go to star wars conventions and what not. Why?
Because they buy into the story of it all and off the back of that they buy into space and all of the so called wordings of intergalactic and black holes and such utter nonsense (to me).
Therefore you automatically dismiss it all as completely false.
Because I believe it all is.
'It can't be true!' your brain tells you and therefore you conclude that it isn't true.
No. It can't be true because simple experiments show otherwise.
You see, in school and colleges and such, they dazzle you with brilliance and baffle you with utter bull.
Those who say the stars are all distant suns must be deliberately trying to dupe you!!
Not at all.
Most likely think it's true.
Why on Earth they would waste time trying to dupe you and everyone else is beyond me.
It depends on who they are and their reasons for doing it.
So instead you try to collapse it all down into something that makes more sense to you.
Only because it does make more sense. I wouldn't waste my time if I thought otherwise.
The stars to you become simple lights in the sky. Ahhh bless.
And they becomes millions of miles in diameter fire balls to you. Ahhh bless.
-
This thread could easily pass 200 or even 300 pages and Sceptimatic would still be pouting on about the same stuff for the same reasons. It's a shame he develops a hatred for everything he doesn't understand. Some people put the effort in to try and understand it while others simply create their own fantasy worlds instead where they can make up the rules. But there you go. Science isn't for everyone.
You have no clue who takes my stuff seriously.
You could well be correct that nobody does but it's just speculation based on your not liking what I say and getting frustrated.
I actually love you what you have to say... we all need something to entertain us in this day and age. As for taking it seriously.. obviously there are some who do.... Like bigfoot... I'm sure they are out there somewhere but we just haven't found them yet.
Like many things. They may or may not be a reality but some are passed off as being just that....namely Earth as a spinning pear and millions of miles in diameter fiery balls in a vacuum....etc.....etc.....etc.
-
You sure do love lying to avoid admitting you are wrong.
You claimed you don't pass your BELIEFS off as reality:
I don't, so I'm not telling lies.
-
Articulate the difference my fine tarred and feathered friend, between 8 inches per square mile and 8 inches per mile squared. Come on then, smarty pants.
8 inches per square mile is just that....8 inches for each square mile.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for the first mile then squared for the second mile which is 8 inches x 2 x 2 = 32 inches, then 8 inches x3 x3 for the third, which is 72 inches....and so on.
Good job. Now factor in elevation and refraction index. Use the earth curvature calculator. It's free.
You already messed up. Forget refraction, you're supposed to be backing up your Earth curvature and no way in hell do you need to factor in anything other than your Earth curvature in 8 inches per mile squared.
So let's have it, if you can.
Lol! You say i messed up, when you fell into my trap and i got you to do something - in this case do some explaining and a paltry bit of maths! I had a win! ;D
How can I just "forget refraction", or elevation? Stop being silly! Even one as astute as yourself recognizes the higher you go, the farther you can see. You even recognize that water bends light. These two factors are relevant to your precious 8 inches per square mile, oops, I mean 8 inches per mile squared.
The earth curve calculator factors in elevation and refraction index. Two things you need to learn to do, if you want to be a flat earth expert.
-
Lol! You say i messed up, when you fell into my trap and i got you to do something - in this case do some explaining and a paltry bit of maths! I had a win! ;D
Your mask is slipping, don't allow it to.
How can I just "forget refraction", or elevation? Stop being silly! Even one as astute as yourself recognizes the higher you go, the farther you can see.
If you want to go with refraction then you have to understand there is no curvature, convexly.
If you want to understand seeing farther out at elevation then you need to understand you cannot do this by looking over a convex curve. It takes away your level view and puts it into the sky......but.......but.....you don't see this because you are not on a globe.
You even recognize that water bends light.
No issue with that.
It just doesn't do it on a convex curve.
These two factors are relevant to your precious 8 inches per square mile, oops, I mean 8 inches per mile squared.
Your oops carries no purpose. You messed up and cannot rectify it with a silly, oops.
The earth curve calculator factors in elevation and refraction index. Two things you need to learn to do, if you want to be a flat earth expert.
You are just reading your internet page and coming out with stuff you have no clue about.
Try the 8 inches per mile squared over the 21 mile distance and see what drop you come up with.
-
Okay, I understand, you don't actually think you have objective proof, you just have your own opinion about the consequences of an observation ("in your eyes").
Thats okay, but it does seem a little strange that you think the reason no one will accept it is because they are all scared of going against the grain and inviting ridicule and being an outcast.
I've been made fun of plenty in my life and been an outcast of sorts at various points. Sure, it isn't nice, but I cant see that as a reason to just blindly follow along with something when you have objective facts that would contradict it.
You are blindly following it. There's no getting away from that because you have absolutely no proof of a spinning globe, if you are honest with yourself.
You are massively reliant on your belief in authority.
But unlike you, I am not claiming I have "proof".
Yes, my current conceptualization presumes I am not being lied to by a huge sprawling massive worldwide conspiracy theory. It seems silly to believe that without any evidence, no?
Oh, ok, so you're not claiming you have any proof for a spinning globe.
Fair enough.
I gave you mine.
Whether you think that's not enough is down to you and you're welcome to it.
Nope, I personally do not have "proof" that the earth is a spinning sphere.
I find the incredible wealth of evidence to this effect to be convincing though, and I don't believe in the vast worldwide conspiracy that would be required to maintain the collective belief in a spinning sphere for some unknown, bizarre reason.
That said, if someone has evidence to the contrary, either observations that are in direct conflict with the collective understanding of the geometry of the world, and/or direct evidence of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth, Im happy to look at that evidence.
You presented what you believe is your best evidence of the above: your visual perception of water level.
I do not find this as strong evidence in the least, it doesn't seem to falsify any geometric conceptions that I am aware of, and seems entirely consistent with geometry and forces described by the model of the world.
You however find it super compelling, 100% proof, iron clad, yada yada yada, ... And that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
Your opinion is also that I find it lackluster not because I fairly evaluate this evidence weigh it accordingly, but because I can not evaluate it properly due to preconceived notions.
Two questions:
Could you be wrong in this? It is your opinion that I dont see the brilliant simplicity of your water level "proof" due to preconceived notions about the shape of the earth. Could this opinion of yours be wrong? Could there actually be other, better, reasons that myself and others like me are unconvinced by your evidence?
Also, if people can be so convinced of an idea that they can intellectually ignore any evidence to the contrary, how do you know that this is not happening with yourself? Are your own biases and preconceived notions preventing you from being able to see evidence that is contrary to your worldview?
-
Nope, I personally do not have "proof" that the earth is a spinning sphere.
That's fair enough and honest.
I find the incredible wealth of evidence to this effect to be convincing though, and I don't believe in the vast worldwide conspiracy that would be required to maintain the collective belief in a spinning sphere for some unknown, bizarre reason.
That's open to suggestions and opinions, obviously.
That said, if someone has evidence to the contrary, either observations that are in direct conflict with the collective understanding of the geometry of the world, and/or direct evidence of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth, Im happy to look at that evidence.
I disagree that you are happy to look at evidence.
I think the evidence is firmly in your face in quite a few examples.
Water level is just one major example.
You presented what you believe is your best evidence of the above: your visual perception of water level.
Not just visual. It's physically testable and repeatable, also.
I do not find this as strong evidence in the least, it doesn't seem to falsify any geometric conceptions that I am aware of, and seems entirely consistent with geometry and forces described by the model of the world.
It's not strong evidence because you believe water can just conform to a globe even though everything you see with water does not support this.
You however find it super compelling, 100% proof, iron clad, yada yada yada, ... And that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
I'm entitled to it because I know it's 100% correct.
Your opinion is also that I find it lackluster not because I fairly evaluate this evidence weigh it accordingly, but because I can not evaluate it properly due to preconceived notions.
Two questions:
Could you be wrong in this? It is your opinion that I dont see the brilliant simplicity of your water level "proof" due to preconceived notions about the shape of the earth. Could this opinion of yours be wrong? Could there actually be other, better, reasons that myself and others like me are unconvinced by your evidence?
I'm not wrong about dismissing a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon and which water just stays on by a supposed magical force called gravity.
What you are convinced by or not is down to you and you're welcome to it.
Also, if people can be so convinced of an idea that they can intellectually ignore any evidence to the contrary, how do you know that this is not happening with yourself?
Many things may be totally different to what I believe. Many things may be a better explanation as to my Earth hypothesis.
What isn't in question with me is, Earth not being a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon, spinning around a near 1 million mile ball of fire in a vast space vacuum also containing even bigger fires and so called planets of rock and even gas.
The list is long and equally monstrously ridiculous in the extreme. Absolute nonsense. In my absolutely and honest opinion, of course,.
Are your own biases and preconceived notions preventing you from being able to see evidence that is contrary to your worldview?
That's the beauty. I once believed all that garbage about a globe. I was brought up on it all, like most.
I had no real mind to question anything. I was totally indoctrinated into the dazzling science of everything, like most.
As I got older (last 20 years or so), I began to question the so called achievements of mankind. Moon landings and nukes and suchlike.
By doing all of this it got me going deeper and then finding this place to try and figure out what was what.
This place got me thinking much deeper.
All the alternate theories.
I decided to do a few little experiments and what not and here I am at this stage.
So, just remember that I've had my indoctrination and that's why I have no issue with people believing mainstream ideals.
It takes a lot of thought and will to actually want to question stuff, much deeper.
Most people have little patience for any of it and I get that.
Some people just refuse to think because they deem all alternate thinkers of being nutters, all based on mainstream media telling them that.
The majority just go with the flow because the majority of people do not want to be going against mass opinion. They would prefer to be comfortable supporting it, even if it isn't a potential truth, of which they may never find out because they have no will to question.
It's easy for a globalist to argue with me because they are armed with, at your fingertips, ideals. It doesn't require much thought.
People coming on here just to push ridicule at alternate thinkers shows the sadness in them rather than those who they're trying to put down.
To think anyone would expend most of their time doing it, baffles me.
To those who genuinely want to find stuff out or think outside the box, even if they believe a globe....I get it. I used to be that person.
-
Sceptimatic, this thread title is, "What would change your mind?"
It's a green light for you to throw at globe believers what you think will change their mind, and for globe believers to throw at you, what they think will change yours and other flat earther's minds.
Flat earthers are here. Globe earthers are here. This is a cyberspace arena and what you want. So enjoy.
I read your reply. I've been on high mountains and looked straight ahead to only see sky, but in my peripheral vision down, there is the physical horizon off in the distance. So you're correct that on a spinning globe you look straight ahead at sky. No problem there.
I'm not emotionally invested in 8 inches per square mile or mile squared like you are. To me, square mile or mile squared is semantics. I know what the formula you carry on about, is, and why over great distances, the error margin in that general rule of thumb, becomes so great it is unusable.
Have you personally tested out refraction on a convex surface, to know that an image cannot be brought upwards? Show me how you have proved this........ :D
Eight inches per mile squared over 21 miles will deliver an erroneous result unless those two factors mentioned, are considered.
-
That said, if someone has evidence to the contrary, either observations that are in direct conflict with the collective understanding of the geometry of the world, and/or direct evidence of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth, Im happy to look at that evidence.
I disagree that you are happy to look at evidence.
I think the evidence is firmly in your face in quite a few examples.
Water level is just one major example.
You presented what you believe is your best evidence of the above: your visual perception of water level.
Not just visual. It's physically testable and repeatable, also.
Okay, explain it to me then. I repeat I'm happy to evaluate any claim you make.
You say you can take repeatable, physical measurements of water, and from these measurements conclude that we are not on spinning sphere.
Talk me through it. What are these physical measurements? what are the results you have obtained? and how do the results conflict with the conceptualization of spinning sphere where water is held to its surface through gravity?
Can you do this? Can you present your evidence in a clear, straightforward manner in a way that someone interested in critically evaluating it can understand it?
Are your own biases and preconceived notions preventing you from being able to see evidence that is contrary to your worldview?
That's the beauty. I once believed all that garbage about a globe. I was brought up on it all, like most.
I had no real mind to question anything. I was totally indoctrinated into the dazzling science of everything, like most.
As I got older (last 20 years or so), I began to question the so called achievements of mankind. Moon landings and nukes and suchlike.
By doing all of this it got me going deeper and then finding this place to try and figure out what was what.
This place got me thinking much deeper.
All the alternate theories.
I decided to do a few little experiments and what not and here I am at this stage.
So, just remember that I've had my indoctrination and that's why I have no issue with people believing mainstream ideals.
It takes a lot of thought and will to actually want to question stuff, much deeper.
Most people have little patience for any of it and I get that.
Some people just refuse to think because they deem all alternate thinkers of being nutters, all based on mainstream media telling them that.
The majority just go with the flow because the majority of people do not want to be going against mass opinion. They would prefer to be comfortable supporting it, even if it isn't a potential truth, of which they may never find out because they have no will to question.
It's easy for a globalist to argue with me because they are armed with, at your fingertips, ideals. It doesn't require much thought.
I have to say Sceptimatic, this comes across to me as kind of a delusion of grandeur, your vision of yourself as some grand thinker, able to penetrate the veil of secrecy that covers the eyes of all the "normal" people in the world through your great will that most people lack.
I mean, how likely is this? That you, someone who admittedly struggles with very simple concepts, has discovered the great truths of the universe around us?
Couldn't you just be wrong and all this just in your imagination? Can you even allow for this possibility?
-
Sceptimatic, this thread title is, "What would change your mind?"
It doesn't (or shouldn't) take 170+ pages just to say 'nothing because my mind is already made up' which is clearly the true in Sceptis case.
Just because Sceptimatic finds it impossible to visualise the Earth as a spinning globe it doesn't mean it isn't or that no one else should be able to either.
-
You sure do love lying to avoid admitting you are wrong.
You claimed you don't pass your BELIEFS off as reality:
I don't, so I'm not telling lies.
Removing the part of the post which exposed your lies won't magically make it go away.
You claim you aren't passing off your beliefs as reality, while passing off your claims about the RE as reality.
So of course you need to hide that and blatantly lie about what you have done.
Just like you need to keep on avoiding trivial questions:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
I gave you mine.
You gave us nothing more than lies and blatant misrepresentations of the globe. They in no way disprove the globe.
We're only talking a short distance. 21 miles is short enough....right?
How about you work it out.
Or, considering you are the one claiming such a massive problem for the globe, and you have already been provided the math which you cannot refute, why don't YOU work it out?
And make sure you get the distance right, and you account for the height of the observer.
This is not something I'm arguing...and you know this.
It sure seems to be.
For example, you argue against questioning if the horizon is magically eye level or not, when evidence clearly shows it is below.
If it cannot be proven then it becomes nothing more than a theory.
And there you go showing you have no understanding of science at all.
In science, the highest level is theory.
Science doesn't "prove" anything as it is based upon induction.
The best it does is show that a theory is well supported by evidence, and disproving other models/hypotheses.
The evidence does not support the hypotheses in anything to do with a spinning globe and trimmings.
You rejecting reality wont magically change.
There is plenty of evidence supporting the globe which you just dismiss as fake or blatantly lie about because it shows you are wrong.
I'm absolutely sure of it.
Yet you cannot justify it at all, instead needing to repeatedly lie about it and continually avoid trivially questions which expose your lies.
Briefly explain why it shows a globe.
And more deflection from your inability to explain anything.
How about you explain how it works on a FE.
You can track an object using an equatorial mount, which simply rotates about an axis parallel to Earth's axis, set up by aligning it with north and adjusting for latitude.
It simply cannot work for your FE fantasy unless you want to pretend Earth is a tiny region.
They're simply absolute nonsense for the reasons I've given.
The "reasons" you have given amount to you just dismissing it as nonsense, i.e. your claim is that it is nonsense because it is nonsense.
You cannot justify your lie that they are nonsense at all.
It can't be true because simple experiments show otherwise.
Yet you are completely incapable of providing any such experiments.
Only because it does make more sense
Only to you.
To those who honestly take the time to examine it, your claims fall to pieces and make no sense at all.
It takes away your level view and puts it into the sky......but.......but.....you don't see this because you are not on a globe.
And the same old blatant lie you cannot justify, and need to avoid trivial questions to pretend you are right.
-
Sceptimatic, this thread title is, "What would change your mind?"
It's a green light for you to throw at globe believers what you think will change their mind, and for globe believers to throw at you, what they think will change yours and other flat earther's minds.
Flat earthers are here. Globe earthers are here. This is a cyberspace arena and what you want. So enjoy.
I read your reply. I've been on high mountains and looked straight ahead to only see sky, but in my peripheral vision down, there is the physical horizon off in the distance. So you're correct that on a spinning globe you look straight ahead at sky. No problem there.
You've never been on a mountain and looked level ahead only to see sky. You would see your horizon, unless you were looking up or down.
Looking up would have you seeing sky. Looking down would have you seeing terrain unless cloud was impeding your view.
I'm not emotionally invested in 8 inches per square mile or mile squared like you are. To me, square mile or mile squared is semantics.
No, it's not semantics, at all.
8 inches per square mile would be 8 inches for one square mile then 8 inches for the next square mile and so on.
8 inches per mile squared is 8 inches for 1 mile and 8 inches x2 x2 miles which is 2x8x2 equal 32 inches. The third mile is 8x3x3 which is 8 inches x3x3 miles = 72 inches or 6 feet drop.
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
I know what the formula you carry on about, is, and why over great distances, the error margin in that general rule of thumb, becomes so great it is unusable.
We aren't talking over great distances. We're talking 21 miles.
Have you personally tested out refraction on a convex surface, to know that an image cannot be brought upwards? Show me how you have proved this........ :D
Don't worry about refraction, worry about the drop over 21 miles.
Eight inches per mile squared over 21 miles will deliver an erroneous result unless those two factors mentioned, are considered.
Of course it will. It would deliver no turbines in the distance but we clearly see them stood plumb, which cannot happen on your globe for both those reasons.
-
Removing the part of the post which exposed your lies won't magically make it go away.
There isn't a post exposing any lies by me but you're frenzied job of attempting to make out I am, which is water off a ducks back.
-
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
There you go failing again.
Are you trying to calculate the drop over those 21 miles (when that is the wrong distance anyway), or are you trying to see how much is hidden. The 2 are quite different.
Eight inches per mile squared over 21 miles will deliver an erroneous result unless those two factors mentioned, are considered.
Of course it will.
Then don't try to use it.
It would deliver no turbines in the distance but we clearly see them stood plumb, which cannot happen on your globe for both those reasons.
You have already been provided with the math which shows beyond any doubt that the observations match the globe. The tilt is insignificant. You are not able to tell the difference between it being plumb and it tilting 0.27 degrees away from you.
Doing the math you end up with ~ 50 m hidden.
You are yet to provide any math to refute this, nor are you able to show any fault with the math that has been provide.
All you can do is continue carrying on spouting the same pathetic lies and deflecting from your complete inability to defend your lies.
Just like you need to keep on avoiding trivial questions:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
There you go failing again.
Are you trying to calculate the drop over those 21 miles (when that is the wrong distance anyway), or are you trying to see how much is hidden. The 2 are quite different.
Can you calculate the drop over that distance?
I thought the turbines were 35 km away?
Ok then calculate it from how far away they are according to you.
Let's say 15 miles to make it easier. Let's see what you have.
-
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
There you go failing again.
Are you trying to calculate the drop over those 21 miles (when that is the wrong distance anyway), or are you trying to see how much is hidden. The 2 are quite different.
Can you calculate the drop over that distance?
Why appeal to the drop?
If you want to compare it to the image, you need to calculate the amount hidden, NOT THE DROP!
Is it so you can dishonestly claim that the drop is how much should be hidden like so many FEers do to dishonestly pretend there is a problem with the globe?
Do you understand that the drop and the amount hidden are fundamentally different?
I thought the turbines were 35 km away?
I was using 30 km.
Ok then calculate it from how far away they are according to you.
Let's say 15 miles to make it easier. Let's see what you have.
You have already seen what I have, a complete calculation of how much should be hidden.
A calculation you can find no fault with, and can only deflect from.
It is all there:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2317179#msg2317179
If you think there is something wrong with it, clearly explain just what you think is wrong.
Otherwise, if you think what you are demanding will magically show something different and show a problem with the globe then do the calculation yourself.
You had the chance to get me to do it using the 8 inches per mile squared, but it came with a condition you don't want, either accepting that there is no problem with the globe, or explicitly stating what is wrong with the calculation and providing a correction, and the calculation for the tilt.
So don't bother telling me to do it now, when you are still ignoring the calculations which show you are wrong.
You have provided no motivation at all for me to do it in archaic units which just use a slight approximation of the formula I used.
Especially when you just ignore the calculation I provided.
And like I have said before, answer the trivial questions which expose your lies.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
Briefly explain why it shows a globe. Try to be as honest as you can and as simple as you can in explanation.
Let's do this by simple questions and answers. Firstly let me assure you that I know all the answers to the questions so don't try your usual 'you ain't got no clue' shenanigan's. Because I know exactly what I am talking about.
So question number one to you. An equatorial mount is made up of two axes set at right angles to one another. What are these axes called?
-
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
There you go failing again.
Are you trying to calculate the drop over those 21 miles (when that is the wrong distance anyway), or are you trying to see how much is hidden. The 2 are quite different.
Can you calculate the drop over that distance?
I thought the turbines were 35 km away?
Ok then calculate it from how far away they are according to you.
Let's say 15 miles to make it easier. Let's see what you have.
Quit deflectingdraw the circle
Tell us the tilt.
-
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
There you go failing again.
Are you trying to calculate the drop over those 21 miles (when that is the wrong distance anyway), or are you trying to see how much is hidden. The 2 are quite different.
Can you calculate the drop over that distance?
Why appeal to the drop?
If you want to compare it to the image, you need to calculate the amount hidden, NOT THE DROP!
Twist it anyway you want to but you would have two factors in the way of your turbines.
1. The downward curve.
2. The tilt, which is paramount yet cast off as nothing by you lot because you try to play degrees of tilt over an entire globe size that you believe your Earth is.
What you fail to grasp is the level and that kills off your global twisting in a heartbeat.
First of all, at 20 miles you would not only lose 266 feet of ground to your line of sight, you would also lose your line of level sight due to your tilt back and the objects tilt back away from your tilt in the opposite direction.
It doesn't matter how little the so called degrees of tilt are, it matters that the line of sight is not level.
Basically you would never see any object within a short distance if you took your global Earth into account of vision.
You lot even use the horizon as the edge of your curve over distance as if you're looking down at an angle and refusing to understand that your level sight does not and cannot account for that.
The globe is absolute utter utter nonsense and it surprises me how people can't see that after seeing what's required to keep the notion of it, alive.
-
Briefly explain why it shows a globe. Try to be as honest as you can and as simple as you can in explanation.
Let's do this by simple questions and answers. Firstly let me assure you that I know all the answers to the questions so don't try your usual 'you ain't got no clue' shenanigan's. Because I know exactly what I am talking about.
So question number one to you. An equatorial mount is made up of two axes set at right angles to one another. What are these axes called?
I want you to explain it to me so it shows your globe. Don't be teasing me into answering something which you are already geared up to showing.
Tell me.
-
Quit deflectingdraw the circle
Tell us the tilt.
Cut the anger and come back with something worthwhile.
Understand what level sight is and then you won't need play around with a pretence that a small tilt would mean nothing.
Any small degree would alter the level view so try and get that into your nut.
-
I want you to explain it to me so it shows your globe.
Question 1 - answer declined
Question 2 - What is our 'globe' said to rotate around?
-
That's just 3 miles.
Now go all the way to 21 miles and see what happens.
There you go failing again.
Are you trying to calculate the drop over those 21 miles (when that is the wrong distance anyway), or are you trying to see how much is hidden. The 2 are quite different.
Can you calculate the drop over that distance?
Why appeal to the drop?
If you want to compare it to the image, you need to calculate the amount hidden, NOT THE DROP!
Twist it anyway you want to but you would have two factors in the way of your turbines.
1. The downward curve.
2. The tilt, which is paramount yet cast off as nothing by you lot because you try to play degrees of tilt over an entire globe size that you believe your Earth is.
What you fail to grasp is the level and that kills off your global twisting in a heartbeat.
First of all, at 20 miles you would not only lose 266 feet of ground to your line of sight, you would also lose your line of level sight due to your tilt back and the objects tilt back away from your tilt in the opposite direction.
It doesn't matter how little the so called degrees of tilt are, it matters that the line of sight is not level.
Basically you would never see any object within a short distance if you took your global Earth into account of vision.
You lot even use the horizon as the edge of your curve over distance as if you're looking down at an angle and refusing to understand that your level sight does not and cannot account for that.
The globe is absolute utter utter nonsense and it surprises me how people can't see that after seeing what's required to keep the notion of it, alive.
Certainly your notion of the globe is nonsense. The one you imagine where things twist and turn strangely over its invisible surface.
The thing is, you don't have the same concept of the globe as other people do. Your imagined globe has some bizarre strange and twisted construction, so it is not surprising that you think it is nonsense. I think your imagined globe is nonsense as well.
The one most others conceptualize is governed by basic geometry. Simple, definable relationships between points in space. I know you don't understand basic geometry, but it is never too late to learn if you are ever interested in understanding the globe model the way others so instead of your own imagined world that you strangely rail against.
Good luck!
-
I want you to explain it to me so it shows your globe.
Question 1 - answer declined
I've never used a scope with equatorial mount, as you call it, so how can I answer?
The reason why I asked you to explain how it shows a spinning globe.
Question 2 - What is our 'globe' said to rotate around?
A supposed near 1 million mile diameter ball of fire in a vacuum of space.
-
The thing is, you don't have the same concept of the globe as other people do.
Correct. My mindset of the globe you people believe in is, it's nonsense and is impossible in how you people view it all.
So you are correct on that.
Your imagined globe has some bizarre strange and twisted construction, so it is not surprising that you think it is nonsense.
I think your imagined globe is nonsense as well.
I only imagine the globe that you people are indoctrinated into believing. It is bizarre and is twisted and certainly is nonsense when looked at in a rational and logical sense.
The one most others conceptualize is governed by basic geometry.
No, it's not.
It's governed by pretence.
Simple, definable relationships between points in space.
There is no space in the way you've been told. The points of light are inside Earth as reflections and that's how you can use them for navigational aids and suchlike.
I know you don't understand basic geometry, but it is never too late to learn if you are ever interested in understanding the globe model the way others so instead of your own imagined world that you strangely rail against.
Good luck!
I don't understand unicorns and what they supposedly do but I understand horses and what they do.
It's like your global geometry against real world geometry.
-
Twist it anyway you want to
You mean honestly present it and have you continually twist it to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
but you would have two factors in the way of your turbines.
You mean 2 factors I have already accounted for which are both simply due to the curvature.
The insignificant 0.27 degree tilt you are yet to refute, and the ~ 50 m hidden which you are yet to refute.
I have already accounted for these.
2. The tilt, which is paramount yet cast off as nothing
No, it is shown to be an insignificant 0.27 degrees, as simple math shows; math you are yet to challenge in any way.
But because that means there isn't a problem for the RE, you ignore all that math, and isntead just repeat the same pathetic lie.
you lot because you try to play degrees of tilt over an entire globe size that you believe your Earth is.
You mean 360 degrees, all around the Earth, because that is what simple geometry demands.
You not liking it because it means there isn't a problem for the globe doesn't change that.
First of all, at 20 miles you would not only lose 266 feet
You mean the ground would have dropped by that, it isn't "lost".
To put it another way, you lose 266 feet over a distance of 105600 feet. i.e. quite a small amount.
It is 0.25 %.
Or in terms of angle it is 0.14 degrees, or 8.7 arc minutes. Quite small. Not likely to be noticed unless you carefully measure it. But the big issue is that that is below the horizon, so the horizon will obstruct your view to it.
And the amount that is hidden is not 266 feet, but even if it was, the rotor diameter is larger than that.
Try calculating the amount hidden, rather than the drop.
Basically you would never see any object within a short distance if you took your global Earth into account of vision.
Stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.
We have been over this plenty of times. YOU CAN SEE THE RE WHEN LOOKING LEVEL IF YOUR FOV IS LARGE ENOUGH!
Again, this is shown quite simply by the trivial questions you refuse to answer.
It is also shown by the above math showing how the base of the turbines are only 0.14 degrees below level, so even with a level FOV, unless you FOV was tiny YOU WOULD SEE IT.
Again, that is the same pathetic lie you started out this thread with which has been refuted countless times, and exposed by trivial questions you continually refuse to answer.
The globe is absolute utter utter nonsense and it surprises me how people can't see that after seeing what's required to keep the notion of it, alive.
Only your pathetic lies about it are nonsense.
It shouldn't surprise you that people see through your lies.
Why would anyone believe your delusional garbage, when you are completely incapable of backing it up in any way and instead just continually repeat the same pathetic lies?
If you want anyone to take your lies seriously, start defending them.
You can start by answering the trivial questions you have been avoiding for so long it isn't funny.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
I only imagine the globe that you people are indoctrinated into believing
No, you imagine the globe noting like what the mainstream model is.
You imagine it as a tiny ball you can hold in your hand so everything would disappear from view in just a short distance and such that you should be able to measure the curvature in your sink.
That is NOTHING like the actual RE model that you cannot show any fault with.
It's like your global geometry against real world geometry.
No, it's like actual geometry, vs your delusional BS, where you claim that an object 0.075 % of the way around Earth would be massively tilted, as opposed to actual geometry that shows it would be 0.27 degrees.
It is actual geometry, that shows for an observer with an eye height 2 m above Earth, the horizon would be at an angle of dip 2.7 arc minutes, easily within any reasonable FOV, as opposed to your delusional BS that claims it would have magically disappeared from view, and in fact any curve or downwards slope would result in the same, even though it magically doesn't happen on your hypothetical FE.
It is actual geometry, that shows that if you have an eye height of 6 m above Earth, and Earth curves such that after 1 m, and object has dropped by 8 inches, then the base will be 6.75 ft inches below a straight line passing level through your eye, as opposed to your delusional BS where magically 6 ft + 0.75 ft = 11 ft.
Global geometry IS real world geometry. Your delusional BS is not.
-
The thing is, you don't have the same concept of the globe as other people do.
Correct. My mindset of the globe you people believe in is, it's nonsense and is impossible in how you people view it all.
So you are correct on that.
Your imagined globe has some bizarre strange and twisted construction, so it is not surprising that you think it is nonsense.
I think your imagined globe is nonsense as well.
I only imagine the globe that you people are indoctrinated into believing. It is bizarre and is twisted and certainly is nonsense when looked at in a rational and logical sense.
The one most others conceptualize is governed by basic geometry.
No, it's not.
It's governed by pretence.
Simple, definable relationships between points in space.
There is no space in the way you've been told. The points of light are inside Earth as reflections and that's how you can use them for navigational aids and suchlike.
I know you don't understand basic geometry, but it is never too late to learn if you are ever interested in understanding the globe model the way others so instead of your own imagined world that you strangely rail against.
Good luck!
I don't understand unicorns and what they supposedly do but I understand horses and what they do.
It's like your global geometry against real world geometry.
I know you feel this way Sceptimatic. You really, really, really feel this way. That you have figured it out. You are special and everyone else is deluded and stupid and brainwashed.
Its okay, I understand, it is nice to feel special. And if it gives you comfort to imagine all this, go for it.
But you still could learn some basic geometry. There is no "global" geometry to compare with "real world" geometry. Geometry is a man made language that is used to describe the relative positions of objects within space (not outer space mind you, just geometric space). You can just as easily use it to describe a real object or an imagined object, just as you could use a language to describe a horse or a unicorn.
The problem is the worlds you imagine (both the crazy twisted globe you rail against and your own imagined one driven by the magic crystals) CAN NOT be described using this language. They dont make "grammatical" sense in geometry. Both of them are basically pure nonsense in the geometric language we use to share, calculate, and work with the relative position of objects around us.
Learning geometry will give you insight both into how others conceptualize the globe, so you won't look like such an werido arguing against this bizarre twisted version of the globe that you have in your mind, AND, it will help you understand your own imagined world better and the relationships that you imagine are there.
Again, good luck!
-
I've never used a scope with equatorial mount, as you call it, so how can I answer?
So you are forming a judgement about something that you have never used. OK.
A supposed near 1 million mile diameter ball of fire in a vacuum of space.
Not the answer I was looking for. It's a lot more simple than that. Think of night and day.
-
Quit deflectingdraw the circle
Tell us the tilt.
Cut the anger and come back with something worthwhile.
Understand what level sight is and then you won't need play around with a pretence that a small tilt would mean nothing.
Any small degree would alter the level view so try and get that into your nut.
Draw it
Show it
Show us the real geometry.
Dhow us how a denP circle differs from a global circle.
Youre avoidìng
Appealing to some mystical denP authority that says youre righr, without showing youre right.
It is becaue sceppy says so.
Sew that?
You cant even show it.
-
Equatorial mounts are used very successfully by astronomers all over the world.
If you consider how they are designed and then compare that against the holistic picture of what evidence that produces about the possible shape of the Earth it points very strongly to the Earth being a globe.
However despite trying to I can't understand how equatorial mounts could possibly work if your 'alternative' model is indeed correct. Since you have never used an equatorial mount and don't appreciate how they work perhaps it would be prudent to have a read up about equatorial mounts and then try and fit your findings into your model.
Or of course you could just ignore this point and carry on your denials about earth being a globe regardless. I know it's your general approach to ask people to try and 'sell' everything to you as if we were doing a sales pitch trying to convince you but sometimes the potential buyer needs to do some of the work themselves as well. Not everything in life gets handed to us on a plate unfortunately.
-
You mean 2 factors I have already accounted for which are both simply due to the curvature.
The insignificant 0.27 degree tilt you are yet to refute, and the ~ 50 m hidden which you are yet to refute.
I have already accounted for these.
The fact you are arguing a tilt, no matter what you think the degrees of that tilt are, it is a tilt on what you believe your globe is.
It would also have a curvature downwards and away from you as you tilt back over and the object tilts back over, also.
The mere fact you go with a tilt should also tell you that. to look level you would also have to angle your view UP into the sky, slightly, meaning you could never have any view to any object in the distance....especially turbines which would be around 266 feet down a curvature from your view and also on a tilt.
You would have zero chance of seeing any object like that due to that slight tilt you talk about.
Your globe is literally dead in the water.
-
Again, good luck!
You too.
-
I've never used a scope with equatorial mount, as you call it, so how can I answer?
So you are forming a judgement about something that you have never used. OK.
Nope. That's why I'm asking you and you are stalling. Why?
Have you used one?
A supposed near 1 million mile diameter ball of fire in a vacuum of space.
Not the answer I was looking for. It's a lot more simple than that. Think of night and day.
You'll have to tell me. I thought you believed this Earth spun around a big ball of fire you call, a sun.
Enlighten me.
-
Quit deflectingdraw the circle
Tell us the tilt.
Cut the anger and come back with something worthwhile.
Understand what level sight is and then you won't need play around with a pretence that a small tilt would mean nothing.
Any small degree would alter the level view so try and get that into your nut.
Draw it
Show it
Show us the real geometry.
Dhow us how a denP circle differs from a global circle.
Youre avoidìng
Appealing to some mystical denP authority that says youre righr, without showing youre right.
It is becaue sceppy says so.
Sew that?
You cant even show it.
It might be wise for you to calm down and take a bit of time when answering.
-
Equatorial mounts are used very successfully by astronomers all over the world.
If you consider how they are designed and then compare that against the holistic picture of what evidence that produces about the possible shape of the Earth it points very strongly to the Earth being a globe.
However despite trying to I can't understand how equatorial mounts could possibly work if your 'alternative' model is indeed correct. Since you have never used an equatorial mount and don't appreciate how they work perhaps it would be prudent to have a read up about equatorial mounts and then try and fit your findings into your model.
Or of course you could just ignore this point and carry on your denials about earth being a globe regardless. I know it's your general approach to ask people to try and 'sell' everything to you as if we were doing a sales pitch trying to convince you but sometimes the potential buyer needs to do some of the work themselves as well. Not everything in life gets handed to us on a plate unfortunately.
Tell me what you do with your equatorial mount and where you place it on Earth, then run me through what you're seeing that proves a globe.
That's all I'm asking seeing as you brought it up.
-
Nope. That's why I'm asking you and you are stalling. Why?
Have you used one?
Yes thanks. Been using them for about 40 years now and I have several. I'm not stalling. I'm actually firing on all cylinders. I'm just trying to get you to find out something for yourself. Something you don't seem to be very good at.
If you actually took the time and trouble to find out some things for yourself you would also find out why equatorial mounts provide very good evidence for Earth being a globe.
You are the one stalling because you tend to ignore any evidence that doesn't support your beliefs or at least puts them into question.
-
Nope. That's why I'm asking you and you are stalling. Why?
Have you used one?
Yes thanks. Been using them for about 40 years now and I have several. I'm not stalling. I'm actually firing on all cylinders. I'm just trying to get you to find out something for yourself. Something you don't seem to be very good at.
Take me through it and show me your nailed on globe because of it. Let's see how you prove this.
-
Take me through it and show me your nailed on globe because of it. Let's see how you prove this.
I don't need to prove anything. The evidence is staring you in the face if you can take it upon yourself to dedicate just 5 minutes out of your life to find it.
-
Quit deflectingdraw the circle
Tell us the tilt.
Cut the anger and come back with something worthwhile.
Understand what level sight is and then you won't need play around with a pretence that a small tilt would mean nothing.
Any small degree would alter the level view so try and get that into your nut.
Draw it
Show it
Show us the real geometry.
Dhow us how a denP circle differs from a global circle.
Youre avoidìng
Appealing to some mystical denP authority that says youre righr, without showing youre right.
It is becaue sceppy says so.
Sew that?
You cant even show it.
It might be wise for you to calm down and take a bit of time when answering.
Troll on.
Im not angry.
Keep deflecting.
Keep trying to shift the burden of proof back.
The only 100%fact from your end is that -
You havent shown the massive tilt.
For all to see what a POS you are.
Are "real denP" circles and triangles really that much more difficult than "global" circles and triangles?
-
I've never used a scope with equatorial mount, as you call it, so how can I answer?
So you are forming a judgement about something that you have never used. OK.
Nope. That's why I'm asking you and you are stalling. Why?
Have you used one?
A supposed near 1 million mile diameter ball of fire in a vacuum of space.
Not the answer I was looking for. It's a lot more simple than that. Think of night and day.
You'll have to tell me. I thought you believed this Earth spun around a big ball of fire you call, a sun.
Enlighten me.
Delfect
Flowed by deflect.
Draw the massive tilt.
-
You mean 2 factors I have already accounted for which are both simply due to the curvature.
The insignificant 0.27 degree tilt you are yet to refute, and the ~ 50 m hidden which you are yet to refute.
I have already accounted for these.
The fact you are arguing a tilt, no matter what you think the degrees of that tilt are, it is a tilt on what you believe your globe is.
It would also have a curvature downwards and away from you as you tilt back over and the object tilts back over, also.
The mere fact you go with a tilt should also tell you that. to look level you would also have to angle your view UP into the sky, slightly, meaning you could never have any view to any object in the distance....especially turbines which would be around 266 feet down a curvature from your view and also on a tilt.
You would have zero chance of seeing any object like that due to that slight tilt you talk about.
Your globe is literally dead in the water.
Draw it
-
Tell me what you do with your equatorial mount and where you place it on Earth,
What do I do with it? I use it to mount the three telescopes that I use for imaging the Sun, planets and DSOs. Where do I place it? In my back garden of course, where else would I place it?
-
Sceptimatic, remember when you said a couple of pages ago: "I'd like a real-time hit from your satellite to my laptop of the place I'm standing at showing the reality of that time."
Well, I could arrange this for you if you are wearing an ankle bracelet for all those crimes you committed? Otherwise, you could confess a few of your worst crimes that have no statute of limitations, or your plans for mass extermination of globalists?
But, I'm canvassing an easier way for you, aside from turning to a life of crime.
There's "In-The-Sky.org" which is a world map of satellites above the earth's surface, and a site called, "Soar". Soar in particular boasts being readily accessible to the public and media and affording access to high definition aerial views of anywhere on earth to observe events as they happen. That's real-time, Sceptimatic!!!! :D :D
So, imagine that! Now you can hold off on completing your man-made rocket and going where Mike Hughes tried to go!
Give me a bit of time to learn how both work and I'll give you easy step by step instructions so you can see yourself real-time from a satellite live feed.
Oh, and I know how much you love puzzles. I bought you a super special puzzle that you and the whole fam will enjoy!
-
I had a long argument with Tom Bishop about equatorial mounts on the other site. He was so very confused.
It seems like flat earthers can't understand anything that spins in a circle.
Why am I not surprised sceptimatic is completely baffled by how they work too. I see he's still doing his "explain to me how this thing works" instead of figuring it out for himself.
-
you've asked him to envision the visual optics of rotation on a 3d ball.
he hasn't even comprehended a 2d circle and lines of site (aka triangles).
-
I had a long argument with Tom Bishop about equatorial mounts on the other site. He was so very confused.
It seems like flat earthers can't understand anything that spins in a circle.
Why am I not surprised sceptimatic is completely baffled by how they work too. I see he's still doing his "explain to me how this thing works" instead of figuring it out for himself.
We look at things objectively and don't form any kind of biased ideas which are polarised by belief. To a flat Earther if something doesn't support their belief or provides evidence against it, it is simply ignored or denied.
Equatorial mounts do not evidence that the Earth is spinning. They would work just as well if the Earth was stationary but located at the centre of some huge secondary sphere which was spinning around it. However they do evidence (and very strongly at that) that the Earth is a sphere. For the mount to work it must be aligned with the polar axis of the Earth and to achieve that the angle the mount is set to must match the observers latitude. This applies equally for observers north and south of the equator.
If the Earth was not a sphere then you simply could not get equatorial mounts to work since there would be no polar axis to align them with. The whole purpose of the mount is so you can conveniently track the sky through movement of just one axis (the declination axis). There isn't a place on Earth where an equatorial mount will not work. And that in itself evidences that the Earth is a sphere.
Flat Earth believers are very dismissive of pretty much anything to do with astronomy and in my view that is because astronomy an aspect of science which is very capable of showing how far removed from reality their views or beliefs are. It's a shame really because they are denying themselves the opportunity to appreciate what for me has always been a fascinating subject. To label astronomy a 'psuedo-science' is a bit of an insult really to the worlds amateur and professional astronomers. Astrology... now that is a pseudo-science.
-
You mean 2 factors I have already accounted for which are both simply due to the curvature.
The insignificant 0.27 degree tilt you are yet to refute, and the ~ 50 m hidden which you are yet to refute.
I have already accounted for these.
The fact you are arguing a tilt, no matter what you think the degrees of that tilt are, it is a tilt on what you believe your globe is.
Again, the tilt is insignificant. You are not going to be able to notice that tilt.
meaning you could never have any view to any object in the distance
Again, this is your baseless lie you just keep on repeating.
I have a FOV. I don't just magically see along a line.
This FOV allows me to see things below and above, including the RE you hate so much.
especially turbines
Which are tall enough such that even after accounting for the tilt and the drop, they would still have a part of them which would be dead-centre of your level view.
Meaning you will most certainly be able to see them.
Again, the drop, as you have claimed is 266 ft.
The rotor diameter is 126 m or 413 ft.
The 0.27 degree tilt will reduce the apparent height by such an insignificant amount, the level of precision in that number is not enough to see it.
If you provide additional precision and have the rotor diameter being 413.386 ft, then the apparent height of the rotor would be 413.381 ft.
A tiny difference due to the tiny tilt.
And then, if the rotor itself was skimming the water, that would place it ~147 ft ABOVE your line of sight.
So it would certainly be visible, no matter how much you want to pretend it wont be.
How could an object which has the top well above your level line of sight, and the bottom well below, NOT be visible?
Yet again, simple logic and math shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
So the globe isn't what is dead in the water. Your outright lies about it are.
And like always, you keep on avoiding simple, trivial questions which expose these lies.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Tell me what you do with your equatorial mount and where you place it on Earth, then run me through what you're seeing that proves a globe.
That's all I'm asking seeing as you brought it up.
You were already provided with that and just ignored it.
To put it simply, you align it such that it can rotate about an axis parallel to Earth's axis. This then allows you to track an object by simply rotating about that axis.
The fact that this axis various with latitude, and so easily allows you to track objects, shows that either Earth or the sky rotates about an axis, and that the surface of Earth is at a different angle relative to this axis with latitude.
While this doesn't prove Earth itself spins (as no purely visual observation like this can), it does show it is a globe.
-
JackBlack, why do you call sceptimatic a liar in every post you make? Which category of lie have you found him telling?
I haven't counted any lies from him. O:-)
Can you prove sceptimatic has lied? Just one example will do. If not, can you stop calling him a liar and concentrate on proving the earth is a globe?
-
Take me through it and show me your nailed on globe because of it. Let's see how you prove this.
I don't need to prove anything. The evidence is staring you in the face if you can take it upon yourself to dedicate just 5 minutes out of your life to find it.
Ok, no problem. It's just that, you did go on and on about it as if you were going to nail the globe and now it seems you can't.
-
Tell me what you do with your equatorial mount and where you place it on Earth,
What do I do with it? I use it to mount the three telescopes that I use for imaging the Sun, planets and DSOs. Where do I place it? In my back garden of course, where else would I place it?
It's massively vague but if you ever feel the need to carry on and explain how it nails the globe, feel free. If not....no issue.
-
Sceptimatic, remember when you said a couple of pages ago: "I'd like a real-time hit from your satellite to my laptop of the place I'm standing at showing the reality of that time."
Well, I could arrange this for you if you are wearing an ankle bracelet for all those crimes you committed? Otherwise, you could confess a few of your worst crimes that have no statute of limitations, or your plans for mass extermination of globalists?
But, I'm canvassing an easier way for you, aside from turning to a life of crime.
There's "In-The-Sky.org" which is a world map of satellites above the earth's surface, and a site called, "Soar". Soar in particular boasts being readily accessible to the public and media and affording access to high definition aerial views of anywhere on earth to observe events as they happen. That's real-time, Sceptimatic!!!! :D :D
So, imagine that! Now you can hold off on completing your man-made rocket and going where Mike Hughes tried to go!
Give me a bit of time to learn how both work and I'll give you easy step by step instructions so you can see yourself real-time from a satellite live feed.
Oh, and I know how much you love puzzles. I bought you a super special puzzle that you and the whole fam will enjoy!
What do I click on to get real time images of Earth?
-
I had a long argument with Tom Bishop about equatorial mounts on the other site. He was so very confused.
It seems like flat earthers can't understand anything that spins in a circle.
Why am I not surprised sceptimatic is completely baffled by how they work too. I see he's still doing his "explain to me how this thing works" instead of figuring it out for himself.
Ok, so we have "spins in a circle."
I can get a spinning top to do that.
I can go on a roundabout and do that.
Care to elaborate or maybe you and solarwind can corroborate...eh?
-
I had a long argument with Tom Bishop about equatorial mounts on the other site. He was so very confused.
It seems like flat earthers can't understand anything that spins in a circle.
Why am I not surprised sceptimatic is completely baffled by how they work too. I see he's still doing his "explain to me how this thing works" instead of figuring it out for himself.
We look at things objectively and don't form any kind of biased ideas which are polarised by belief. To a flat Earther if something doesn't support their belief or provides evidence against it, it is simply ignored or denied.
Equatorial mounts do not evidence that the Earth is spinning. They would work just as well if the Earth was stationary but located at the centre of some huge secondary sphere which was spinning around it. However they do evidence (and very strongly at that) that the Earth is a sphere. For the mount to work it must be aligned with the polar axis of the Earth and to achieve that the angle the mount is set to must match the observers latitude. This applies equally for observers north and south of the equator.
If the Earth was not a sphere then you simply could not get equatorial mounts to work since there would be no polar axis to align them with. The whole purpose of the mount is so you can conveniently track the sky through movement of just one axis (the declination axis). There isn't a place on Earth where an equatorial mount will not work. And that in itself evidences that the Earth is a sphere.
Flat Earth believers are very dismissive of pretty much anything to do with astronomy and in my view that is because astronomy an aspect of science which is very capable of showing how far removed from reality their views or beliefs are. It's a shame really because they are denying themselves the opportunity to appreciate what for me has always been a fascinating subject. To label astronomy a 'psuedo-science' is a bit of an insult really to the worlds amateur and professional astronomers. Astrology... now that is a pseudo-science.
Explain the polar axis and how you get to this with a knowing of a globe.
You're in your back garden.
Go from there and briefly explain how you nail this globe of yours.
-
You mean 2 factors I have already accounted for which are both simply due to the curvature.
The insignificant 0.27 degree tilt you are yet to refute, and the ~ 50 m hidden which you are yet to refute.
I have already accounted for these.
The fact you are arguing a tilt, no matter what you think the degrees of that tilt are, it is a tilt on what you believe your globe is.
Again, the tilt is insignificant. You are not going to be able to notice that tilt.
If you were to go and do a tiling job on a long wall. Let's say a 20 mile wall that is 10 feet high and you start off very slightly out of level at the 5 foot point, where do you think your end tile would be on that wall?
-
Wow
"Off slightlty" is such a definitive value.
A 10ft wall at 0.27degree tilt would mean a tilt of 0.5in.
Massive!!!
A 100ft turbine would have a 5in tilt.
In proportion... MASSIVE!!!
-
Explain the polar axis and how you get to this with a knowing of a globe.
You're in your back garden.
Go from there and briefly explain how you nail this globe of yours.
No Sceptimatic. I have got better things to do during my day than explain to you step by little step how an equatorial mount is and how it does it. All the information is out there on the Internet already for you to do your own research. I'm sure you won't though because you are simply not interested because it shows your 'alternative' model or models is and are nonsense.
I've been using them for over 40 years so please don't start on your 'You have no clue' crap just because I refuse to pander to your 'explain this or explain that' demands. I know exactly what they do and how they work.
It's massively vague but if you ever feel the need to carry on and explain how it nails the globe, feel free. If not....no issue.
Not massively vague. You asked me what I do with my equatorial mount and where I place it on Earth. I answered. I don't need to write an essay to answer questions like that.
-
Wow
"Off slightlty" is such a definitive value.
A 10ft wall at 0.27degree tilt would mean a tilt of 0.5in.
Massive!!!
A 100ft turbine would have a 5in tilt.
In proportion... MASSIVE!!!
Tell me this. How could you tile a 20 mile, 10 foot high long wall at 5 foot start and end up with the same gap between each tile on your globe?
-
Explain the polar axis and how you get to this with a knowing of a globe.
You're in your back garden.
Go from there and briefly explain how you nail this globe of yours.
No Sceptimatic. I have got better things to do during my day than explain to you step by little step how an equatorial mount is and how it does it. All the information is out there on the Internet already for you to do your own research. I'm sure you won't though because you are simply not interested because it shows your 'alternative' model or models is and are nonsense.
I've been using them for over 40 years so please don't start on your 'You have no clue' crap just because I refuse to pander to your 'explain this or explain that' demands. I know exactly what they do and how they work.
It's massively vague but if you ever feel the need to carry on and explain how it nails the globe, feel free. If not....no issue.
Not massively vague. You asked me what I do with my equatorial mount and where I place it on Earth. I answered. I don't need to write an essay to answer questions like that.
You've got better things to do but you'd rather spend enough of your time consistently telling me you can't/won't indulge in explaining your set up and how it proves your globe and yet spend the same amount of time actually telling me you won't.
And you have better things to do?
Stop kidding yourself.
You cannot prove a globe but thought using the equatorial mount carry one would somehow give you credence, just by saying you've used one.
-
You've got better things to do but you'd rather spend enough of your time consistently telling me you can't/won't indulge in explaining your set up and how it proves your globe and yet spend the same amount of time actually telling me you won't.
And you have better things to do?
I've got better things to do than to explain things in detail to you which you can find out for yourself. I know that equatorial mounts work very successfully all over the world. That is an ice cold fact.
What I don't understand is how that could be true in your world based on what you believe the shape of the world to be. If you don't know how they work then go away and find out. There's plenty of information already out there which tells you so me explaining to you would just be me repeating all that. Then once you've worked it out then come back and explain it to me.
The Earth has a polar axis which is the axis around which it rotates. An equatorial mount has a polar axis so if you align the polar axis of the mount with that of the Earth it allows the mount to track the sky very accurately and very easily. You do that my adjusting the mount to tilt at the same angle as your latitude. Job done. That works regardless of your location on Earth. So the mount has a latitude scale which goes from 0 degrees at the equator through to 90 degrees for the pole. That works for both N and S of the equator which evidences that the Earth is a sphere.
Unless of course you can offer a different view?
Feeling generous today so I will give you a starting point for your research.
-
Wow
"Off slightlty" is such a definitive value.
A 10ft wall at 0.27degree tilt would mean a tilt of 0.5in.
Massive!!!
A 100ft turbine would have a 5in tilt.
In proportion... MASSIVE!!!
Tell me this. How could you tile a 20 mile, 10 foot high long wall at 5 foot start and end up with the same gap between each tile on your globe?
Tell me this
Wheres your gap?
What IS your gap?
What does the walls disrance length have anyrhing to do with the height tilt?
Your poorly descript thought experiment makes no sense.
Try and make more sense.
What are you appealing to when all you have to do to debunk the globe earth is to show the model doesnt mafch reality = draw the circle and triangle to scale.
Are qe tilting the wall pr talking concentric circles?
Are we to interprwt your wall that a 12,750,000unit diameter circle compared to a concentric circle of 12,750,002unit diameter circle will be of any notice at 20mi (32,000units) will mean the topothewall gaps will be noticeably wider than the bottomothewall gaps?
Feel free to let us know the gapage usig these numbers
-
Explain the polar axis and how you get to this with a knowing of a globe.
You're in your back garden.
Go from there and briefly explain how you nail this globe of yours.
No Sceptimatic. I have got better things to do during my day than explain to you step by little step how an equatorial mount is and how it does it. All the information is out there on the Internet already for you to do your own research. I'm sure you won't though because you are simply not interested because it shows your 'alternative' model or models is and are nonsense.
I've been using them for over 40 years so please don't start on your 'You have no clue' crap just because I refuse to pander to your 'explain this or explain that' demands. I know exactly what they do and how they work.
It's massively vague but if you ever feel the need to carry on and explain how it nails the globe, feel free. If not....no issue.
Not massively vague. You asked me what I do with my equatorial mount and where I place it on Earth. I answered. I don't need to write an essay to answer questions like that.
You've got better things to do but you'd rather spend enough of your time consistently telling me you can't/won't indulge in explaining your set up and how it proves your globe and yet spend the same amount of time actually telling me you won't.
And you have better things to do?
Stop kidding yourself.
You cannot prove a globe but thought using the equatorial mount carry one would somehow give you credence, just by saying you've used one.
Because its a deflection and as welk the i formation is readily availaboe that even Faded could help you google search.
You on the otherbhand are the sole keeper of the denP information yet you reduse to unveil any secret debunking definitive proofs or experiemtns showing the falsity of the ball earth.
The falsilty yoy claim as 100%fact.
So
Draw the circle to scale.
Wjata tue masdive tilt?
-
Here is a diagram showing why we have to set the tilt angle of an equatorial mount to match our latitude.
http://astro-tom.com/images/sk-pol1.gif
What I am asking Sceptimatic is explain is how this can work anywhere in the world (N and S of the equator) if his 100% belief that the Earth is not a globe is correct.
-
Here is a diagram showing why we have to set the tilt angle of an equatorial mount to match our latitude.
http://astro-tom.com/images/sk-pol1.gif
What I am asking Sceptimatic is explain is how this can work anywhere in the world (N and S of the equator) if his 100% belief that the Earth is not a globe is correct.
It can’t work on any flat world obviously, it is set up specifically in context of a spherical world geometry. You need to be able to think in spatial terms to understand this though.
-
Equatorial mounts are used very successfully every day (and night) by astronomers literally all over the world. That is a fact.
So if Sceptimatics stated 100% absolute belief that the Earth is not a globe is indeed correct then I just want to know from him how they can still work as they most obviously do.
The observed celestial motions that we see every day and night are simply not compatible in any way with flat Earth belief. Observations of the sky do not fit the theory. That is one reason why flat Earth believers are so dismissive about astronomy. They are too pre-occupied by what you can or can't see through cardboard tubes!
-
Sceptimatic, remember when you said a couple of pages ago: "I'd like a real-time hit from your satellite to my laptop of the place I'm standing at showing the reality of that time."
Well, I could arrange this for you if you are wearing an ankle bracelet for all those crimes you committed? Otherwise, you could confess a few of your worst crimes that have no statute of limitations, or your plans for mass extermination of globalists?
But, I'm canvassing an easier way for you, aside from turning to a life of crime.
There's "In-The-Sky.org" which is a world map of satellites above the earth's surface, and a site called, "Soar". Soar in particular boasts being readily accessible to the public and media and affording access to high definition aerial views of anywhere on earth to observe events as they happen. That's real-time, Sceptimatic!!!! :D :D
So, imagine that! Now you can hold off on completing your man-made rocket and going where Mike Hughes tried to go!
Give me a bit of time to learn how both work and I'll give you easy step by step instructions so you can see yourself real-time from a satellite live feed.
Oh, and I know how much you love puzzles. I bought you a super special puzzle that you and the whole fam will enjoy!
What do I click on to get real time images of Earth?
You'll need to download the Live Earth app on that tyrannosaurus rex bone you call your phone, or home computer. Once there, click on NASA live stream earth from space. I was just watching it before, and they switched to an outside camera on the ISS and the view showed the curvature of earth behind the ISS.
But I was thinking, what you could do is download the ISS tracker and find out when the ISS will be closest in the sky to where you are. You'll have days of notice. Then, fill up some large red helium balloons with your name drawn on them, and after calculating height rise, wind currents, etc, release the balloons so that the NASA live stream might pick up the balloons and with any luck, capture the curvature of the earth at the same time. Then presto, you're cured of your illness!
NASA livestream, alone, won't be enough to break through your heavy flat earth video brain washing. The flat earth fetish demon inside you, will fight to assert control, declaring the live stream is nothing more than cgi. You know it will.
-
Your typical helium balloon won't go anywhere near 400km high, the alleged height of the ISS. It also wouldn't be noticed given the ISS is alleged to be travelling 7.66km every second
-
Your typical helium balloon won't go anywhere near 400km high, the alleged height of the ISS. It also wouldn't be noticed given the ISS is alleged to be travelling 7.66km every second
Pessimissist! Well, what would you suggest? Perhaps he should continue his mad Mike Hughes style rocket?
-
Can you prove sceptimatic has lied? Just one example will do. If not, can you stop calling him a liar and concentrate on proving the earth is a globe?
Yes.
He claims the tilt would be massive. Math shows it is 0.27 degrees.
He claims the tilt would be the same as the amount hidden. This is impossible, as they have 2 different units.
He claims that the curvature of Earth would make the turbines disappear from a level view. Again, math shows this is not the case as the top of the turbines will be significantly above this level FOV while the base is below.
It is quite pointless to try to just prove the globe, while ignoring claims of a disproof of the globe. So I am focusing on exposing his blatant lies about the globe which he claims proves Earth is not a glove, as he is clearly not interested in accepting the plentiful evidence showing beyond any reasonable doubt that Earth is ~a globe.
Your typical helium balloon won't go anywhere near 400km high, the alleged height of the ISS. It also wouldn't be noticed given the ISS is alleged to be travelling 7.66km every second
Pessimissist! Well, what would you suggest? Perhaps he should continue his mad Mike Hughes style rocket?
How about an understanding of basic geometry?
-
Again, the tilt is insignificant. You are not going to be able to notice that tilt.
If you were to go and do a tiling job on a long wall.
We are not talking about a tiling job on a long wall.
We are talking about if the tilt is the insignificant 0.27 degree math shows it is, which you would not be able to see; or if it is a massive tilt you would easily be able to see in an image like the one provided.
The simple fact is that you WOULD NOT SEE the tilt in that image.
The only way the curvature will be apparent in that image, is the existence of the horizon (and if you have an accurate enough tool, the angle of dip to the horizon, but that image does not provide that) and the fact that the turbines appear to have sunk into the water such that the base is obstructed by this level water.
Again, care to answer the trivial questions which show you are wrong yet?
how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Ok, so we have "spins in a circle."
Care to elaborate or maybe you and solarwind can corroborate...eh?
Again, you have already had an elaboration.
Everything in the sky appears to trace a circle. The axis of rotation, i.e. the axis these points appear to trace a circle around, is tilted w.r.t. Earth, with the tilt varying as you move around Earth, specifically with your latitude.
It is this latter part, with the inclination of the axis of rotation varying around Earth which means Earth can't be flat and instead shows Earth is round.
If Earth was flat, that angle would be the same EVERYWHERE!
And if the stars were close, rather than very far away, they would only appear to trace circles for those quite close to the actual axis. Again, this is where scale matters.
With the RE model, which can accurately describe reality, the nearest star is the sun, which is ~150 000 000 km away, which makes the maximum distance from the axis (6371 km) look like nothing.
But for the commonly promoted FE model, where the stars are only 5000 km above us, the ~20 000 km radius of Earth is very significant.
And if you try to keep them as circles by putting them all far away, then everyone should see the same sky at the same time, rather than it varying with where on Earth you are.
Tell me this. How could you tile a 20 mile, 10 foot high long wall at 5 foot start and end up with the same gap between each tile on your globe?
And there you go with more deflections.
Firstly, is this just an entirely hypothetical question, to which the answer doesn't matter at all? Or are you actually going to try to use it to allegedly refute the globe?
All you need to do it is to ever so slightly tilt the tiles as you move along the wall.
Just how large are the tiles?
Unless you are dealing with absolutely massive tiles, made to extremely high tolerances, you will likely need to tilt them less than the error in the tiles in your ability to position them.
For example, taking quite a large tile, being 1 m wide, do you know the difference in angle between 2 adjacent tiles?
Well the math is trivial, 1 m * 360 degrees / 40000 km=1 m * 360 degrees / 40000000 m = 0.000009 degrees. Or to express it differently, that is 0.0324 arc seconds.
It is tiny. You will notice that at all, and common tiles are tilted more.
Do you know how much more separated they would be at the top than the bottom?
If you had the tiles at the bottom just touching, then the distance at the top would be? For simplicity I will change it to a 10 m tall wall, tiled from 5 m.
(10 m - 5 m) * 1 m / (6371 km + 5m) = 5 m * 1 m / 6371005 m = 7.848e-7 m = 784 nm.
The tolerance of the tiles will not be good enough to notice that difference.
Again, stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand. It is MASSIVE. This makes the curvature quite small, and it will not produce issues for tiling a wall.
-
I've got better things to do than to explain things in detail to you which you can find out for yourself. I know that equatorial mounts work very successfully all over the world. That is an ice cold fact.
I have no argument about them working. My argument is what they are working to show.
What I don't understand is how that could be true in your world based on what you believe the shape of the world to be.
It seems to me to be very easy. It's a so called star tracker or in reality a point of light tracker.
If you don't know how they work then go away and find out.
I have.
There's plenty of information already out there which tells you so me explaining to you would just be me repeating all that.
Yep, there is and none show a globe reality but they do show CGI of a globe and mount.
Then once you've worked it out then come back and explain it to me.
A moving scope on Earth tracking moving lights in the sky, passed off as a mount that supposedly takes out the Earth's spin.
The Earth has a polar axis which is the axis around which it rotates.
Explain how you know this to be a fact?
An equatorial mount has a polar axis so if you align the polar axis of the mount with that of the Earth it allows the mount to track the sky very accurately and very easily.
You do that my adjusting the mount to tilt at the same angle as your latitude. Job done. That works regardless of your location on Earth.
And you don't have to be on a globe.
So the mount has a latitude scale which goes from 0 degrees at the equator through to 90 degrees for the pole. That works for both N and S of the equator which evidences that the Earth is a sphere.
No, it doesn't evidence any Earth as a sphere...and you know it.
If it did then we wouldn't be arguing it, here or anywhere.
Unless of course you can offer a different view?
Yep.
It follows points of light that are moving in the sky on a ground that is not rotating.
Feeling generous today so I will give you a starting point for your research.
Yeah I watched it all and it tells me nothing about any global proof but it does give a pretence of one.
-
Wow
"Off slightlty" is such a definitive value.
A 10ft wall at 0.27degree tilt would mean a tilt of 0.5in.
Massive!!!
A 100ft turbine would have a 5in tilt.
In proportion... MASSIVE!!!
Tell me this. How could you tile a 20 mile, 10 foot high long wall at 5 foot start and end up with the same gap between each tile on your globe?
Tell me this
Wheres your gap?
What IS your gap?
What does the walls disrance length have anyrhing to do with the height tilt?
Your poorly descript thought experiment makes no sense.
Try and make more sense.
What are you appealing to when all you have to do to debunk the globe earth is to show the model doesnt mafch reality = draw the circle and triangle to scale.
Are qe tilting the wall pr talking concentric circles?
Are we to interprwt your wall that a 12,750,000unit diameter circle compared to a concentric circle of 12,750,002unit diameter circle will be of any notice at 20mi (32,000units) will mean the topothewall gaps will be noticeably wider than the bottomothewall gaps?
Feel free to let us know the gapage usig these numbers
It's pretty self explanatory.
You wouldn't expect to tile a wall in a straight line of it curved and keep your tiles near mid way along the wall (10 foot wall and a 5 foot horizontal tile line) and expect those tiles to start and reach each end still in that midway position.
Your tiles would immediately start to veer off, even by the slight amount and even if the wall was tiled at both ends.
This would mean your end tiles for both ends would miss that wall as they were lined with equal gaps or even butted together.
It means your eye view of them would see them both form a peak, assuming you had to build a peak in order to cater for those tiles angling up towards each other.
This would be your line of sight on your globe. It means you lose your level sight on your globe.
It also shows you there is no horizon and also no distant objects in your view.
Only those willing to use logic will understand this.
I fully expect you not to understand it.
-
Here is a diagram showing why we have to set the tilt angle of an equatorial mount to match our latitude.
http://astro-tom.com/images/sk-pol1.gif
What I am asking Sceptimatic is explain is how this can work anywhere in the world (N and S of the equator) if his 100% belief that the Earth is not a globe is correct.
If everything is moving over and around us in the sky then you are tracking that from wherever you are tracking it and setting your mount to achieve that.
Not difficult, is it?
It's only difficult if you actually believe your mount is taking into account, an Earth spin as you people believe, so believing that will naturally render your thoughts on anything else as, non comprendo.
-
Sceptimatic, remember when you said a couple of pages ago: "I'd like a real-time hit from your satellite to my laptop of the place I'm standing at showing the reality of that time."
Well, I could arrange this for you if you are wearing an ankle bracelet for all those crimes you committed? Otherwise, you could confess a few of your worst crimes that have no statute of limitations, or your plans for mass extermination of globalists?
But, I'm canvassing an easier way for you, aside from turning to a life of crime.
There's "In-The-Sky.org" which is a world map of satellites above the earth's surface, and a site called, "Soar". Soar in particular boasts being readily accessible to the public and media and affording access to high definition aerial views of anywhere on earth to observe events as they happen. That's real-time, Sceptimatic!!!! :D :D
So, imagine that! Now you can hold off on completing your man-made rocket and going where Mike Hughes tried to go!
Give me a bit of time to learn how both work and I'll give you easy step by step instructions so you can see yourself real-time from a satellite live feed.
Oh, and I know how much you love puzzles. I bought you a super special puzzle that you and the whole fam will enjoy!
What do I click on to get real time images of Earth?
You'll need to download the Live Earth app on that tyrannosaurus rex bone you call your phone, or home computer. Once there, click on NASA live stream earth from space. I was just watching it before, and they switched to an outside camera on the ISS and the view showed the curvature of earth behind the ISS.
But I was thinking, what you could do is download the ISS tracker and find out when the ISS will be closest in the sky to where you are. You'll have days of notice. Then, fill up some large red helium balloons with your name drawn on them, and after calculating height rise, wind currents, etc, release the balloons so that the NASA live stream might pick up the balloons and with any luck, capture the curvature of the earth at the same time. Then presto, you're cured of your illness!
NASA livestream, alone, won't be enough to break through your heavy flat earth video brain washing. The flat earth fetish demon inside you, will fight to assert control, declaring the live stream is nothing more than cgi. You know it will.
You can nail your global Earth if you show me where I can see live satellite images of Earth at any point I choose and be able to home in on actual reality of the time, not 3 months ago, not 1 month ago or not even a day ago.
As is.
Is there anything that can show this with the supposed technology we have today?
-
We are not talking about a tiling job on a long wall.
I am.
Why?
Because it's about applying logic to your so called curve and your use of degrees by using your entire globe as a full on degree calculator of curve.
So the easy way is to understand starting a perfectly horizontal tiling jon on a 20 mile long wall.
Have 2 people start at each end at the same height start and tile away towards the centre of that wall.
Do you think those tiles would meet each other in that centre or would they both immediately start to follow the wall which you argue would be curved to those points.
Your tiles would not meet in the centre of the wall unless that wall was added like a gable wall.
Let me tell you this.
If you're doing a small tiling job on a wall and you are slightly off and have no tolerance to adjust....your wall is knackered for aesthetic view.
Your globe is nonsense. It really is.
-
Wow
"Off slightlty" is such a definitive value.
A 10ft wall at 0.27degree tilt would mean a tilt of 0.5in.
Massive!!!
A 100ft turbine would have a 5in tilt.
In proportion... MASSIVE!!!
Tell me this. How could you tile a 20 mile, 10 foot high long wall at 5 foot start and end up with the same gap between each tile on your globe?
Tell me this
Wheres your gap?
What IS your gap?
What does the walls disrance length have anyrhing to do with the height tilt?
Your poorly descript thought experiment makes no sense.
Try and make more sense.
What are you appealing to when all you have to do to debunk the globe earth is to show the model doesnt mafch reality = draw the circle and triangle to scale.
Are qe tilting the wall pr talking concentric circles?
Are we to interprwt your wall that a 12,750,000unit diameter circle compared to a concentric circle of 12,750,002unit diameter circle will be of any notice at 20mi (32,000units) will mean the topothewall gaps will be noticeably wider than the bottomothewall gaps?
Feel free to let us know the gapage usig these numbers
It's pretty self explanatory.
You wouldn't expect to tile a wall in a straight line of it curved and keep your tiles near mid way along the wall (10 foot wall and a 5 foot horizontal tile line) and expect those tiles to start and reach each end still in that midway position.
Your tiles would immediately start to veer off, even by the slight amount and even if the wall was tiled at both ends.
This would mean your end tiles for both ends would miss that wall as they were lined with equal gaps or even butted together.
It means your eye view of them would see them both form a peak, assuming you had to build a peak in order to cater for those tiles angling up towards each other.
This would be your line of sight on your globe. It means you lose your level sight on your globe.
It also shows you there is no horizon and also no distant objects in your view.
Only those willing to use logic will understand this.
I fully expect you not to understand it.
Ok so what i assumed was correct.
And presictably you cbose to word salad instwad of providing, as requested, the massive gap.
So ill do it.
Back to circles we go!
20mi = 32,000m
Diameter 12,750,000m vs 12,750,003m where 3m = 10ft high wall.
Lets seee the gap!?
Circum ground = 40,035,000m
Circum wall top = 40,035,009m
%distance around = 32,000 / 40,035,000 = 0.0008 or 0.08%
9m x 0.08% = 0.0072
7milimeters
Wooooooooweee!!!!
Everyone
7milimeters!!!!!
Also...
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/structures.html
You just proved a point againdt yourself as civil engineers on this bridge accounted for a 1in gap due to the curvature of the ball earth....
So
Keep failing at circles.
-
We are not talking about a tiling job on a long wall.
I am.
Why?
Because you have failed to justify your lies about the turbines, so need to move on to yet another distraction to avoid your complete inability to defend any lie you have against the globe.
So you can avoid having to apply to logic to anything and instead can continue to spout delusional garbage as if it hasn't been refuted countless times, as exposed by your complete inability to answer simple questions.
Again, care to answer the trivial questions which show you are wrong yet?
how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
So the easy way is to understand starting a perfectly horizontal tiling jon on a 20 mile long wall.
And just how do you plan on doing this PERFECT horizontal tiling job?
Nothing in this world is perfect.
There will ALWAYS be some level of uncertainty or error.
If you're doing a small tiling job on a wall and you are slightly off and have no tolerance to adjust
You are living in a fantasy land. Because in reality, there is ALWAYS a tolerance to adjust. There is just a question of how large that tolerance is.
Again, if you want to use 1 m wide tiles, your tolerance in angle has to be less than 0.000009 degrees, with the tolerance in spacing has to be less than 1 um.
Your claims are nonsense. They really are.
t seems to me to be very easy. It's a so called star tracker or in reality a point of light tracker.
It is very easy because Earth is round, and the stars are astronomically far away.
If your model was correct it would be much much harder.
An equatorial mount has a polar axis so if you align the polar axis of the mount with that of the Earth it allows the mount to track the sky very accurately and very easily.
You do that my adjusting the mount to tilt at the same angle as your latitude. Job done. That works regardless of your location on Earth.
And you don't have to be on a globe.
Yes you do.
If you tried it on a FE, you would need the tilt to be the same everywhere on Earth, not matching your latitude.
No, it doesn't evidence any Earth as a sphere...and you know it.
If it did then we wouldn't be arguing it, here or anywhere.
Considering you just reject all the evidence for a globe, and have no intention of ever accepting anything that shows Earth is a globe, just what would stop you arguing?
It's pretty self explanatory.
Yes, it is pretty self-explanatory. Yet again you want to pretend Earth is a tiny ball. Yet again you ignore the scale involved. Yet again, you ignore that the difference is so small you would not notice it.
From such a tiled wall alone, you would not be able to distinguish between someone tiling it to follow the curvature of Earth, or someone tiling it to follow your hypothetical FE.
You would not be able to distinguish between someone tiling it straight, rather than following the curve of Earth so it appears to curve upwards, or someone tiling it with it curving upwards on your hypothetical FE.
The difference is to insignificant to notice.
Again, even with large 1 m wide tiles, each tile along has to be tilted by a tiny 0.000009 degrees, with the top of the tiles being less than 1 um further apart than the bottom.
This would be your line of sight on your globe. It means you lose your level sight on your globe.
It also shows you there is no horizon and also no distant objects in your view.
And yet again you pretend we can only see in a straight line.
Again, we have a FOV.
We can see things above and below level. We don't just see along a single line.
This means we CAN see the horizon on a globe, and we CAN see distant objects.
Even with your example, you defeat yourself by us being able to see the wall even in the distance.
-
Tu-tube fieldof view ckaim was you cant see the ground.
Well regardless of level or not level or verticallyplumb even, the tube is rpund the.field.of.view is also round.
The view left and right also show what looks to be 7carwidths wide at 6ft width x 7 = 42 ft across at a distance of 100ft.
Hence your requirement for the level and vertical are meaningless to your base argument.
You could claim jjja wasnt wearing the appropriate tinfoil hat.
Its still meaningless to your main posit that FOV doesnt allow you to also see down, when looking at the horizon.
-
Frick this was a little tricky to find.
Wasn t the one i was looking for but still fits
And woweee we have a "horizon" example of how the hill dips down, we see a distinct "line" and cease to see the road but instead see the trees at the distance.
Amazing.
Don't I? :D
(https://i.ibb.co/NrCv236/Tripod.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PLQYwr/roll.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxcNrZQ/wide-view.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xjv64SV/tube-view.jpg)
See those cars in the final photo, looking through the level tube? That red car is way down the hill. That area of grass in the same photo in front of the red car, is waaay down the hill. You can see from the level on the side of the tripod, the tube was level. There's the blue line, folks.
Looks like seeing the ground from a level tube to me. Nice pictures.
But... why would anyone be surprised? ::)
-
Sceptimatic, remember when you said a couple of pages ago: "I'd like a real-time hit from your satellite to my laptop of the place I'm standing at showing the reality of that time."
Well, I could arrange this for you if you are wearing an ankle bracelet for all those crimes you committed? Otherwise, you could confess a few of your worst crimes that have no statute of limitations, or your plans for mass extermination of globalists?
But, I'm canvassing an easier way for you, aside from turning to a life of crime.
There's "In-The-Sky.org" which is a world map of satellites above the earth's surface, and a site called, "Soar". Soar in particular boasts being readily accessible to the public and media and affording access to high definition aerial views of anywhere on earth to observe events as they happen. That's real-time, Sceptimatic!!!! :D :D
So, imagine that! Now you can hold off on completing your man-made rocket and going where Mike Hughes tried to go!
Give me a bit of time to learn how both work and I'll give you easy step by step instructions so you can see yourself real-time from a satellite live feed.
Oh, and I know how much you love puzzles. I bought you a super special puzzle that you and the whole fam will enjoy!
What do I click on to get real time images of Earth?
You'll need to download the Live Earth app on that tyrannosaurus rex bone you call your phone, or home computer. Once there, click on NASA live stream earth from space. I was just watching it before, and they switched to an outside camera on the ISS and the view showed the curvature of earth behind the ISS.
But I was thinking, what you could do is download the ISS tracker and find out when the ISS will be closest in the sky to where you are. You'll have days of notice. Then, fill up some large red helium balloons with your name drawn on them, and after calculating height rise, wind currents, etc, release the balloons so that the NASA live stream might pick up the balloons and with any luck, capture the curvature of the earth at the same time. Then presto, you're cured of your illness!
NASA livestream, alone, won't be enough to break through your heavy flat earth video brain washing. The flat earth fetish demon inside you, will fight to assert control, declaring the live stream is nothing more than cgi. You know it will.
You can nail your global Earth if you show me where I can see live satellite images of Earth at any point I choose and be able to home in on actual reality of the time, not 3 months ago, not 1 month ago or not even a day ago.
As is.
Is there anything that can show this with the supposed technology we have today?
So, now I know what will change your mind, sceptimatic! Live satellite images of earth at any point you choose and be able to hone in on actual reality of the time.
So, this is what has to be proven to change your mind:
1. The images are live
2. The images are from satellites in orbit
3. The images are of earth
4. The images must show reality in real time.
5. Bonus points if images show earth curvature.
A suggestion:
The ISS:
1. Broadcasts continuous live footage
2. Is a satellite of sorts, purportedly orbiting earth
3. Live stream images could be married up to landmarks where you are.
4. A telescope could be used to magnify the image of the ISS to make a positive identification.
5. Would need to upgrade mobile phone and download the ISS tracker app, skyview app, and live earth map which has the NASA live feed from the ISS. All apps are free.
Is this worth a try, sceptimatic?
Otherwise it will take me a while to identify a geostatic satellite with viewing capability of earth capable of meeting your needs. Ten or twenty years from now would be perfect, but I dont think either you or I plan to still be on this board then.
Now, what would change my mind you ask.
-
We are talking about if the tilt is the insignificant 0.27 degree math shows it is,
0.27 degrees is huge
Imagine pointing a rocket to Mars but your rocket was 0.27 degrees off course. Intolerable
You are wrong (again) Jack
Besides, this thread is for what would change your mind. I'm curious, what would change yours?
-
We are talking about if the tilt is the insignificant 0.27 degree math shows it is,
0.27 degrees is huge
Not when you are trying to visually determine if a turbine is standing upright or tilting ever so slightly away from you.
Besides, this thread is for what would change your mind. I'm curious, what would change yours?
Have you read the thread?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2282668#msg2282668
-
You just proved a point againdt yourself as civil engineers on this bridge accounted for a 1in gap due to the curvature of the ball earth....
So
Keep failing at circles.
You've just proved my point and killed your very own.
Maybe think a bit before you contradict yourself.
-
From such a tiled wall alone, you would not be able to distinguish between someone tiling it to follow the curvature of Earth, or someone tiling it to follow your hypothetical FE.
You would not be able to distinguish between someone tiling it straight, rather than following the curve of Earth so it appears to curve upwards, or someone tiling it with it curving upwards on your hypothetical FE.
You've clearly never tiled a wall.
-
Frick this was a little tricky to find.
Wasn t the one i was looking for but still fits
And woweee we have a "horizon" example of how the hill dips down, we see a distinct "line" and cease to see the road but instead see the trees at the distance.
Amazing.
Don't I? :D
(https://i.ibb.co/NrCv236/Tripod.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PLQYwr/roll.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxcNrZQ/wide-view.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xjv64SV/tube-view.jpg)
See those cars in the final photo, looking through the level tube? That red car is way down the hill. That area of grass in the same photo in front of the red car, is waaay down the hill. You can see from the level on the side of the tripod, the tube was level. There's the blue line, folks.
Looks like seeing the ground from a level tube to me. Nice pictures.
But... why would anyone be surprised? ::)
Thanks for making my point.
-
So, now I know what will change your mind, sceptimatic! Live satellite images of earth at any point you choose and be able to hone in on actual reality of the time.
So, this is what has to be proven to change your mind:
1. The images are live
2. The images are from satellites in orbit
3. The images are of earth
4. The images must show reality in real time.
5. Bonus points if images show earth curvature.
A suggestion:
The ISS:
1. Broadcasts continuous live footage
2. Is a satellite of sorts, purportedly orbiting earth
3. Live stream images could be married up to landmarks where you are.
4. A telescope could be used to magnify the image of the ISS to make a positive identification.
5. Would need to upgrade mobile phone and download the ISS tracker app, skyview app, and live earth map which has the NASA live feed from the ISS. All apps are free.
Is this worth a try, sceptimatic?
Otherwise it will take me a while to identify a geostatic satellite with viewing capability of earth capable of meeting your needs. Ten or twenty years from now would be perfect, but I dont think either you or I plan to still be on this board then.
Now, what would change my mind you ask.
Let me make this clear.
All I need is a google Earth or something similar that will show a real picture of present time.
So, for instance, if I want to zoom in on and area where I know there's something there in real time, I will see it.
If satellites are real and in space and covering Earth like we're told, then this should be easy.
I could go to a certain place and put something there then get the required up to date goole images or whatever and zoom in to see it.
Is there anything that can do it and if so, show me and I'll go and try it out.
If it works, I'll never question anything of space and of a spinning globe.
I can't be any fairer than that.
Over to you.
-
You've clearly never tiled a wall.
You mean yet again, reality defeats you so you need to think of some clever quip to dismiss reality so you can continue living in your delusional fantasy.
Again, your wall requires 1 m tiles to be laid to within 0.000009 degrees of each other, and to have the gap (and the tile itself consistent in width) accurate to less than a um.
You are not going to get that with tiling a wall.
So if either of us have clearly never tiled a wall, it is you.
You simply aren't going to have the level of accuracy your claim needs.
And of course you still avoid the trivial questions which expose your lies.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
All I need is a google Earth or something similar that will show a real picture of present time.
So, for instance, if I want to zoom in on and area where I know there's something there in real time, I will see it.
That is asking for control of a satellite.
If it is a real picture you can't just zoom in.
With Google Earth or Google maps, when you zoom in, they switch to different pictures.
So what you seem to want is either complete control over a satellite, or pure fantasy.
What you are asking for is not easy, at least not easy to make it so everyone can do it.
I can't be any fairer than that.
Sure you can, you can offer something that wouldn't require you to have control of a satellite.
-
You've clearly never tiled a wall.
You mean yet again
I don't think you have ever, never mind yet again.
You see the horizontal row of tile from one end to the centre and the same on the other side, would create a centralised match up.
If you were to try that on a curved wall you would end up with an apex.
Your globe is absolute nonsense.
-
I don't think you have ever, never mind yet again.
And there you go twisting things yet again, yet again blatantly misrepresenting reality to pretend to have a case.
The only one spouting nonsense is you. Your delusional garbage is pure nonsense with no connection to reality. That is why you need to keep on ignoring basically everything and refusing to answer trivial questions.
Ignoring reality will not help you.
Again, your wall requires 1 m tiles to be laid to within 0.000009 degrees of each other, and to have the gap (and the tile itself consistent in width) accurate to less than a um.
You are not going to get that with tiling a wall.
So if either of us have clearly never tiled a wall, it is you.
You simply aren't going to have the level of accuracy your claim needs.
And of course you still avoid the trivial questions which expose your lies.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
-
I don't think you have ever, never mind yet again.
And there you go twisting things yet again, yet again blatantly misrepresenting reality to pretend to have a case.
No. I'm representing reality to show you are misrepresenting reality.
-
No. I'm representing reality to show you are misrepresenting reality.
Then you should have no problems providing an example of such a tiled wall to those exacting standards?
If not, you ARE blatantly misrepresenting reality, so you can cling to your delusional fantasy.
-
You just proved a point againdt yourself as civil engineers on this bridge accounted for a 1in gap due to the curvature of the ball earth....
So
Keep failing at circles.
You've just proved my point and killed your very own.
Maybe think a bit before you contradict yourself.
7milimeters.
Nice how you deleted the math part.
Now do the same math and extend the distance to the height of the wind mill to determine its "massive tilt".
-
Frick this was a little tricky to find.
Wasn t the one i was looking for but still fits
And woweee we have a "horizon" example of how the hill dips down, we see a distinct "line" and cease to see the road but instead see the trees at the distance.
Amazing.
Don't I? :D
(https://i.ibb.co/NrCv236/Tripod.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PLQYwr/roll.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxcNrZQ/wide-view.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xjv64SV/tube-view.jpg)
See those cars in the final photo, looking through the level tube? That red car is way down the hill. That area of grass in the same photo in front of the red car, is waaay down the hill. You can see from the level on the side of the tripod, the tube was level. There's the blue line, folks.
Looks like seeing the ground from a level tube to me. Nice pictures.
But... why would anyone be surprised? ::)
Thanks for making my point.
My goodnesslets recap your points:
Your point was that a horizon doesnt exist and is instead a light on dark crushing effect
- the hills edge proves you wrong
Your point was that if (IF) you were standing on a 2,550km tower (taking your circle to scale) looking straight level you would see sky at the horizon and ground where it dips around.
- yes as per the hills horizon.
Your point was that if (IF) the earth was a ball and you looked level you couldnt see the ground in the field of view through a tube if thw earth was a ball
- the ground is clearly seen and the field of view is clearly roughly 40ft around and 100ft distance. - side and up-down. So you are wrong again because a person at ground level will certainly be able to see the ground and your tub is meaningkess expereiment and evemore meaniliness is the tu-tube with crosshairs and vertical plumb (that makes me laugh everytimr).
Keep failing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvvJyX9j/untitled.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzWHdnB3)
-
I don't think you have ever, never mind yet again.
And there you go twisting things yet again, yet again blatantly misrepresenting reality to pretend to have a case.
No. I'm representing reality to show you are misrepresenting reality.
By all means
Represent the circle to scale with some triangles to show us the massive tilt, the horizon, and this tiled wall all show theyvdont work on a ball earth.
Please feel free to repremnt the true values we are misrepresenting.
Put your calculator where your keyboard is.
-
Let me make this clear.
All I need is a google Earth or something similar that will show a real picture of present time.
So, for instance, if I want to zoom in on and area where I know there's something there in real time, I will see it.
If satellites are real and in space and covering Earth like we're told, then this should be easy.
I could go to a certain place and put something there then get the required up to date goole images or whatever and zoom in to see it.
Is there anything that can do it and if so, show me and I'll go and try it out.
If it works, I'll never question anything of space and of a spinning globe.
I can't be any fairer than that.
Over to you.
Not necessarily "real time", I don't know how one would do that unless you owned a satellite. But historically, yes, very easy.
Go into Google Earth. And search on a location. I picked Dubai because they have had some amazing development/changes over the past few decades. One point of interest was the man-made island that looks like a palm tree, construction in earnest starting in 2002. A pretty massive endeavor.
In Google Earth, once you pull up a location, click on the "Show historical imagery" button up in the tool bar, 6th from the left.
A timeline slider appears (upper left). I slid it over to 12/2001. Notice that I'm zoomed out to approximately 66 miles in altitude, lower righthand corner (350k feet). See the red box, no palm tree island:
(https://i.imgur.com/mdQ2t41.jpg)
Then I slid the slider over to 12/2003. From the same altitude, 350,000 feet. Notice how the palm tree island is now there:
(https://i.imgur.com/pzYGJqX.jpg)
Remember, the altitude of the image is 350,000 feet.
So yes, it "works". I guess now you'll have to live up to what you wrote: "If it works, I'll never question anything of space and of a spinning globe."
-
Even easier.
Sceppy go google your own address and see if yoy recognize your own backyard.
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Stick to circles.
You cant refute geometry.
-
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Airplane photos at 350,000 feet?
Conspiratorially, you'd then have to say Google (Yahoo, Apple, Mapquest, Bing...etc) is faking the altitude...for reasons.
-
He believes nasa is faking for "reasons".
-
So, now I know what will change your mind, sceptimatic! Live satellite images of earth at any point you choose and be able to hone in on actual reality of the time.
So, this is what has to be proven to change your mind:
1. The images are live
2. The images are from satellites in orbit
3. The images are of earth
4. The images must show reality in real time.
5. Bonus points if images show earth curvature.
A suggestion:
The ISS:
1. Broadcasts continuous live footage
2. Is a satellite of sorts, purportedly orbiting earth
3. Live stream images could be married up to landmarks where you are.
4. A telescope could be used to magnify the image of the ISS to make a positive identification.
5. Would need to upgrade mobile phone and download the ISS tracker app, skyview app, and live earth map which has the NASA live feed from the ISS. All apps are free.
Is this worth a try, sceptimatic?
Otherwise it will take me a while to identify a geostatic satellite with viewing capability of earth capable of meeting your needs. Ten or twenty years from now would be perfect, but I dont think either you or I plan to still be on this board then.
Now, what would change my mind you ask.
Let me make this clear.
All I need is a google Earth or something similar that will show a real picture of present time.
So, for instance, if I want to zoom in on and area where I know there's something there in real time, I will see it.
If satellites are real and in space and covering Earth like we're told, then this should be easy.
I could go to a certain place and put something there then get the required up to date goole images or whatever and zoom in to see it.
Is there anything that can do it and if so, show me and I'll go and try it out.
If it works, I'll never question anything of space and of a spinning globe.
I can't be any fairer than that.
Over to you.
Sceptimatic, it's not as easy as you make out it should be.
Let's put a few things into perspective.
The International Space Station orbits the earth at a height of about 400 kilometers, every 90 minutes, at a speed of 28,000 km/h.
The majority of satellites that orbit the earth do so at a height between 160 and 2,000 kilometers in lower Earth orbit.
Satellites in geostationary orbit, do so at a height of about 36,000 kilometers from earth.
I've read that military satellites can see objects from space smaller than half a car, but there are some non-military satellites that can see objects to the size of half a car on earth, from space. Otherwise, the military use drones and aircraft.
I'm not in the military and don't have military clearance.
My suggestion with the ISS is the best I have at present, but I'm on nightshift and ain't firing on all cylinders, so just bear with me.
I'll see what the smallest item that can be detected on earth from the ISS is, and what powered telescope you need to get a clear image of the ISS where you can identify features. So, it may have to be a daytime passover. I've seen the ISS at night with my naked eyes, but that doesn't really help.
Plus, you're asking to see proof the image from a satellite from something on the ground in real time, but you are going to want proof the image isn't just from a drone or aircraft and that the satellite or ISS in question is really where it is purported to be.
What would change my mind I hear you ask? One aerial photo showing two continents in the one shot, on a plane, which the global model says are on opposite sides of the globe, so thus, should never ever possibly be photographed together in the one photo.
-
If you don't know how they work then go away and find out.
I have.
OK so now you know how equatorial mounts work then. That means you know that they work by being aligned with one of two points in the sky which are 180 degrees apart representing the two (N and S) celestial poles. The stars are seen to rotate counterclockise around the NCP and clockwise around the SCP. It doesn't matter what the stars look like for this and yes I know they are just points of light in the sky. It is their movement that we are concerned with right now and that's all. They could look like little coloured flashing unicorns if you'd prefer that. It makes no difference.
You will also have figured out that when used at either the poles or at the equator they work exactly the same way as an alt-azimuth mount does. Anywhere away from the poles or the equator the mount has to be tilted to match the observers latitude. In the north the polar axis of the mount is aimed towards the north, in the south it is aimed towards the south. How can the stars be seen to rotate around a point in the sky in the south according to your model?
If you could draw a straight line connecting the NCP and the SCP you would find that it produced a natural extension of the Earths polar axis. Yes I know I can't 'see' the polar axis of the Earth. But simple observation of the sky tells me it has one. It's called deduction through observation. Not just from one location on Earth but many locations. The polar axis of my mount in my back garden lies directly and precisely parallel with this line which is why the mount tracks the sky through just one direction of movement (RA).
All of the above evidences that we live on a globe. Please explain how this could all work in your visualised model of the shape of the Earth. I have tried very hard to visualise it myself. Really I have but I simply cannot. Where would you see the SCP and how could you make the mount aligned with the sky regardless of your location on Earth? Especially for any location S of the equator. I look forward to your explanation with keen anticipation.
Sure you could say it is the sky rotating around a static Earth but you know as well as I do that there are many experiments which have been done which show us that the Earth is rotating. Some of those astronomers (including me) can do for ourselves through careful observations and measurements but I wouldn't expect you to know about or understand any of those since they require specialist knowledge which I have (gained through experience) but obviously you don't.
-
Let me make this clear.
All I need is a google Earth or something similar that will show a real picture of present time.
So, for instance, if I want to zoom in on and area where I know there's something there in real time, I will see it.
If satellites are real and in space and covering Earth like we're told, then this should be easy.
I could go to a certain place and put something there then get the required up to date goole images or whatever and zoom in to see it.
Is there anything that can do it and if so, show me and I'll go and try it out.
If it works, I'll never question anything of space and of a spinning globe.
I can't be any fairer than that.
Over to you.
Not necessarily "real time", I don't know how one would do that unless you owned a satellite. But historically, yes, very easy.
Go into Google Earth. And search on a location. I picked Dubai because they have had some amazing development/changes over the past few decades. One point of interest was the man-made island that looks like a palm tree, construction in earnest starting in 2002. A pretty massive endeavor.
In Google Earth, once you pull up a location, click on the "Show historical imagery" button up in the tool bar, 6th from the left.
A timeline slider appears (upper left). I slid it over to 12/2001. Notice that I'm zoomed out to approximately 66 miles in altitude, lower righthand corner (350k feet). See the red box, no palm tree island:
(https://i.imgur.com/mdQ2t41.jpg)
Then I slid the slider over to 12/2003. From the same altitude, 350,000 feet. Notice how the palm tree island is now there:
(https://i.imgur.com/pzYGJqX.jpg)
Remember, the altitude of the image is 350,000 feet.
So yes, it "works". I guess now you'll have to live up to what you wrote: "If it works, I'll never question anything of space and of a spinning globe."
Why you would even bother doing this is totally beyond me.
You clearly saw what I asked for so why bother with this?
-
Even easier.
Sceppy go google your own address and see if yoy recognize your own backyard.
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Stick to circles.
You cant refute geometry.
Did you not pay attention like stash did not?
Read what I said, again and absorb it, then come back to me.
-
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Airplane photos at 350,000 feet?
Conspiratorially, you'd then have to say Google (Yahoo, Apple, Mapquest, Bing...etc) is faking the altitude...for reasons.
For reasons of keeping alive a fantasy spinning global model.
-
Sceptimatic, it's not as easy as you make out it should be.
Let's put a few things into perspective.
The International Space Station orbits the earth at a height of about 400 kilometers, every 90 minutes, at a speed of 28,000 km/h.
So you've been led to believe.
The majority of satellites that orbit the earth do so at a height between 160 and 2,000 kilometers in lower Earth orbit.
Again, so you've been led to believe.
Satellites in geostationary orbit, do so at a height of about 36,000 kilometers from earth.
Once again, so you've been led to believe.
I've read that military satellites can see objects from space smaller than half a car, but there are some non-military satellites that can see objects to the size of half a car on earth, from space. Otherwise, the military use drones and aircraft.
And once again, so you've been led to believe.
I'm not in the military and don't have military clearance.
I'm not asking for military clearance. Just a simple real time picture of something on the ground from so called space.
My suggestion with the ISS is the best I have at present, but I'm on nightshift and ain't firing on all cylinders, so just bear with me.
I'll see what the smallest item that can be detected on earth from the ISS is, and what powered telescope you need to get a clear image of the ISS where you can identify features.
So, it may have to be a daytime passover. I've seen the ISS at night with my naked eyes, but that doesn't really help.
Forget the so called ISS.
The so called space is apparently awash with satellites that consistently throw out pictures of Earth.
I simply want to see real time zoom in to something on the ground, not something from yesterday or last week or last month or last year.
Plus, you're asking to see proof the image from a satellite from something on the ground in real time, but you are going to want proof the image isn't just from a drone or aircraft and that the satellite or ISS in question is really where it is purported to be.
No, I won't.
If you can put me onto something that can give me a real time zoom from a globe view and then a zoom in to a location I can check in real time, I'd be happy with that and would never question the globe, again.
What would change my mind I hear you ask? One aerial photo showing two continents in the one shot, on a plane, which the global model says are on opposite sides of the globe, so thus, should never ever possibly be photographed together in the one photo.
Can you see north America from south America?
-
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Airplane photos at 350,000 feet?
Conspiratorially, you'd then have to say Google (Yahoo, Apple, Mapquest, Bing...etc) is faking the altitude...for reasons.
For reasons of keeping alive a fantasy spinning global model.
So it's a conspiracy perpetuated by all of those companies? For what purpose? What interest would all of those companies have in perpetuating the "fantasy" if all of their data is actually correct in relationship to reality? There is no flat earth map. Unless you have one I'm not aware of. If so, show us what it is.
As for real time, there are some sources out there. For example, NOAA has a real-time weather satellite views. Using NOAA’s JPSS polar-orbiting satellites, here's what it looked like over May 15 to 16 showing the calving of iceberg A-76 (largest in the world) from the Ronne Ice Shelf (For reference, A-76 is slightly smaller than the state of Delaware, 41 times the size of Paris, and over 70 times larger than Manhattan Island):
(https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/a76iod.gif)
-
So it's a conspiracy perpetuated by all of those companies? For what purpose? What interest would all of those companies have in perpetuating the "fantasy" if all of their data is actually correct in relationship to reality?
What companies?
There is no flat earth map. Unless you have one I'm not aware of. If so, show us what it is.
If you see a map that works and you know it to work, it's a real map of the terrain.
Hint: It's not a global map.
As for real time, there are some sources out there. For example, NOAA has a real-time weather satellite views.
Or real time weather balloon or real time plane footage.
You have no clue if they're space satellites.
Using NOAA’s JPSS polar-orbiting satellites, here's what it looked like over May 15 to 16 showing the calving of iceberg A-76 (largest in the world) from the Ronne Ice Shelf (For reference, A-76 is slightly smaller than the state of Delaware, 41 times the size of Paris, and over 70 times larger than Manhattan Island):
(https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/a76iod.gif)
Is that image a CGI image?
It doesn't look real to me.
-
I take it your lack of response means you have realised your claims about the tiles are pure garbage, and you wouldn't be able to lay them accurately enough?
So now you will just pretend that part of the conversation never happened, like you continue to pretend simple questions don't exist?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
For reasons of keeping alive a fantasy spinning global model.
That is just restating what you claim they are doing. It isn't providing a reason.
What point is there for them to do that?
If you can put me onto something that can give me a real time zoom from a globe view and then a zoom in to a location I can check in real time, I'd be happy with that and would never question the globe, again.
That requires you to have control over the satellite.
If you want that, you need to buy your own satellite.
What would change my mind I hear you ask? One aerial photo showing two continents in the one shot, on a plane, which the global model says are on opposite sides of the globe, so thus, should never ever possibly be photographed together in the one photo.
Can you see north America from south America?
You would expect to be able to do so on the globe.
If you see a map that works and you know it to work, it's a real map of the terrain.
They are RE maps.
You were asked for FE maps.
None exist.
-
So it's a conspiracy perpetuated by all of those companies? For what purpose? What interest would all of those companies have in perpetuating the "fantasy" if all of their data is actually correct in relationship to reality?
What companies?
The ones I already listed.
There is no flat earth map. Unless you have one I'm not aware of. If so, show us what it is.
If you see a map that works and you know it to work, it's a real map of the terrain.
Hint: It's not a global map.
Hint: You've already been shown many times with evidence that all of these maps/charts, etc., are based on a globe earth and they are accurate. So no, there is no flat earth map.
As for real time, there are some sources out there. For example, NOAA has a real-time weather satellite views.
Or real time weather balloon or real time plane footage.
You have no clue if they're space satellites.
I do have a clue - They can't be weather balloons or planes - That's why I put the size reference in for the A-76 berg that just was created last week. It's 1600 square miles. That's just for the berg itself, let alone the area seen around it. You can't get a view of something in an image that is 70 times the size of manhattan, plus the area around it, from the max height of a balloon or plane. You have to be much, much, much higher than any balloon or plane could ever reach. So no, not a balloon and not a plane.
Edit: Here's a NOAA satellite image of the area A-76 came into being. Taken in January.
(https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/iodiceberg_0.jpg)
As well, it's said that A-76 is "slightly smaller than the state of Delaware". In Google Earth, if I zoom out to make Delaware the size of the A-76 berg in the NOAA image, the altitude of the shot would have to be from at least approx. 290 miles high. No plane, no balloon.
Using NOAA’s JPSS polar-orbiting satellites, here's what it looked like over May 15 to 16 showing the calving of iceberg A-76 (largest in the world) from the Ronne Ice Shelf (For reference, A-76 is slightly smaller than the state of Delaware, 41 times the size of Paris, and over 70 times larger than Manhattan Island):
(https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/a76iod.gif)
Is that image a CGI image?
It doesn't look real to me.
No, it's an image. No CGI other than making it a gif. And they have different filters that tackle different spectrums, e.g., regular, infrared, high-vapor content (for clouds and such), etc. Same as putting a polarizing or ND filter on the lens of your DSLR. But it's not CGI'd. What about it doesn't look real to you. What should "real" look like?
-
You were asked for FE maps.
None exist.
They do exist. You look at them every day.
-
No, it's an image. No CGI other than making it a gif. And they have different filters that tackle different spectrums, e.g., regular, infrared, high-vapor content (for clouds and such), etc. Same as putting a polarizing or ND filter on the lens of your DSLR. But it's not CGI'd. What about it doesn't look real to you. What should "real" look like?
Why do I need to see spectrums?
Just show me a real time image.
I try to be clear and I'll do so with you.
Thousands of so called satellites in so called space.
Some satellites supposedly home in on half the size of a car.
I've heard that some can actually read a newspaper on the ground.
Sooooooo, therefore you must be able to bring up something from your globe that I can home in on to see something in real time. Real time meaning , now.
I don't want to see CGI.
I don't want to see clouds.
I don't want to see last weeks pictures or even yesterday's.
If you're sure about your globe and the technology of it, then be so kind as to showing me real time stuff or let me go to a global Earth site where I can zoom in on something in real time. Something which I can verify.
That's all I'm asking.
All I want from you is whether there is such a thing and how can I use it.
Or accept there isn't one and you are reliant on CGI and pictures that are mostly months old.
-
You were asked for FE maps.
None exist.
They do exist. You look at them every day.
I should clarify, none that actually work.
You just rejecting reality will not change it, just like you continually ignoring trivial questions wont magically mean your blatant lies about the RE are true.
If you want to claim there is a FE map that works, prove it. Because so far all the ones I have seen are based upon a RE, or only work for a small portion of Earth.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Sooooooo, therefore you must be able to bring up something from your globe that I can home in on to see something in real time.
Pure BS.
In order to do that you need control of a satellite.
No one is just going to give you control.
If you want that, you need to buy a satellite.
Don't expect us to do that for you.
If you want close to real time and don't demand ridiculous ability to control the satellite and zoom in, then there are plenty like Himawari 8 https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
The most recently accessible image was taken at 18:40, on the 24th of May 2021. Sounds quite recent.
-
No, it's an image. No CGI other than making it a gif. And they have different filters that tackle different spectrums, e.g., regular, infrared, high-vapor content (for clouds and such), etc. Same as putting a polarizing or ND filter on the lens of your DSLR. But it's not CGI'd. What about it doesn't look real to you. What should "real" look like?
Why do I need to see spectrums?
Just show me a real time image.
Jesus, how narcissistic can you get? It's from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The "agency that holds key leadership roles in shaping international ocean, fisheries, climate, space and weather policies. NOAA’s many assets — including research programs, vessels, satellites, science centers, laboratories and a vast pool of distinguished scientists and experts — are essential, internationally recognized resources."
They are not some monkey that produces images of the earth for your amusement, wants, and desires. They have a much more important global higher calling than your need for some kind of image. Your ego is off the rails, thinking you can dismiss all of physics, global navigation of goods and humans, cosmology and pretty much every other science out there. All on your own with notions about holographic laser light shows emanating from a north pole that you can't find under a breathing dome that no one has any evidence for. Egotistical crackpot lunacy.
I try to be clear and I'll do so with you.
Thousands of so called satellites in so called space.
Some satellites supposedly home in on half the size of a car.
I've heard that some can actually read a newspaper on the ground.
Sooooooo, therefore you must be able to bring up something from your globe that I can home in on to see something in real time. Real time meaning , now.
I don't want to see CGI.
I don't want to see clouds.
I don't want to see last weeks pictures or even yesterday's.
If you're sure about your globe and the technology of it, then be so kind as to showing me real time stuff or let me go to a global Earth site where I can zoom in on something in real time. Something which I can verify.
That's all I'm asking.
All I want from you is whether there is such a thing and how can I use it.
Or accept there isn't one and you are reliant on CGI and pictures that are mostly months old.
I'll try and be clear with you. You've already been provided plenty of evidence regarding satellite imagery, maps/charts and how they are globe based regardless of whether that sits well with you or not, or fits into your delusions of grandeur. Any rational person who may stumble upon the evidence already presented would say, "give me a hit of whatever that sceptimatic is smokin', because it must be some righteous herb..."
All you ever do is claim conspiracy, CGI, it's fake because I said so...on and on, never any evidence, just you stomping away.
Why you need "real-time" satellite imagery is beyond me. I gave you week old (not months) satellite imagery of the iceberg event that actually occurred, showing it occurring. I gave you satellite imagery showing a massive engineering marvel of a man-made island chain that didn't exist a couple of years prior.
The closest you can probably get is 24 hours and it will cost you. These guys can handle your satellite imagery desires for you. You just need to pick something that is going to change from one day to the next - Maybe go to a park near you and lay down a massive "HELP" sign, request two satellite images of the area over the span of the 24 hour change from no sign to the sign being there and pay them for it:
https://about.soar.earth/skymap50.html
Check out the FAQs for why you can't get "real-time" and how much it'll cost you for your near real-time 24 hour experiment. These guys too:
https://eos.com/products/landviewer/
It'll cost you though.
So there you have it. You could literally answer the question for yourself if you just have the cash to do it. Sign not there one day, the next day it's there and start from 100's of miles high and zoom right down to your "HELP". While you're at it, why not get a satellite image of your carbonic crystalline planetarium laser pointer at the north pole. It would be cool to see that too.
-
Stash is right.. wouldn't everyone like access to live, real-time images from satellites. Unfortunately no such live footage is available to the public for obvious reasons of security and personal privacy laws. You can get free access to live, webcam footage from around the world (www.skylinewebcams.com for example) but that doesn't provide any proof or evidence that the Earth is a globe in itself.
However Scepti won't see it like that. Instead he will just maintain his usual claims that live, real-time satellite footage is not available because it doesn't exist. That in his mind will confirm his belief that satellites don't exist. Fair enough, whatever.
-
You were asked for FE maps.
None exist.
They do exist. You look at them every day.
I should clarify, none that actually work.
They must do, you use them and so does a lot of people, including myself.
-
I'll try and be clear with you. You've already been provided plenty of evidence regarding satellite imagery, maps/charts and how they are globe based regardless of whether that sits well with you or not, or fits into your delusions of grandeur.
No, I haven't. I've been presented with CG and stories of a globe and people like you backing them up as your reality and you expecting me to accept that as my reality.
Not on your Nelly.
Any rational person who may stumble upon the evidence already presented would say, "give me a hit of whatever that sceptimatic is smokin', because it must be some righteous herb..."
All you ever do is claim conspiracy, CGI, it's fake because I said so...on and on, never any evidence, just you stomping away.
I gave enough evidence but people like you reject it because it doesn't fit the mass peer pressured norm.
Why you need "real-time" satellite imagery is beyond me.
Here's why. You see, if satellites can supposedly steer your vehicles in the right direction via voices then they should also be able to show a picture of where you are, at that time, also.
Soooo, to nail the globe as being real, this would do it because no plane or airborne vehicle will be able to pinpoint something I set up, in minutes.
I gave you week old (not months) satellite imagery of the iceberg event that actually occurred, showing it occurring. I gave you satellite imagery showing a massive engineering marvel of a man-made island chain that didn't exist a couple of years prior.
And you obviously didn't read what I said, or you did and pretend you didn't.
The closest you can probably get is 24 hours and it will cost you. These guys can handle your satellite imagery desires for you. You just need to pick something that is going to change from one day to the next - Maybe go to a park near you and lay down a massive "HELP" sign, request two satellite images of the area over the span of the 24 hour change from no sign to the sign being there and pay them for it:
https://about.soar.earth/skymap50.html
Check out the FAQs for why you can't get "real-time" and how much it'll cost you for your near real-time 24 hour experiment.
Read what it says.
[b]Can you provide real time satellite imagery?
Unfortunately, there is actually no 'real-time' satellite imagery available to non-military customers. There is however near real-time which is delayed between 24 and 72 hours depending on the orbitology. For example, if you were ordering a one off image, maximum scene size of 12 km x 12 km it would take about 48 to 72 hours. But if it was constant monitoring of a location, it can be imaged and delivered every 24 hrs into your Soar.Earth account. Many satellite companies offer daily coverage but this is a marketing gimmick as the actual turn around time to your access can vary up to a week. Moreover, you would have to pay a minimum collect fee of about $5,000. With SkyMap50 the pricing of $10km² is standard and capped.[/b]
Can I order an image for a specific date and time of day?
No. SkyMap50 constellation includes four satellites providing once daily global coverage. Images are usually captured between 10AM to noon local time every day.[/b]
What a crock of tish.
These guys too:
https://eos.com/products/landviewer/
It'll cost you though.
Another rock of tish.
You are near rock bottom in my estimation.
-
Stash is right.. wouldn't everyone like access to live, real-time images from satellites. Unfortunately no such live footage is available to the public for obvious reasons of security and personal privacy laws. You can get free access to live, webcam footage from around the world (www.skylinewebcams.com for example) but that doesn't provide any proof or evidence that the Earth is a globe in itself.
However Scepti won't see it like that. Instead he will just maintain his usual claims that live, real-time satellite footage is not available because it doesn't exist. That in his mind will confirm his belief that satellites don't exist. Fair enough, whatever.
You lot are scraping the barrel for excuses.
-
They must do, you use them and so does a lot of people, including myself.
There you go with your delusional circular reasoning again.
The maps which work are based upon a RE. This shows Earth is round.
There is no global map of a FE which actually works.
Again, if you think there is, provide it.
Because you have been provided plenty of evidence of other maps, based upon a globe, which people use on a daily basis, that actually work.
No, I haven't.
You have. You just dismiss them as stories and CGI and fakes.
This is why you asking for evidence is an exercise in dishonesty.
You have no interest in ever accepting any evidence that shows you are wrong.
The only time you will commit to accepting it is when you know it is either actually impossible, or is practically impossible.
I gave enough evidence but people like you reject it because it doesn't fit the mass peer pressured norm.
You have provided no evidence at all.
Instead you have provided repeated lies which are destroyed by trivial questions you refuse to answer and logical and mathematical arguments you cannot refute.
Just what evidence do you think you have provided?
Before you answer, just remember these simple questions you are yet to answer, which destroys basically all your claims:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
Here's why. You see, if satellites can supposedly steer your vehicles in the right direction via voices then they should also be able to show a picture of where you are, at that time, also.
And more illogical garbage.
The satellites don't steer your vehicle, nor do they know where you are.
They transmit a signal and your GPS unit knows where they were when they transmitted that signal. It then uses that information to determine where on the globe you are.
There is no reason at all for those satellites to know where you are, and no reason at all for them to provide a live feed of your position on Earth which you can happily control and zoom in on.
Like I have said repeatedly, if you want control of a satellite, go buy your own satellite.
And unless you want to plan for when it is overhead, go buy your own satellite constellation.
-
Even easier.
Sceppy go google your own address and see if yoy recognize your own backyard.
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Stick to circles.
You cant refute geometry.
Did you not pay attention like stash did not?
Read what I said, again and absorb it, then come back to me.
You clearyl have been paying attention and know your absurb deflections to draw the circle show you have no argument to stand on.
Kepp dodging.
Draw the cirlce
-
You lot are scraping the barrel for excuses.
OK I tell you what. How about I write to GCHQ in the UK and the CIA in the states and ask them politely to give me a link to some live, real-time military grade satellite imagery? When asked why I want it I will say to show some proof obsessed geezer on a flat earth website who is demanding it as evidence that the Earth is a globe and satellites really exist.
What do you think the replies will say? Just a warning though that I may not be able to provide it because I will probably have been arrested.
-
Sceptimatic, it's not as easy as you make out it should be.
Let's put a few things into perspective.
The International Space Station orbits the earth at a height of about 400 kilometers, every 90 minutes, at a speed of 28,000 km/h.
So you've been led to believe.
The majority of satellites that orbit the earth do so at a height between 160 and 2,000 kilometers in lower Earth orbit.
Again, so you've been led to believe.
Satellites in geostationary orbit, do so at a height of about 36,000 kilometers from earth.
Once again, so you've been led to believe.
I've read that military satellites can see objects from space smaller than half a car, but there are some non-military satellites that can see objects to the size of half a car on earth, from space. Otherwise, the military use drones and aircraft.
And once again, so you've been led to believe.
I'm not in the military and don't have military clearance.
I'm not asking for military clearance. Just a simple real time picture of something on the ground from so called space.
My suggestion with the ISS is the best I have at present, but I'm on nightshift and ain't firing on all cylinders, so just bear with me.
I'll see what the smallest item that can be detected on earth from the ISS is, and what powered telescope you need to get a clear image of the ISS where you can identify features.
So, it may have to be a daytime passover. I've seen the ISS at night with my naked eyes, but that doesn't really help.
Forget the so called ISS.
The so called space is apparently awash with satellites that consistently throw out pictures of Earth.
I simply want to see real time zoom in to something on the ground, not something from yesterday or last week or last month or last year.
Plus, you're asking to see proof the image from a satellite from something on the ground in real time, but you are going to want proof the image isn't just from a drone or aircraft and that the satellite or ISS in question is really where it is purported to be.
No, I won't.
If you can put me onto something that can give me a real time zoom from a globe view and then a zoom in to a location I can check in real time, I'd be happy with that and would never question the globe, again.
What would change my mind I hear you ask? One aerial photo showing two continents in the one shot, on a plane, which the global model says are on opposite sides of the globe, so thus, should never ever possibly be photographed together in the one photo.
Can you see north America from south America?
Yes sceptimatic, those are the narratives as I have been led to believe. [yawn]
I can't see north America from south america when viewing the earth from space, above Antarctica. So, no. But I made it very clear what I was saying, didn't I?
So, you won't compromise on the International Space Station? The only difference between it and other satellites orbiting the earth, is it contains people, as I have been led to believe [yawn], and it is significantly closer to earth than many of the other satellites in lower earth orbit.
The geostatic satellites, which are fixed, are significantly further away from earth, as I have been led to believe, so, attempting to get what you want from one of them, I dont think is possible. There is a very very very very very very big difference between 400 kilometers and 36,000 kilometers, isn't there?
But, the ISS live feed shows Earth curvature and straight down, depending on which camera is transmitting the live images. The advantage of the ISS, is you can download a photo, as I have been led to believe, of the ISS in great detail on the ground. Then using a telescope with 250 x magnification, and a bit of patience and skill, view the ISS from your own house, during one of it's fly bys and count the solar panels on the outside of it if you so wish.
But alas, you want me to pull a rabbit out of my hat, and somehow hack onto and access a military satellite. The problem with most the general satellites up there is there purpose is not to photograph match boxes and discarded cigarette butts on the sidewalk from space.
I'm still on night shift, but I'll see what I can come up with in the next couple of days. Maybe Russia has a satellite
-
The maps which work are based upon a RE. This shows Earth is round.
There is no global map of a FE which actually works.
The maps which work are based on mapping out terrain. Not from your space but from the air.
They are not based on any global model you adhere to.
There is no reason at all for those satellites to know where you are, and no reason at all for them to provide a live feed of your position on Earth which you can happily control and zoom in on.
Then there's no reason for them to know where anyone is who are driving, etc....but people like you claim satellites map your position all the way to and from your destination.
If they can do that then surely a live feed is of no issue....right?
But weirdly it cannot be done. I wonder why.
Like I have said repeatedly, if you want control of a satellite, go buy your own satellite.
And unless you want to plan for when it is overhead, go buy your own satellite constellation.
Great answer.
-
Great
Maps map out terrain.
Is the mercator map a valid map?
-
Even easier.
Sceppy go google your own address and see if yoy recognize your own backyard.
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Stick to circles.
You cant refute geometry.
Did you not pay attention like stash did not?
Read what I said, again and absorb it, then come back to me.
You clearyl have been paying attention and know your absurb deflections to draw the circle show you have no argument to stand on.
Kepp dodging.
Draw the cirlce
Can I ask you to take your time, please?
-
You lot are scraping the barrel for excuses.
OK I tell you what. How about I write to GCHQ in the UK and the CIA in the states and ask them politely to give me a link to some live, real-time military grade satellite imagery? When asked why I want it I will say to show some proof obsessed geezer on a flat earth website who is demanding it as evidence that the Earth is a globe and satellites really exist.
What do you think the replies will say? Just a warning though that I may not be able to provide it because I will probably have been arrested.
Do you have to ask the CIA if you want to put your co-ordinates into your GPS that gives you continuous live feed from your so called space satellites, 23,000 miles in supposed orbit?
-
Even easier.
Sceppy go google your own address and see if yoy recognize your own backyard.
However
Abstractly it can be conspiratorally argued these qere airplabe photos.
So bad argument path.
Stick to circles.
You cant refute geometry.
Did you not pay attention like stash did not?
Read what I said, again and absorb it, then come back to me.
You clearyl have been paying attention and know your absurb deflections to draw the circle show you have no argument to stand on.
Kepp dodging.
Draw the cirlce
Can I ask you to take your time, please?
You want us to wait while you figure out how to-circle?
Sure
Only been maybe 80pg of thread.
Keep dodging soeme more.
We all wait in unanticipation for your big reveal.
-
So, you won't compromise on the International Space Station?
On something that does not exist? Nahhhhhh.
The only difference between it and other satellites orbiting the earth, is it contains people, as I have been led to believe [yawn],
So you've been led to believe.
and it is significantly closer to earth than many of the other satellites in lower earth orbit.
So you've been led to believe.
The geostatic satellites, which are fixed, are significantly further away from earth, as I have been led to believe,
Saves me saying it.
so, attempting to get what you want from one of them, I dont think is possible.
Strange eh, yet they can supposedly home right in on your vehicle and navigate it in real time, as we're told....as we're led to believe (yawn).
There is a very very very very very very big difference between 400 kilometers and 36,000 kilometers, isn't there?
Yep, there is a very big difference....but for what?
But, the ISS live feed shows Earth curvature and straight down, depending on which camera is transmitting the live images.
You mean like this from the supposed cupola of your ISS belief which shows you a full on globe.
What a joke.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYXjrNN6/ISS-cupula-view-Soichi-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The advantage of the ISS, is you can download a photo, as I have been led to believe, of the ISS in great detail on the ground.
You mean like this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjNqQfyp/download-15.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Then using a telescope with 250 x magnification, and a bit of patience and skill, view the ISS from your own house, during one of it's fly bys and count the solar panels on the outside of it if you so wish.
And you've done this, right?
I mean you know it is what you're told....right?
Let's see if you can give me an honest answer.
But alas, you want me to pull a rabbit out of my hat, and somehow hack onto and access a military satellite.
No.
I think you're trying to decide what I'm thinking and simply being wrong...but there's no harm in you trying all avenues to get your indoctrination plastered onto me.
Practice potentially makes perfect for the right person. Keep at it.
The problem with most the general satellites up there is there purpose is not to photograph match boxes and discarded cigarette butts on the sidewalk from space.
Ohhhhh right. So what is their purpose?
I'm still on night shift, but I'll see what I can come up with in the next couple of days. Maybe Russia has a satellite
Sputnik was supposedly one. Are there more?
That was the ball with old fashioned car aerials sticking out of it, wasn't it?
-
Great
Maps map out terrain.
Is the mercator map a valid map?
I don't think any map is a valid map of the entire Earth.
I do believe we have maps that can map a lot of terrain sufficient enough for navigation.
I do not believe any of them are of a legitimate globe but plenty of them are of a model globe.
-
You want us to wait while you figure out how to-circle?
Sure
Only been maybe 80pg of thread.
Keep dodging soeme more.
We all wait in unanticipation for your big reveal.
No...I want you to stop going into a frenzy and typing too fast, making it a nonsense to read.
-
Do you have to ask the CIA if you want to put your co-ordinates into your GPS that gives you continuous live feed from your so called space satellites, 23,000 miles in supposed orbit?
What ARE you talking about? You want real-time live images from a satellite right? How does a GPS feed give you those? Coordinates yes, images? No.
Make your mind up!!
Still waiting on your explanations re my post #5319 by the way. Or have we conveniently side stepped that (presumably because you can't provide any) in favour of asking for images from satellites which you know are not available to the public?
-
Do you have to ask the CIA if you want to put your co-ordinates into your GPS that gives you continuous live feed from your so called space satellites, 23,000 miles in supposed orbit?
What ARE you talking about? You want real-time live images from a satellite right? How does a GPS feed give you those? Coordinates yes, images? No.
Make your mind up!!
Still waiting on your explanations re my post #5319 by the way. Or have we conveniently side stepped that (presumably because you can't provide any) in favour of asking for images from satellites which you know are not available to the public?
Aren't your supposed satellites dealing with real time navigation all over the world?
Aren't they supposed to get you almost anywhere habitable/roadworthy in the blink of an eye?
So tell me...aren't they supposed to beam in satellite TV?
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
I see a static picture of a lens flare and some bozo mentioning some air filter is clean. How is this proof?
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
Sooooooooooooooooo..... GPS is a real-time navigation system. Hence what it stands for. Global Positioning System. Not a real-time imaging system. Real-time images from GPS satellite may be available to military sources. Who knows? But they are definitely not available to the public.
My car SatNav gives me real-time positional data on where my car is. It doesn't show me a photo or video stream of my car on the road.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
Another one who simply will not, read.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
Sooooooooooooooooo..... GPS is a real-time navigation system. Hence what it stands for. Global Positioning System.
Ground positioning stations/systems.
Not a real-time imaging system. Real-time images from GPS satellite may be available to military sources.
Who knows? But they are definitely not available to the public.
How absolutely convenient....like everything.
My car SatNav gives me real-time positional data on where my car is. It doesn't show me a photo or video stream of my car on the road.
No and nor does any satellite from space because it's absolute nonsense.
A sci-fi writer apparently thought up your satellites. Imagine that.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
Sooooooooooooooooo..... GPS is a real-time navigation system.
No, it isn't.
Hence what it stands for. Global Positioning System.
Positioning is not the same as navigation.
Not a real-time imaging system. Real-time images from GPS satellite may be available to military sources. Who knows? But they are definitely not available to the public.
GPS satellites don't do any imaging at all. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that they could.
My car SatNav gives me real-time positional data on where my car is. It doesn't show me a photo or video stream of my car on the road.
Well, at least you got this part sorta correct.
-
Positioning is not the same as navigation.
Splitting hairs a bit here aren't you? What the does Nav part of SatNav mean and what do they use for navigation
GPS satellites don't do any imaging at all. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that they could.
Maybe you'd better ask Scepti that. He's the one harking on about getting live images from satellites.
Well, at least you got this part sorta correct
O thank you. I'm so pleased I'm not totally clueless. I will refer my posts to you first before I publish them in future to make sure I am getting my facts right (according to you).
-
Aren't your supposed satellites dealing with real time navigation all over the world?
GPS satellites provide raw position information to navigation systems.
Aren't they supposed to get you almost anywhere habitable/roadworthy in the blink of an eye?
No. Navigation systems will help you get where you want to go based on the accuracy and completeness of its map database.
So tell me...aren't they supposed to beam in satellite TV?
No, they aren't. Why should they? TV/communications satellites are in a different orbit than GPS satellites.
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
Earth observation satellites are different from GPS and communications satellites. If you want real time satellite observations, there are a number of sources available. Here are a few:
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-observation-data/near-real-time
http://observer.farearth.com/observer/
https://spectator.earth/
-
Great
Maps map out terrain.
Is the mercator map a valid map?
I don't think any map is a valid map of the entire Earth.
I do believe we have maps that can map a lot of terrain sufficient enough for navigation.
I do not believe any of them are of a legitimate globe but plenty of them are of a model globe.
What a fanatstically worded answer to say nothing.
Lets be a little more specific.
Any specific issue with general locations and distances for south america and austarlia?
Lets be specific here.
-
Positioning is not the same as navigation.
Splitting hairs a bit here aren't you? What the does Nav part of SatNav mean and what do they use for navigation
Not really. Positioning and navigation are very different functions and each can work either together or independently of the other.
GPS satellites let you GPS receiver/satnav system figure out where you are and if you're still on course. The navigation system uses its own map database to plot a route from where you are to where you want to go. I'm guessing that you're too young to remember having to navigate with paper road maps.
-
You want us to wait while you figure out how to-circle?
Sure
Only been maybe 80pg of thread.
Keep dodging soeme more.
We all wait in unanticipation for your big reveal.
No...I want you to stop going into a frenzy and typing too fast, making it a nonsense to read.
You mistake frenzy with typig in between red lights while driving or typeming with fat thumbs.
My use of typos doesnt affdct the ability to undrstand the words i use.
You on thebother hand, delite in misreoresenting common words and confusing everyone.
Draw the circle.
We re all still waiting.
And while you continue to refuse to provide you rirrefutable evidence, the jackB and co have already provided ample circles and triangles.
So, do we go with the many of proofs?
Or just take your word for it... because... "reasons"?
-
Soka and marko
Your satelite proofs rely on you beleiving in the source of information - which he does not.
You cant go down thisbroute.
However.
His disbelief rhat circles dont circ and triangles dont tri is amazing.
Draw the circle.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
I see a static picture of a lens flare and some bozo mentioning some air filter is clean. How is this proof?
I've been told I shouldn't feed the trolls. I can't decide if this response is feeding or not.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
I see a static picture of a lens flare and some bozo mentioning some air filter is clean. How is this proof?
I've been told I shouldn't feed the trolls. I can't decide if this response is feeding or not.
You posted the link like it was some mind blowing proof but seriously that's what I saw and heard. I'm not saying it isn't real - just that it in no way is going to convince any flat earth believer that the Earth is a globe thanks to that
At least they got the colour of the sun right :) So sick of movies depicting it like its orange/yellow. If the sun really was yellow, then all the snow on Earth would look like someone pissed on it
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
I see a static picture of a lens flare and some bozo mentioning some air filter is clean. How is this proof?
You are clearly as blind as your new female avatar. Click on the link in blue on that page in the link which says, ISS HD Earth Viewing Experiment (HDEV) on US Stream.
If the ISS were passing over sceptimatic's house we'd be able to see it in the live feed.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
Sooooooooooooooooo..... GPS is a real-time navigation system. Hence what it stands for. Global Positioning System.
Ground positioning stations/systems.
Where are these Ground positioning stations/systems in the middle of the ocean?
-
Great
Maps map out terrain.
Is the mercator map a valid map?
I don't think any map is a valid map of the entire Earth.
Well all of the world's transport of goods and humans by ground, sea, and air prove you wrong right there.
I do believe we have maps that can map a lot of terrain sufficient enough for navigation.
I do not believe any of them are of a legitimate globe but plenty of them are of a model globe.
At least you finally get it that maps and charts used by all of the world's transport of goods and humans by ground, sea, and air are globe based. And amazingly accurate. Go figure.
-
I'll try and be clear with you. You've already been provided plenty of evidence regarding satellite imagery, maps/charts and how they are globe based regardless of whether that sits well with you or not, or fits into your delusions of grandeur.
No, I haven't. I've been presented with CG and stories of a globe and people like you backing them up as your reality and you expecting me to accept that as my reality.
Not on your Nelly.
What's your evidence that they are CGI? Just because you said so?
Any rational person who may stumble upon the evidence already presented would say, "give me a hit of whatever that sceptimatic is smokin', because it must be some righteous herb..."
All you ever do is claim conspiracy, CGI, it's fake because I said so...on and on, never any evidence, just you stomping away.
I gave enough evidence but people like you reject it because it doesn't fit the mass peer pressured norm.
What's the specific evidence you provided that satellite images are CGI/Fake?
Why you need "real-time" satellite imagery is beyond me.
Here's why. You see, if satellites can supposedly steer your vehicles in the right direction via voices then they should also be able to show a picture of where you are, at that time, also.
Soooo, to nail the globe as being real, this would do it because no plane or airborne vehicle will be able to pinpoint something I set up, in minutes.
You're so daft. The GPS software/hardware does this, not the satellites themselves. Does your router convert what you type on your end make it into understandable words, sentences, paragraphs on my end?
I gave you week old (not months) satellite imagery of the iceberg event that actually occurred, showing it occurring. I gave you satellite imagery showing a massive engineering marvel of a man-made island chain that didn't exist a couple of years prior.
And you obviously didn't read what I said, or you did and pretend you didn't.
I gave you an experiment you could do if you're willing to pay some cash.
The closest you can probably get is 24 hours and it will cost you. These guys can handle your satellite imagery desires for you. You just need to pick something that is going to change from one day to the next - Maybe go to a park near you and lay down a massive "HELP" sign, request two satellite images of the area over the span of the 24 hour change from no sign to the sign being there and pay them for it:
https://about.soar.earth/skymap50.html
Check out the FAQs for why you can't get "real-time" and how much it'll cost you for your near real-time 24 hour experiment.
Read what it says.
[b]Can you provide real time satellite imagery?
Unfortunately, there is actually no 'real-time' satellite imagery available to non-military customers. There is however near real-time which is delayed between 24 and 72 hours depending on the orbitology. For example, if you were ordering a one off image, maximum scene size of 12 km x 12 km it would take about 48 to 72 hours. But if it was constant monitoring of a location, it can be imaged and delivered every 24 hrs into your Soar.Earth account. Many satellite companies offer daily coverage but this is a marketing gimmick as the actual turn around time to your access can vary up to a week. Moreover, you would have to pay a minimum collect fee of about $5,000. With SkyMap50 the pricing of $10km² is standard and capped.[/b]
Can I order an image for a specific date and time of day?
No. SkyMap50 constellation includes four satellites providing once daily global coverage. Images are usually captured between 10AM to noon local time every day.[/b]
What a crock of tish.
That's why I told you to read the FAQ, numbnuts. If you could think for yourself you could still figure out how to do the experiment. You contact them, ask for the most recent satellite image of the park/field you want. They will provide one from the last 24 hours. Then you go lay out your massive "HELP" sign in the field. A day or two later, you ask them for the most recent satellite image of that same space. They will give you one from the last 24 hours. In that one, you will see your "HELP" sign. Simple as that. Put your thinking cap on.
These guys too:
https://eos.com/products/landviewer/
It'll cost you though.
Another rock of tish.
You are near rock bottom in my estimation.
Same experiment with these guys. Or check out the links Markjo posted. Super cool stuff.
-
The maps which work are based on mapping out terrain.
On a Round Earth.
With the final model being that of a round Eath.
It simply doesn't work to produce an accurate map if you try to force Earth to be flat.
Then there's no reason for them to know where anyone is who are driving
Good job showing you ignored what I said.
Here it is again for you:
They transmit a signal and your GPS unit knows where they were when they transmitted that signal. It then uses that information to determine where on the globe you are.
Their purpose is to provide that signal, not to take photos of you, and not to provide a live zoomable view of you.
And that signal isn't just sent down directly to you. It is sent to a large area of the globe.
You "argument" is pure nonsense, so far divorced from reality and reason it isn't funny.
If you wish to disagree, why don't you explain just why the ability to be used for position requires the satellites to give YOU control over a live feed to allow you to zoom in on your position.
And while you are at it, answer the trivial question you keep on ignoring which destroy your garbage:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
But weirdly it cannot be done. I wonder why.
Only because you keep on ignoring the explanations of what is required.
Like I said, if you want it, go get yourself a constellation of satellites.
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
But that isn't what you are asking for.
You are not simply asking for them to transmit images in real time.
You are asking for control over those satellites to be able to point them where you want and zoom in however much you want.
You wanting that shouldn't mean they can.
If you want a live feed from space, you have been provided it.
If you want to control a satellite, go buy your own satellite constellation.
-
I'll try and be clear with you. You've already been provided plenty of evidence regarding satellite imagery, maps/charts and how they are globe based regardless of whether that sits well with you or not, or fits into your delusions of grandeur.
No, I haven't. I've been presented with CG and stories of a globe and people like you backing them up as your reality and you expecting me to accept that as my reality.
Not on your Nelly.
What's your evidence that they are CGI? Just because you said so?
Any rational person who may stumble upon the evidence already presented would say, "give me a hit of whatever that sceptimatic is smokin', because it must be some righteous herb..."
All you ever do is claim conspiracy, CGI, it's fake because I said so...on and on, never any evidence, just you stomping away.
I gave enough evidence but people like you reject it because it doesn't fit the mass peer pressured norm.
What's the specific evidence you provided that satellite images are CGI/Fake?
Why you need "real-time" satellite imagery is beyond me.
Here's why. You see, if satellites can supposedly steer your vehicles in the right direction via voices then they should also be able to show a picture of where you are, at that time, also.
Soooo, to nail the globe as being real, this would do it because no plane or airborne vehicle will be able to pinpoint something I set up, in minutes.
You're so daft. The GPS software/hardware does this, not the satellites themselves. Does your router convert what you type on your end make it into understandable words, sentences, paragraphs on my end?
I gave you week old (not months) satellite imagery of the iceberg event that actually occurred, showing it occurring. I gave you satellite imagery showing a massive engineering marvel of a man-made island chain that didn't exist a couple of years prior.
And you obviously didn't read what I said, or you did and pretend you didn't.
I gave you an experiment you could do if you're willing to pay some cash.
The closest you can probably get is 24 hours and it will cost you. These guys can handle your satellite imagery desires for you. You just need to pick something that is going to change from one day to the next - Maybe go to a park near you and lay down a massive "HELP" sign, request two satellite images of the area over the span of the 24 hour change from no sign to the sign being there and pay them for it:
https://about.soar.earth/skymap50.html
Check out the FAQs for why you can't get "real-time" and how much it'll cost you for your near real-time 24 hour experiment.
Read what it says.
[b]Can you provide real time satellite imagery?
Unfortunately, there is actually no 'real-time' satellite imagery available to non-military customers. There is however near real-time which is delayed between 24 and 72 hours depending on the orbitology. For example, if you were ordering a one off image, maximum scene size of 12 km x 12 km it would take about 48 to 72 hours. But if it was constant monitoring of a location, it can be imaged and delivered every 24 hrs into your Soar.Earth account. Many satellite companies offer daily coverage but this is a marketing gimmick as the actual turn around time to your access can vary up to a week. Moreover, you would have to pay a minimum collect fee of about $5,000. With SkyMap50 the pricing of $10km² is standard and capped.[/b]
Can I order an image for a specific date and time of day?
No. SkyMap50 constellation includes four satellites providing once daily global coverage. Images are usually captured between 10AM to noon local time every day.[/b]
What a crock of tish.
That's why I told you to read the FAQ, numbnuts. If you could think for yourself you could still figure out how to do the experiment. You contact them, ask for the most recent satellite image of the park/field you want. They will provide one from the last 24 hours. Then you go lay out your massive "HELP" sign in the field. A day or two later, you ask them for the most recent satellite image of that same space. They will give you one from the last 24 hours. In that one, you will see your "HELP" sign. Simple as that. Put your thinking cap on.
These guys too:
https://eos.com/products/landviewer/
It'll cost you though.
Another rock of tish.
You are near rock bottom in my estimation.
Same experiment with these guys. Or check out the links Markjo posted. Super cool stuff.
Well done!!
Over to you, Sceptimatic! What's the cost of proving to yourself satellites are real, and in turn the Earth is a globe?
I believe in empowerment, and it would be better for you to prove it to yourself, than have one of us prove it to you.
You'll have a LOT more free time on your hands afterwards, if you follow what Stash says.
As to my ISS suggestion, It'll cost you also in the price of a decent telescope with video function, if you'd like to try and film the International Space Station on it's next fly over near your house.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
Earth observation satellites are different from GPS and communications satellites. If you want real time satellite observations, there are a number of sources available. Here are a few:
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-observation-data/near-real-time
http://observer.farearth.com/observer/
https://spectator.earth/
I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.
If I'm looking wrong then maybe you can show me what to go on to get real time imagery.
-
No...I want you to stop going into a frenzy and typing too fast, making it a nonsense to read.
You mistake frenzy with typig in between red lights while driving or typeming with fat thumbs.
I'm going to stop responding to you unless I know you are not driving.
Until you prove to me you are not driving I will absolutely ignore anything you say from this point on.
Save any digs for when you clock off.
-
I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.
Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.
I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.
Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.
And once more, are you going to address the questions which expose your nonsense, or will you continue to ignore them as you know you cannot answer them without exposing your nonsense?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
-
I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.
Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.
I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.
Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.
Can himawari show me a real time image of something I can check. I'll allow 1 hour...how fair is that?
If it can't then what are you showing me and how do you know its real?
If it can then point me to where I can prove it to myself.
I'm serious. If I had proof I'd have no qualms about believing a globe.
Up to now the proof I have is zero.....zilch.....nada.
-
Can himawari show me a real time image of something I can check. I'll allow 1 hour...how fair is that?
Again, if you want control of the satellite such that you can zoom in as you please, you need to buy your own.
Don't expect others to spend that money for you.
Like I said, you get less than 1 pixel per km^2. So if you want to be able to see it on that you will need something very large. But feel free to go make that, or go buy your own satellite or satellite constellation.
If I had proof I'd have no qualms about believing a globe.
Pure BS!
You have been provided pure logical proof that you are wrong, and you just ignore it.
You have no interest in ever accepting that you are wrong which is why you continually ignore logical arguments and continually refuse to answer what should be trivial questions.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
-
No...I want you to stop going into a frenzy and typing too fast, making it a nonsense to read.
You mistake frenzy with typig in between red lights while driving or typeming with fat thumbs.
I'm going to stop responding to you unless I know you are not driving.
Until you prove to me you are not driving I will absolutely ignore anything you say from this point on.
Save any digs for when you clock off.
Red lights are stopping.
Green means driving.
When im on hold on the phone work phone, ot mobile phone) im holding.
When a client comes on we re talking.
In the meanwhile
You can get on making that cicrcle you keep avoiding.
Because any responze i make will involve requesting that circle.
Hophop.
-
I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.
Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.
I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.
Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.
Can himawari show me a real time image of something I can check. I'll allow 1 hour...how fair is that?
If it can't then what are you showing me and how do you know its real?
If it can then point me to where I can prove it to myself.
I'm serious. If I had proof I'd have no qualms about believing a globe.
Up to now the proof I have is zero.....zilch.....nada.
Can ypu show us the 100%fact the sater is flat by showing us the massove tilt would exist if rhe world is round?
How much of a tilt would there be?
If the tilt is massive, and obivously its not, then the world is as you say it is.
Thats how a proof works.
So proof the tilt doesnt match reality.
Go for it.
-
Again, if you want control of the satellite such that you can zoom in as you please, you need to buy your own.
Don't expect others to spend that money for you.
Don't bother trying to argue and play games with me then pretend I'm the one not answering.
-
you are definitely the one NOT answering.
feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.
or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.
-
you are definitely the one NOT answering.
feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.
or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.
That's better. You obviously can't be driving.
Let me know that you're not driving before you post and I can know to answer you.
In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.
Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.
-
you are definitely the one NOT answering.
feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.
or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.
That's better. You obviously can't be driving.
Let me know that you're not driving before you post and I can know to answer you.
In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.
Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.
there's a difference between the "drop" for your LEVEL site and the hidden portion form LINE of site.
pick which one you think applies the 8in per mile rule of thumb.
circles and triangles and triangles.
try drawing them.
-
I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.
Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.
I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.
Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.
And once more, are you going to address the questions which expose your nonsense, or will you continue to ignore them as you know you cannot answer them without exposing your nonsense?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
Jack, how do we use that website in your link to get photos from a satellite in orbit, of where we are? Which image from 17 minutes earlier are you talking about? I didn't see any avenues to do that.
Can we forget the magical level tube for just one post?
-
you are definitely the one NOT answering.
feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.
or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.
That's better. You obviously can't be driving.
Let me know that you're not driving before you post and I can know to answer you.
In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.
Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.
there's a difference between the "drop" for your LEVEL site and the hidden portion form LINE of site.
pick which one you think applies the 8in per mile rule of thumb.
circles and triangles and triangles.
try drawing them.
I think you're massively missing the point.
The only way an object can be dropped so low on your globe is if it is tilted away. I cannot be anything else, can it?
It can't just decide to sink down, plumb.
The only way you can lose a portion of the object is for it to tilt back away from the observer, if the Earth was a globe.
How else can it drop, other than tilt away from your sight, more and more over distance?
It's obviously nonsense but that's what you're implying and also denying, at the same time.
-
you're missing the point or keep dancing around answering simple questions.
people are able to look down.
so line of site IS different from drop from level.
draw the circle and the triangle.
i GUARANTEE it will prove your point and show the massive required drop and the massive required tilt IF the world was a ball.
since your calculated "required" tilt is NOT shown, then it will indeed prove the ball is nonsense.
so let ssee it.
draw the circle
draw the triangle.
-
Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?
If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here. It's not out of technological reach at all.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
I see a static picture of a lens flare and some bozo mentioning some air filter is clean. How is this proof?
I've been told I shouldn't feed the trolls. I can't decide if this response is feeding or not.
You posted the link like it was some mind blowing proof but seriously that's what I saw and heard. I'm not saying it isn't real - just that it in no way is going to convince any flat earth believer that the Earth is a globe thanks to that
At least they got the colour of the sun right :) So sick of movies depicting it like its orange/yellow. If the sun really was yellow, then all the snow on Earth would look like someone pissed on it
You are putting words into my mouth here. How do you know I posted it like it was a "mind blowing link". Where did I say that?
As for the sun being yellow, uh, it does look yellow to us from the surface of the Earth. Look up Rayleigh Scattering before you start digging too deep of a hole here. :)
-
you're missing the point or keep dancing around answering simple questions.
people are able to look down.
so line of site IS different from drop from level.
draw the circle and the triangle.
i GUARANTEE it will prove your point and show the massive required drop and the massive required tilt IF the world was a ball.
since your calculated "required" tilt is NOT shown, then it will indeed prove the ball is nonsense.
so let ssee it.
draw the circle
draw the triangle.
You are also missing the point of level sight.
If you looked down you would see ground or water or both.
There's no way out of it.
The globe model does not work for simple stuff like this, never mind the ridiculous stuff spouted about orbits and space vacuums and suchlike.
-
keep insisting on things while providing nothing of substance.
right.
if you looked down, you would see water.
which we do.
we look down and boom, there's the water.
draw the circle.
why won't you draw the circle?
see below link.
see the peak of the hill on the rollercoaster?
it's where the backside of the peak where track curves down and away.
you cease to see track and see the sky behind it.
no different.
in this case, it's a camera looking "up" from level sight.
well, not really looking up, just that there's a 50ft height field of view at that point.
seriously.
draw the circle
my goodness
it's circles and triangles.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsbIWCQZamlst4hfIgKj9EJ1wYApfR4gCokw&usqp=CAU
-
Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.
Fine I believe you that we do not live on a globe and that your model is right after all. Or at least I will do if you can explain to me how your model can have two points, 180 degrees apart on the sky around which the stars rotate. Counterclockwise for the north, clockwise for the south.
I asked you to explain these in my reply #5319 but so far you seem to have overlooked that. Now I could interpret that as being because you haven't accounted for this in your model up to now and are still trying to work out how such a real-world observation could be in any way possible the way you think of the sky. After all the way in which the motions of the stars vary with latitude over the world does rather provide evidence that we do in fact live on a globe. That is true regardlgess of whether it is the Earth rotating or the sky rotating. But as I said there are other observations which we can make which show that it is the Earth rotating.
Or you might have just decided that it is more fun now to poke demands at people for real-time satellite imagery that you know can't be obtained by the general public without resorting to significant expense and so that provides a useful diversion.
Either way I await your explanations.
-
Again, if you want control of the satellite such that you can zoom in as you please, you need to buy your own.
Don't expect others to spend that money for you.
Don't bother trying to argue and play games with me then pretend I'm the one not answering.
The only one playing games here is you.
And I'm not pretending that you aren't answering, you simply aren't. You refuse to answer because you know an honest answer will expose your lies.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.
Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.
Again, it DOES matter.
Because you are claiming that we can't see it you need to show that we should be able to see it.
You not wanting to discuss it because it shows your outright lies about the globe are wrong doesn't magically make it not matter.
Again, math clearly shows the tilt would be insignificant and thus not noticeable just by looking at a picture.
I think you're massively missing the point.
No, that would be you. The point is that the tilt is insignificant.
If you weren't so afraid of what the actual tilt expected on a globe is, you would have no problem providing it.
But because it doesn't support your lies, you continually lie about it.
How else can it drop, other than tilt away from your sight, more and more over distance?
It "drops" by simply being over the curve. Yes, this means it will have an insignificant tilt, but it isn't being obscured by Earth due to it tilting.
No one here is claiming it isn't tilting at all. Instead they are just pointing out that the tilt is insignificant.
Again, if you disagree and think your position is based upon logic, then do the math and show what the tilt should be.
If you looked down you would see ground or water or both.
We have also been over this.
Once more, WE HAVE A FOV!
Do you understand that?
This means even when looking out level, we can see things above and below level.
It also means that the region you can see when looking out level, and the region you see when you look slightly down overlap.
This is where your claim is shown to be self-contradictory.
Here is an image you were provided with before:
(https://i.imgur.com/jSyD9KP.png)
The region between the black lines represents your viewing looking level. According to your outright lies, all you can see here is the sky, so everything in that region must be sky.
The region between the grey lines represents your view looking down. According to your outright lies, all you can see here is the ground/water.
The contradiction comes from the red region. What can you see in this part?
It is the same region that is being viewed in both cases, yet for one you claim you can only see sky, and for the other you claim you just see ground/water.
There is simply no way out of this contradiction.
Your blatant lies about the globe model do not work, at all.
They are pure garbage.
-
Jack, how do we use that website in your link to get photos from a satellite in orbit, of where we are?
That depends on where you are.
It is in a geostationary (I think, it could just be geosynchronous) orbit keeping it with a decent view of Japan. If you live in Asia, Australia or New Zealand, or the islands around there you can see it.
It provides images every 10 minutes (with some lag time). If you want to be able to download them, you can use the menu on the left to do so.
You can also use the zoom controls on the right.
-
Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.
Fine I believe you that we do not live on a globe and that your model is right after all. Or at least I will do if you can explain to me how your model can have two points, 180 degrees apart on the sky around which the stars rotate. Counterclockwise for the north, clockwise for the south.
I asked you to explain these in my reply #5319 but so far you seem to have overlooked that.
Mirrored. Simple as that.
If you know my theory you'll know this.
Now I could interpret that as being because you haven't accounted for this in your model up to now and are still trying to work out how such a real-world observation could be in any way possible the way you think of the sky.
Or you can simply accept I've answered.
After all the way in which the motions of the stars vary with latitude over the world does rather provide evidence that we do in fact live on a globe.
We don't live on a globe, so there is no fact and you cannot provide any fact. You can provide what you believe is fact.
That is true regardlgess of whether it is the Earth rotating or the sky rotating.
It isn't, to be fair.
But as I said there are other observations which we can make which show that it is the Earth rotating.
Provide them, then.
Or you might have just decided that it is more fun now to poke demands at people for real-time satellite imagery that you know can't be obtained by the general public without resorting to significant expense and so that provides a useful diversion.
No, not poke fun. I thought it would be a perfect time to nail your globe by giving me something from your satellites that I could marry up with real time. You know, actual time.
Either way I await your explanations.
Well there they are.
I know...I know...I know, they're not explanations or they aren't answers that you want, so are not answers at all, to you.
If that's the case, it's your issue.
-
The only one playing games here is you.
You're not going far with this old pony, again....are you?
-
Mirrored. Simple as that.
If it was as simple as that you would have the sky actually mirrored. We don't, which shows it isn't simply a mirrored view.
After all the way in which the motions of the stars vary with latitude over the world does rather provide evidence that we do in fact live on a globe.
We don't live on a globe
You not liking that fact will not change it.
Again, equatorial mount telescopes, or other methods to measure the angle of elevation of the celestial poles demonstrate that we live on a curved surface.
But as I said there are other observations which we can make which show that it is the Earth rotating.
Provide them, then.
For you to just dismiss them as fake or lie about them?
You already have observations in this thread, like the observation that the horizon is BELOW eye level, and the turbines with their base obscured by the curve.
But as that doesn't fit your fantasy you just lie about them.
Or you might have just decided that it is more fun now to poke demands at people for real-time satellite imagery that you know can't be obtained by the general public without resorting to significant expense and so that provides a useful diversion.
No, not poke fun.
Well it certainly isn't a genuine, honest request for something you know would be inaccessible to the vast majority of people, and for those it is accessible to, they are not simply going to give you control over a satellite.
You were provided with near real times images, just not ones where you can then control the satellite.
I know, they're not explanations or they aren't answers that you want, so are not answers at all, to you.
If that's the case, it's your issue.
No, it is your issue.
Your denial of reality is your issue, not an explanation.
Your one or 2 word non-answers are not explanations.
An explanation for the issues raised would involve explaining why we observe 2 celestial poles, with different stars visible, with them always 180 degrees apart.
Just claiming it is mirrored is NOT explaining it in any way.
An explanation for the issues raised would involve explaining why the angle of elevation to the celestial poles vary the way it does as you move around your hypothetical FE.
Dismissing it as "not a fact" because you hate the globe does not explain it at all.
You refuse to provide any explanations and instead just hide from everything that shows you are wrong.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
Mirrored. Simple as that.
If it was as simple as that you would have the sky actually mirrored. We don't, which shows it isn't simply a mirrored view.
If you know my theory you'll know this.
I don't know your theory. What is your theory?
-
Draw the circle
-
Draw the circle
Why do you want me to draw a circle?
-
Mirrored. Simple as that.
OK so if the SCP was simply a mirror of the NCP then why are the stars around each completely different? Why is there an absence of Polaris around the SCP for example? If your explanation was correct then Polaris would be visible 40' from the SCP as well would it not?
-
Mirrored. Simple as that.
OK so if the SCP was simply a mirror of the NCP then why are the stars around each completely different? Why is there an absence of Polaris around the SCP for example? If your explanation was correct then Polaris would be visible 40' from the SCP as well would it not?
There are no north and south poles as you go with.
You get one central light, that's it.
-
I can assure you there are North and South Celestial poles. Different and distinct from one another.
You get one central light, that's it.
That's what you want to believe to support your model but unfortunately it is not true according to the real world.
Here are star chart showing the North and South celestial poles. Notice that the positions of the stars are completely different and in the SCP chart Polaris is nowhere to be seen. Nor is the entire constellation of Ursa Major in the SCP chart nor Crux (southern cross) in the NCP chart. So hardly a mirror!
https://img1.etsystatic.com/002/0/5663576/il_570xN.407038111_10xg.jpg
When you polar align an equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere you have to use a completely different method to the north because Polaris is not visible.
To be a valid or viable alternative model, yours would have to account for this and up to now it seems like it can't.
Here is a timed exposure of the SCP. Notice the complete lack of a bright star (Polaris) at the central point of the arcs (the SCP). Also note the small cloud like patches at the top (LMC) and right (SMC) of the image. These are the Magellanic Clouds which are not visible at all from northern latitudes.
https://live.staticflickr.com/8521/8460248688_012077185b_b.jpg
-
Mirrored. Simple as that.
OK so if the SCP was simply a mirror of the NCP then why are the stars around each completely different? Why is there an absence of Polaris around the SCP for example? If your explanation was correct then Polaris would be visible 40' from the SCP as well would it not?
There are no north and south poles as you go with.
You get one central light, that's it.
- Your carbonite planetarium projector sits at the center of flat earth which is due north for everyone, right? What we would consider as the north pole star, right?
- So the carbonite planetarium projector shoots straight up to the center of the dome a holographic image of what we call "Polaris", right? All of the other carbonite planetarium projected holographic stars circle around that, right?
- Where on the dome is the carbonite planetarium projected holographic image of Sigma Octantis that all of the southern hemiplane projected holographic stars circle around going the opposite way?
-
Stash - did you ever see the old Zeiss planetarium projectors such as the one they used to use in the London Planetarium? They have two separate hemispheres comprising of the N and S halves of the celestial sphere. They could project the northern stars and southern stars by rotating the projector through 180 degrees. Obviously the positions of the stars for each half are completely different.
Why would they need to do that if Sceptimatics claims about a single, central pole is correct?
-
Yeah, these things were awesome, still are:
(https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/pla/downloads/JPG/Model_VI.jpg)
I guess Carl Zeiss was all wrong and went overboard by crafting the second unneeded superfluous hemisphere.
Imagine how big scepti's cabonite crystalline holographic projector must be to blanket an earth-sized breathing icy dome with all of the stars and planets and such we can see. I bet you can see the contraption from space it's so huge.
-
I don't know your theory. What is your theory?
And there you go with more games.
It was clear that was just a mistake with the quoting.
But of course, you need a game to play to avoid admitting you have no answer and that you have no explanation.
A mirrored sky doesn't work, so that is yet another failure from you.
Should I add that to the list of questions you keep on avoiding:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
I can assure you there are North and South Celestial poles. Different and distinct from one another.
Course they're different. It's because there's only one central point of light.
All the rest as simply reflected all over from the centre.
You get one central light, that's it.
That's what you want to believe to support your model but unfortunately it is not true according to the real world.
You have no clue what the real world is and nor do I.
I can only guess what it might well be but I can absolutely state what it is not. It's not a spinning globe, so, if you believe in a spinning globe then your world is nothing more than a story that you follow, even though it's odd as all hell to you.
And yes, I firmly believe many things are odd as hell but you are willing to overlook that because you do not wish to go against the grain.
That's my opinion on you and others.
No need to argue this as I won't change my stance on it in it's present state.
Here are star chart showing the North and South celestial poles.
There isn't north and south poles like you think. IMO.
Notice that the positions of the stars are completely different and in the SCP chart Polaris is nowhere to be seen.
Points of light will always be different depending on where you are on Earth.
Nor is the entire constellation of Ursa Major in the SCP chart nor Crux (southern cross) in the NCP chart. So hardly a mirror!
https://img1.etsystatic.com/002/0/5663576/il_570xN.407038111_10xg.jpg
The mirror depends on what and where the points of light are to the person viewing.
Not everyone will see a mirror image. They will go from one point to another and see a flipped image.
When you polar align an equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere you have to use a completely different method to the north because Polaris is not visible.
So therefore you align it to whatever else you want...right?
So what does that show?
To be a valid or viable alternative model, yours would have to account for this and up to now it seems like it can't.
Account for what, exactly?
Here is a timed exposure of the SCP. Notice the complete lack of a bright star (Polaris) at the central point of the arcs (the SCP).
Maybe because your not near that central point of light.
Also note the small cloud like patches at the top (LMC) and right (SMC) of the image. These are the Magellanic Clouds which are not visible at all from northern latitudes.
https://live.staticflickr.com/8521/8460248688_012077185b_b.jpg
Like I said earlier. It depends on where a person is on Earth which will determine what they see.
It's just not on a spinning globe that you believe.
-
- Your carbonite planetarium projector sits at the center of flat earth which is due north for everyone, right?
What we would consider as the north pole star, right?
Yep, the central point of light.
- So the carbonite planetarium projector shoots straight up to the center of the dome a holographic image of what we call "Polaris", right?
Sort of, yes. By sort of, it depends on what you're classing as a holographic image concerning this point of light.
All of the other carbonite planetarium projected holographic stars circle around that, right?
I'd more call it moving over and around. A sort of falling hula hoop.
- Where on the dome is the carbonite planetarium projected holographic image of Sigma Octantis that all of the southern hemiplane projected holographic stars circle around going the opposite way?
Right next to it, sort of.
-
Yeah, these things were awesome, still are:
(https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/pla/downloads/JPG/Model_VI.jpg)
I guess Carl Zeiss was all wrong and went overboard by crafting the second unneeded superfluous hemisphere.
Imagine how big scepti's cabonite crystalline holographic projector must be to blanket an earth-sized breathing icy dome with all of the stars and planets and such we can see. I bet you can see the contraption from space it's so huge.
All your so called stars and so called planets are simply small dots in the sky that you think are humongous.
A tiny projector can fill an entire ceiling. Think about that.
-
And there you go with more games.
Then don't play them.
-
Draw the circle
Why do you want me to draw a circle?
No games played at all.
-
Course they're different. It's because there's only one central point of light.
So how can you have different star patterns if there is only one central point of light? What you are claiming is just like saying that whenever I look in the mirror I don't see a reversed image of myself but a completely different face!
There isn't north and south poles like you think. IMO.
Right well I can tell you as much as 'your opinion' might have you believe that there are. Photos prove it and so would the testimony of every amateur astronomer or indeed professional astronomer who lives south of the equator. It is not a case of thinking on my part but rather cold hard fact.
So therefore you align it to whatever else you want...right?
So what does that show?
No.. not right. Far from it in fact.
The mirror depends on what and where the points of light are to the person viewing.
Not everyone will see a mirror image. They will go from one point to another and see a flipped image.
Comments like these prove - nothing else that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Probably no actual interest either.
Points of light will always be different depending on where you are on Earth.
Yes and those 'points of light in the sky' can actually reveal quite a bit of information to those who take the time and trouble to look for it. Information which you would ignore and deny because it doesn't comply with your belief system.
-
And there you go with more games.
Then don't play them.
That's literally all you do.
Looks like you could hit the 200 mark on this one. Will that be your highest?
-
Course they're different. It's because there's only one central point of light.
So how can you have different star patterns if there is only one central point of light? What you are claiming is just like saying that whenever I look in the mirror I don't see a reversed image of myself but a completely different face!
You're simply thinking of looking into a simple mirror.
You're forgetting there's a dome and you're forgetting that a dome will show different reflections from different areas and then none from others.
You can't or won't get your head around it because you think they're light year stars around a so called spinning ball
There isn't north and south poles like you think. IMO.
Right well I can tell you as much as 'your opinion' might have you believe that there are. Photos prove it and so would the testimony of every amateur astronomer or indeed professional astronomer who lives south of the equator. It is not a case of thinking on my part but rather cold hard fact.
Photos prove what exactly?
So therefore you align it to whatever else you want...right?
So what does that show?
No.. not right. Far from it in fact.
I'm all ears. I mean, eyes.
Nice and simple, tell me.
The mirror depends on what and where the points of light are to the person viewing.
Not everyone will see a mirror image. They will go from one point to another and see a flipped image.
Comments like these prove - nothing else that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Probably no actual interest either.
It's comments like this that tell me you have no interest and also have no clue about my theory and are just happy to reject anything that isn't global minded.
You live out of books and think it's all real world.
Points of light will always be different depending on where you are on Earth.
Yes and those 'points of light in the sky' can actually reveal quite a bit of information to those who take the time and trouble to look for it. Information which you would ignore and deny because it doesn't comply with your belief system.
What information can they reveal?
You throw away logic for silly stories.
-
And there you go with more games.
Then don't play them.
That's literally all you do.
Looks like you could hit the 200 mark on this one. Will that be your highest?
Anything to add?
-
And there you go with more games.
Then don't play them.
That's literally all you do.
Looks like you could hit the 200 mark on this one. Will that be your highest?
Anything to add?
To what?
So, is this your longest thread yet?
-
And there you go with more games.
Then don't play them.
That's literally all you do.
Looks like you could hit the 200 mark on this one. Will that be your highest?
Anything to add?
Draw the circle.
Whats the tilt?
-
To what?
So, is this your longest thread yet?
It's not my thread.
-
And there you go with more games.
Then don't play them.
That's literally all you do.
Looks like you could hit the 200 mark on this one. Will that be your highest?
Anything to add?
Draw the circle.
Whats the tilt?
How big should I draw it, bearing in mind it has to fit on the forum.
-
To what?
So, is this your longest thread yet?
It's not my thread.
Oh, don't be so modest. It doesn't matter who started it, it became a scepti thread long ago.
-
Course they're different. It's because there's only one central point of light.
So how can you have different star patterns if there is only one central point of light? What you are claiming is just like saying that whenever I look in the mirror I don't see a reversed image of myself but a completely different face!
You're simply thinking of looking into a simple mirror.
You're forgetting there's a dome and you're forgetting that a dome will show different reflections from different areas and then none from others.
You can't or won't get your head around it because you think they're light year stars around a so called spinning ball
You throw away logic for silly stories.
so simple
yes light goes up, hits surface, bounces back down.
simple
mirrors
triangulate where the source is.
point to its general location on the mercator map.
-
To what?
So, is this your longest thread yet?
It's not my thread.
Oh, don't be so modest. It doesn't matter who started it, it became a scepti thread long ago.
It's anyone's thread. It's about what would change our minds, which is still open to anyone.
I've already answered what would change mine.
The rest of it is people asking me stuff and name calling and all the rest of it.
-
Course they're different. It's because there's only one central point of light.
So how can you have different star patterns if there is only one central point of light? What you are claiming is just like saying that whenever I look in the mirror I don't see a reversed image of myself but a completely different face!
You're simply thinking of looking into a simple mirror.
You're forgetting there's a dome and you're forgetting that a dome will show different reflections from different areas and then none from others.
You can't or won't get your head around it because you think they're light year stars around a so called spinning ball
You throw away logic for silly stories.
so simple
yes light goes up, hits surface, bounces back down.
simple
mirrors
triangulate where the source is.
point to its general location on the mercator map.
You can't triangulate where the origin is.
-
Amazing
Why not?
You know how mirrors work?
Are you saying mirrors dont work?
-
- Your carbonite planetarium projector sits at the center of flat earth which is due north for everyone, right?
What we would consider as the north pole star, right?
Yep, the central point of light.
Yes, agreed. Polaris is a single point of light.
- So the carbonite planetarium projector shoots straight up to the center of the dome a holographic image of what we call "Polaris", right?
Sort of, yes. By sort of, it depends on what you're classing as a holographic image concerning this point of light.
I don't know what you mean by "classing". What I mean is that the carbonite planetarium projector projects a holographic image of Polaris straight up from the center of the flat earth which means it's projected onto the center of the dome high above, right?
All of the other carbonite planetarium projected holographic stars circle around that, right?
I'd more call it moving over and around. A sort of falling hula hoop.
I don't know what you mean by "moving over" & "falling hula hoop", but in the observation of reality, they circle around Polaris. That's simply what we see. It's not something we were indoctrinated into believing, it just is. You can see for yourself.
- Where on the dome is the carbonite planetarium projected holographic image of Sigma Octantis that all of the southern hemiplane projected holographic stars circle around going the opposite way?
Right next to it, sort of.
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
-
Amazing
Why not?
You know how mirrors work?
Are you saying mirrors dont work?
Mirrors work fine.
What's your issue?
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
I'm on it. In the mean time while I'm making graphics for you that you shouldn't need, how about answering the other questions?
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
It's a pretty simple question. Where is Sigma Octantis? Where is the Southern Cross if I look south and the Earth is flat? Is it due south? But how can it be due south if the south pole is a ring that encircles the flat Earth?
-
Sceptimatic what I admire most about you is your imagination. It's utterly brilliant. And I have to say quite unique, and I'm beginning to think entirely deliberate. You are experimenting to find out just how far you can take things along the path of complete fantasy and still have people replying to you as if you are serious.
If anyone takes the time (and I guess we are all guilty of this) to read back through your posts they will see how your ideas and 'beliefs' change almost day by day. Not least because most of the things you claim are real and true are in fact so obviously false and untrue. I never thought I would ever come across a discussion among grown adults about what you can or can't see through a simple tube. Wow we must all be suffering with our mental health more than we realise.
I could get really offended by your disparaging comments about astronomy but how can I when I actually find them quite fun and amusing to read. Typical comments made by someone who thinks they know the truth but actually haven't got the first clue about reality. I have spent many years working with kids your comments are not unlike the more indignant ones I get from them.
What information can you get from the stars? Well the answer is a lot. As the astronomers from the 1850s started to discover when spectroscopy was first developed. I could write a book on it but since many books on the subject have already been published, you have every opportunity to read them. If you so chose to which I know you won't.
-
Amazing
Why not?
You know how mirrors work?
Are you saying mirrors dont work?
Mirrors work fine.
What's your issue?
great
so light from a source travels more or less straight, hits a surface, reflects back to the viewer.
trace it back.
where's the source?
-
Sceptimatic what I admire most about you is your imagination. It's utterly brilliant. And I have to say quite unique, and I'm beginning to think entirely deliberate. You are experimenting to find out just how far you can take things along the path of complete fantasy and still have people replying to you as if you are serious.
If anyone takes the time (and I guess we are all guilty of this) to read back through your posts they will see how your ideas and 'beliefs' change almost day by day. Not least because most of the things you claim are real and true are in fact so obviously false and untrue. I never thought I would ever come across a discussion among grown adults about what you can or can't see through a simple tube. Wow we must all be suffering with our mental health more than we realise.
I could get really offended by your disparaging comments about astronomy but how can I when I actually find them quite fun and amusing to read. Typical comments made by someone who thinks they know the truth but actually haven't got the first clue about reality. I have spent many years working with kids your comments are not unlike the more indignant ones I get from them.
What information can you get from the stars? Well the answer is a lot. As the astronomers from the 1850s started to discover when spectroscopy was first developed. I could write a book on it but since many books on the subject have already been published, you have every opportunity to read them. If you so chose to which I know you won't.
Anyone of us could be sceptimatic. If we were on a debating team, and this week are told, "right, you're debating that the earth is flat, that is your objective." Sceptimatic has taken it to the next next next next level.
He's thrown down his sword and said, if I can prove to myself a satellite is real, I'll concede the earth is a globe. Yet, people are still hammering him about toilet tubes and circles.
I proved the earth was a globe yet again, to my daughter yesterday, while watching the eclipse. Proving it's a globe is like the easiest feat in the world.
-
Then don't play them.
You are the one playing. I'm calling you out on it.
If you weren't playing games you would address the questions which show your claims are pure BS:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
Course they're different. It's because there's only one central point of light.
So they aren't just mirrors of each other?
I can only guess what it might well be but I can absolutely state what it is not. It's not a spinning globe
While technically you can state anything, by your own admission you have no idea what Earth is, and you can provide nothing to refute the globe.
So you cannot honestly state that Earth is not a spinning globe.
Here are star chart showing the North and South celestial poles.
There isn't north and south poles like you think. IMO.
Your opinion has no bearing on reality.
The simple fact is that we can observe 2 celestial poles, one in the north and one in the south, always 180 degrees apart. For most locations 1 of the poles will be below the horizon, but we can still determine the direction to it, and the other pole will be visible.
So the issue is how you can account for that.
Appealing to a mirror does not account for it as the stars (or points of light as you want to pretend) are quite different in the north and the south.
The mirror depends on what and where the points of light are to the person viewing.
Not everyone will see a mirror image. They will go from one point to another and see a flipped image.
The point is it is not a mirror image at all.
The 2 celestial poles are quite different.
It is like you are claiming that a photo of a cat is just a mirrored image of a photo of an elephant.
Account for what, exactly?
The existence of 2 celestial poles, 180 degrees apart, which are fundamentally distinct and thus not simply mirror images of each other, where the 2 poles can be connected via a straight line, with that line at an angle relative to Earth's surface, with that angle varying depending on latitude.
Here is a timed exposure of the SCP. Notice the complete lack of a bright star (Polaris) at the central point of the arcs (the SCP).
Maybe because your not near that central point of light.
If that was going to be it the southern sky would just be a darker version of the northern sky.
It also makes no sense, as there is no significant change in the apparent brightness of Polaris in the northern hemisphere.
Like I said earlier. It depends on where a person is on Earth which will determine what they see.
Which in no way actually explains why what you claim is a mirror image is so fundamentally different.
You're simply thinking of looking into a simple mirror.
While different shaped mirrors will introduce distortions, they will not fundamentally change the image. Especially not something as simple as a dome.
You throw away logic for silly stories.
No, that would be you.
I've already answered what would change mine.
By blatantly lying about what you would expect on the RE, and then when provided with photographic evidence of something close to what you claimed, you just dismissed it as fake.
Why not be honest and admit NOTHING will change your mind.
That even if you were presented with irrefutable proof that the world is a spinning globe, you would reject it because it doesn't fit your beliefs?
-
Anyone of us could be sceptimatic. If we were on a debating team, and this week are told, "right, you're debating that the earth is flat, that is your objective." Sceptimatic has taken it to the next next next next level.
Only if we decide to become extremely dishonest and ignore everything that shows we are wrong.
That would almost certainly resulting in losing the debate. So what's the point?
He's thrown down his sword and said
Previously he has said all sorts of things which were shown to be a blatant lie. There is no reason to think this is any different.
What he has really done is picked he knows that all of us likely will not be capable of doing, and tried to use that pretend his position is rational and justified.
It is just another case of dishonestly setting up a near impossible standard to pretend his nonsense is justified.
It is also no where near as simple as you stated.
To more accurately state it, he has said that if you give him control of a satellite, which lets him look wherever he wants, being able to see Earth as a globe, and zoom in to easily see something on the surface, he would accept Earth is a globe.
So yes, given that he is trying to use something completely impossible for the average person to achieve, people are still "hammering" him about his blatant lies to pretend reality does not match the RE.
If he was honest he would concede that he has repeatedly misrepresented the globe before moving on to the next impossible claim.
Proving it's a globe is like the easiest feat in the world.
Proving it to yourself is quite easy.
Proving it to someone who has no interest in ever accepting any proof that shows they are wrong, and actually getting them to accept it, is quite a different story.
If you think it is easy, why don't you try proving it to him and see how well you go?
Maybe you can get him control of that satellite he has always wanted?
-
Hes yet to DISprove the ball earth.
Draw the circle.
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
Here you go. The guy facing south on the top of the image is looking at Sigma Octantis. Where is Sig Oct on the dome for the guy standing on the equator near Africa facing south? It's missing...
(https://i.imgur.com/MyRQIAW.jpg)
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
It's a pretty simple question. Where is Sigma Octantis? Where is the Southern Cross if I look south and the Earth is flat? Is it due south? But how can it be due south if the south pole is a ring that encircles the flat Earth?
There is no south so you're not looking south.
Depending on where you are situated on Earth and look towards the centre, you will see what you call your southern cross.
-
Sceptimatic what I admire most about you is your imagination. It's utterly brilliant. And I have to say quite unique, and I'm beginning to think entirely deliberate.
Entirely deliberate in terms of what?
If you mean in terms of trying to figure out the Earth, then yes, it is deliberate.
You are experimenting to find out just how far you can take things along the path of complete fantasy and still have people replying to you as if you are serious.
Ermmmmm.....no.
I am serious.
How you people reply solely depends on how interested you are or how strong you feel about consistently denying anything I say in favour of your globe model.
I actually reply to you people because I know most of you are serious about your fantasy that you believe is a reality.
I have 2 things in my mind.
1. An alternative (hypothesis/musing) to mainstream ideals.
2. A full on knowledge that the mainstream ideal of a global Earth, is 100% wrong, just by one simple observation, let alone the many that there are that logically kill it..
If anyone takes the time (and I guess we are all guilty of this) to read back through your posts they will see how your ideas and 'beliefs' change almost day by day.
No, they don't.
My ideas will alter over the years because I'm always finding better ways to explain or to figure out my HYPOTHESIS/MUSING.
You have a fixed fantasy passed off as a reality indoctrinated SEVERELY into you. Why would you change to follow alternate thoughts?
It takes mental strength to do it because you have to want and dare to step outside of the box you are kept in as your comfort zone.
This isn't a dig at just you, it's a dig at me, because I was once like that.
Not least because most of the things you claim are real and true are in fact so obviously false and untrue.
I don't claim anything as true, so you need to up your game if that's your attempt to try and pretend I pass off anything as fact for my theory.
The only thing I pass off as fact is my knowledge that the Earth you think you live on, is not a spinning globe.
I never thought I would ever come across a discussion among grown adults about what you can or can't see through a simple tube. Wow we must all be suffering with our mental health more than we realise.
I stand by what I said.
A simple tube and in fact a simple anything will prove a lot of stuff against a silly global spinning Earth that people have been bullied/coaxed into believing.
I could get really offended by your disparaging comments about astronomy but how can I when I actually find them quite fun and amusing to read.
You can do as you feel. If it makes you mad, get mad. If you think it's amusing, then smirk to yourself or internet back pat your forum friends and laugh at me.
I'm ok with whatever you want to do.
Typical comments made by someone who thinks they know the truth but actually haven't got the first clue about reality.
Typical comment from someone who can't quite grasp that I've never put anything out as a truth/fact in terms of my Earth theory, even though I've stated it so many times over the years.
I have spent many years working with kids your comments are not unlike the more indignant ones I get from them.
You can take my comments however which way you feel the need/desire to.
Maybe explain your stuff like I am a the annoying kid and shut me up by explaining things easily and simply so I have no option but to see a fact.
If you can't do that then you'll have t put up with that indignant kid.
What information can you get from the stars? Well the answer is a lot. As the astronomers from the 1850s started to discover when spectroscopy was first developed. I could write a book on it but since many books on the subject have already been published, you have every opportunity to read them. If you so chose to which I know you won't.
That doesn't answer any question other than skirting around the whole thing.
If you feel annoyed then shut me up and show me reality...not the story of supposed reality read out to me.
-
Amazing
Why not?
You know how mirrors work?
Are you saying mirrors dont work?
Mirrors work fine.
What's your issue?
great
so light from a source travels more or less straight, hits a surface, reflects back to the viewer.
trace it back.
where's the source?
Centre of Earth.
-
I proved the earth was a globe yet again, to my daughter yesterday, while watching the eclipse. Proving it's a globe is like the easiest feat in the world.
No, it's not.
Giving someone the mindset of being on a globe is the easiest thing because you're armed with all the stories about it to regurgitate, over time.
That's all the ammo you have and the reality is, it might go bang but it is blank.
-
Then don't play them.
You are the one playing. I'm calling you out on it.
It's not working.
-
Only if we decide to become extremely dishonest and ignore everything that shows we are wrong.
You shouldn't need to wonder why you are overlooked.
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
Here you go. The guy facing south on the top of the image is looking at Sigma Octantis. Where is Sig Oct on the dome for the guy standing on the equator near Africa facing south? It's missing...
(https://i.imgur.com/MyRQIAW.jpg)
There is no south.
Don't forget about what I said about mirroring.
-
Amazing
Why not?
You know how mirrors work?
Are you saying mirrors dont work?
Mirrors work fine.
What's your issue?
great
so light from a source travels more or less straight, hits a surface, reflects back to the viewer.
trace it back.
where's the source?
Centre of Earth.
Middle of the map above ground or literal middle underground?
-
Here's where things get interesting, perhaps sticky. It can't be right next to it, not even sort of, whatever you mean by that. Because, as observed my millions of humans for 10's of thousands of years, Polaris and Sig Oct (or more visible, the Crux) are 180 degrees apart by a very, very, long way.
If you're standing on the equator facing due north you can see Polaris just above the horizon. You have to turn 180 degrees to face the opposite way and you can see Sig Oct (barely, more likely the Crux) basically due south, just above the horizon as well.
So there is no way Sig Oct is even remotely near Polaris on the dome.
The other problem is, when standing on the equator, as mentioned a second ago, you can always see Polaris looking due north. However, on a flat earth, if I turn around to look for the Crux due south, which direction am I actually physically looking? Because on a flat earth due south is essentially the entire perimeter of earth. You following? If you're not, I can whip up a picture to show you what I'm saying.
If you are following, how does that work with the carbonite planetarium projector?
Let's see what you mean.
Here you go. The guy facing south on the top of the image is looking at Sigma Octantis. Where is Sig Oct on the dome for the guy standing on the equator near Africa facing south? It's missing...
(https://i.imgur.com/MyRQIAW.jpg)
There is no south.
Don't forget about what I said about mirroring.
Whoa there cowboy, "there's no such thing as south"??? Now you're claiming that there is no cardinal direction as "south"? The opposite of north? If I turn 180 degrees from looking north, which way am I looking?
You realize that doesn't even remotely fit reality, regardless of your "mirroring" stuff? (As an aside, you'd have to explain this mirror business as to the angles that it reflects off of from a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector on to a convex dome and where those angles end up...which you haven't or can't)
I'm pretty sure you've gone completely off the rails as thousands of years of human observation and navigation, and extremely well documented at that, says that "south" exists as a direction. This is probably the wildest and most extraordinary claim you have ever made (though debatable; a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector displaying the entirety of a moving cosmos on to a breathing icy dome ranks right up there as well).
And with that extraordinary claim it requires extra-extraordinary evidence. What do you have to offer?
-
No south?
Cool.
Likewise theres no such thing as "down" because its all "towards center".
Quit being a pos, sceppy.
Its a directional frame of reference.
Same as left and right front back.
Its language in the form of direction so when one party uses to communicates it, the other party can understand.
Of course, this coming from the guy who purposefully misuses definitions so that no one knows wtf hes talking about.
-
Amazing
Why not?
You know how mirrors work?
Are you saying mirrors dont work?
Mirrors work fine.
What's your issue?
great
so light from a source travels more or less straight, hits a surface, reflects back to the viewer.
trace it back.
where's the source?
Centre of Earth.
Middle of the map above ground or literal middle underground?
When you decide not to be an A***H*** I'll be more than happy to re-engage.
-
So you have no answer.
Good one.
Draw the circle.
-
Whoa there cowboy, "there's no such thing as south"??? Now you're claiming that there is no cardinal direction as "south"? The opposite of north? If I turn 180 degrees from looking north, which way am I looking?
If I have to go down the rabbit hole then I'll tell you there is no north as you think.
But seeing as we go with a compass then north will be centre, only it will be towards into the centre not just towards it and that's it.
A central plug hole would best describe it if you can take a child like analogy and not actually turn it into, we live in a sink mindset like some numpties would.
You realize that doesn't even remotely fit reality, regardless of your "mirroring" stuff?
You mean the reality you've been indoctrinated into believing?
(As an aside, you'd have to explain this mirror business as to the angles that it reflects off of from a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector on to a convex dome and where those angles end up...which you haven't or can't)
Can't or won't? Hmmmmm. Ok we'll leave it at that.
Keep prompting and you'll recieve the same.
I'm pretty sure you've gone completely off the rails as thousands of years of human observation and navigation, and extremely well documented at that, says that "south" exists as a direction.
Ok, here we go again.
It doesn't last long, does it?
This is probably the wildest and most extraordinary claim you have ever made (though debatable; a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector displaying the entirety of a moving cosmos on to a breathing icy dome ranks right up there as well).
Same again. Tedious.
And with that extraordinary claim it requires extra-extraordinary evidence. What do you have to offer?
That depends on what your mindset is.
I have nothing to offer you with your current mindset because it reeks of bias and massive indoctrination and massive appeals to authority.
You kill your own debates.
You either are interested or you're just doing it for a so called laugh. Make up your mind and try not to be weak like most who look for back pats and stuff.
-
1. An alternative (hypothesis/musing) to mainstream ideals.
My ideas will alter over the years because I'm always finding better ways to explain or to figure out my HYPOTHESIS/MUSING.
2. A full on knowledge that the mainstream ideal of a global Earth, is 100% wrong, just by one simple observation, let alone the many that there are that logically kill it..
You have a fixed fantasy passed off as a reality indoctrinated SEVERELY into you.
Why would you change to follow alternate thoughts?
[…] your comfort zone.
I don't claim anything as true, so you need to up your game if that's your attempt to try and pretend I pass off anything as fact for my theory.
The only thing I pass off as fact is my knowledge that the Earth you think you live on, is not a spinning globe.
A simple tube and in fact a simple anything will prove a lot of stuff against a silly global spinning Earth that people have been bullied/coaxed into believing.
Maybe explain your stuff like I am a the annoying kid and shut me up by explaining things easily and simply so I have no option but to see a fact.
If you can't do that then you'll have t put up with that indignant kid.
That doesn't answer any question other than skirting around the whole thing.
If you feel annoyed then shut me up and show me reality...not the story of supposed reality read out to me.
great
your arc light we can ignore because it's your musings.
so we can give up on this.
factually speaking, you claim to be able to disprove the globe.
so
draw the circle
draw the triangle
prove once and for all for all to see that you are correct that the calculations and observed reality are wrong.
do it as you insist it to be done.
-
There is no south so you're not looking south.
Are you really that desperate that you are just outright rejecting the direction of south?
Then what do you call the direction opposite north?
Depending on where you are situated on Earth and look towards the centre, you will see what you call your southern cross.
By "centre" do you mean north?
Because when I look towards the centre, I just see ground/floor.
When I look North, I see no sign of the southern cross.
How you people reply solely depends on how interested you are or how strong you feel about consistently denying anything I say in favour of your globe model.
It has nothing to do with denying what you say in favour of any particular model.
Instead it is refuting/rejecting what you say based upon them being entirely baseless, self contradictory, and contradicted by reality.
I have 2 things in my mind.
The problem is that it is entirely in your mind.
The alternatives you provide are DOA, and cannot account for even quite simple things.
You can't provide anything to actually refute the globe, instead you just repeatedly lie about it, often throwing logic straight out the window to pretend there is a problem with the globe.
The only thing I pass off as fact is my knowledge that the Earth you think you live on, is not a spinning globe.
You mean your delusional fantasy that you cannot justify at all, with the claims made regarding it being obviously false even with a tiny bit of thought.
But even what you claim you only pass off as your theory/musings, for anyone who actually understands reality, they would realise plenty of that speculation is quite clearly wrong.
I stand by what I said.
Then why do you continually refuse to answer trivial questions which show the exact opposite?
Here they are again, have you figured out any answers yet?
If you weren't playing games you would address the questions which show your claims are pure BS:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
A simple tube and in fact a simple anything will prove a lot of stuff against a silly global spinning Earth that people have been bullied/coaxed into believing.
Not in the slightest, but they certainty quite easily prove a lot of stuff against the nonsense you spout.
Maybe explain your stuff like I am a the annoying kid and shut me up by explaining things easily and simply so I have no option but to see a fact.
We have done that, and you then just ignore the explanation when you run out of stupid questions to ask.
You still refuse to see it as fact, as you don't care about facts.
Instead you just try to distract by changing the topic or you just flee.
Why don't you try shutting us up by answering the simple questions you keep on avoiding?
You shouldn't need to wonder why you are overlooked.
I know you continually overlook me because I refute your claims and you can't refute mine. So rather than engage honestly you just continue to deflect.
-
There is no south so you're not looking south.
Are you really that desperate that you are just outright rejecting the direction of south?
Then what do you call the direction opposite north?
I'm not desperate, I just don't accept your north and south on your globe...naturally...as you well know.
Depending on where you are situated on Earth and look towards the centre, you will see what you call your southern cross.
By "centre" do you mean north?
Because when I look towards the centre, I just see ground/floor.
When I look North, I see no sign of the southern cross.
You must live in Australia or something, right?
You think looking down is looking up, kind of thing.
-
There is no south so you're not looking south.
Are you really that desperate that you are just outright rejecting the direction of south?
Then what do you call the direction opposite north?
I'm not desperate, I just don't accept your north and south on your globe...naturally...as you well know.
It isn't a case of "on your globe".
It is simply one of the 4 cardinal directions.
The only place where there is no south is the south pole.
If you weren't so desperate you would deal with the issues raised, rather than deflecting with nonsense like rejecting the direction of south even existing.
If you weren't so desperate you would have answered the questions you keep on avoiding, without trying to change the questions to suit your agenda:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
You must live in Australia or something, right?
You think looking down is looking up, kind of thing.
I live in reality, where Earth is round so looking towards the centre is looking down.
You are the one with serious difficulties with definitions of words.
-
It is simply one of the 4 cardinal directions.
The only place where there is no south is the south pole.
On your globe.
-
It is simply one of the 4 cardinal directions.
The only place where there is no south is the south pole.
On your globe.
There you go ignoring the issue yet again.
Just where on your fantasy Earth is there no south?
Again, why not answer the simple question:
What is the direction opposite north?
Again, why do you continue to ignore questions which show your claims about the RE are pure garbage?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
I proved the earth was a globe yet again, to my daughter yesterday, while watching the eclipse. Proving it's a globe is like the easiest feat in the world.
No, it's not.
Giving someone the mindset of being on a globe is the easiest thing because you're armed with all the stories about it to regurgitate, over time.
That's all the ammo you have and the reality is, it might go bang but it is blank.
I'm also armed with practicality.
Remember how I said I made a scale model of the earth and moon? Well, in the late afternoon before the night of the eclipse, my daughter asked me how the eclipse works.
So, I took out my Earth and Moon model with the Moon attached to Earth at the scale distance by a piece of string. My daughter held the Moon and I held the Earth in the direction of the actual sun.
My model Earth cast a beautiful circular shadow, and when the shadow went over the model Moon, the arc of the shadow perfectly matched the arc of the Earth's shadow we later watched during the eclipse.
So, Sceptimatic, how would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model? Just an unusual luminary occurrence with lights on the roof of the dome? Telescopes are a myth that don't really work in the real world?
-
@SM don't waste your time. Sceptimatic has made it quite clear. 'This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it'. He has obviously read the Conspiracy Theorists manual and is reading it and following it chapter and verse. I'm not even going to bother trying to be rational any more with his ideas, or pander to his demands to explain things 'nice and simple'.
I'm just going to sit back and let the smile grow across my face each time his ideas/beliefs/claims get more and more bizarre. We are not supposed to talk in terms of north or south anymore because they don't exist!
-
Whoa there cowboy, "there's no such thing as south"??? Now you're claiming that there is no cardinal direction as "south"? The opposite of north? If I turn 180 degrees from looking north, which way am I looking?
If I have to go down the rabbit hole then I'll tell you there is no north as you think.
But seeing as we go with a compass then north will be centre, only it will be towards into the centre not just towards it and that's it.
A central plug hole would best describe it if you can take a child like analogy and not actually turn it into, we live in a sink mindset like some numpties would.
I have no idea about what it is you just wrote. North is to the center...Ok I get that. What's a plug hole? What's a sink mindset? What's a numpties?
Simply, which way am I looking if I'm looking the opposite of north? regardless of sinks, I guess you mean whirlpools and whatever numpties are. That's all I'm asking. Are you ok? You're talking like Dr. Suess.
You realize that doesn't even remotely fit reality, regardless of your "mirroring" stuff?
You mean the reality you've been indoctrinated into believing?
No, I mean reality of millions of observations and uses. Humans have been using "south" navigationally for 1000's of years. That has nothing to do with "indoctrination". I don't know why you always default to that. It makes no sense in this context. You're literally making no sense.
(As an aside, you'd have to explain this mirror business as to the angles that it reflects off of from a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector on to a convex dome and where those angles end up...which you haven't or can't)
Can't or won't? Hmmmmm. Ok we'll leave it at that.
Keep prompting and you'll recieve the same.
I have no idea what you mean by this either. You keep mentioning "mirroring", but not really describing what that means. In reality, I guess your carbonite crystalline planetarium projector bounces an image off of the convex dome and the image is "mirrored" somewhere else. That's what you mean?
Ok, so where is it mirrored? And pointed out by myself and others, mirroring doesn't work because the opposing stars/constellations that are supposed to be mirror images are different, in different positions, "not mirrored". So you have to be specific. As well as to how the angles work. Which way is the carbonite crystalline planetarium projector pointed so that some sort of mirrored version shows up on another part of the dome where it's supposed to be based upon and where we know it is and can see it, in real time, in reality. You savvy?
It seems that when you're confronted with an actual real life question as to how your system works in reality, you shut down with something about "Keep prompting and you'll recieve the same." What do you mean by "prompting". I'm prompting, I guess, if that's what you want to call it, to me, it's asking, just how you fit your theory into the real world. You seem to just refuse to do that. And take offense to the question and then flip your switch off.
I'm pretty sure you've gone completely off the rails as thousands of years of human observation and navigation, and extremely well documented at that, says that "south" exists as a direction.
Ok, here we go again.
It doesn't last long, does it?
Yeah, because "south" exists as a concept and a direction that is used by every living navigable entity on the planet. That's not indoctrination, that's literally 1/4 of how the world's inhabitants and their things get from A to B. So for someone to come along and say that literal cornerstone doesn't exist is, well, of the rails, as it were. So if you're gonna say that, back it up. How does the world navigate without "South" and how is it that everyone successfully uses it though you say it doesn't exist?
This is probably the wildest and most extraordinary claim you have ever made (though debatable; a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector displaying the entirety of a moving cosmos on to a breathing icy dome ranks right up there as well).
Same again. Tedious.
Yes, quite tedious, because you make this insanely wild claim and refuse to even back it up...You just shut down when confronted with the reality of your claim. And at the same time denying that something exists that is literally used by a billion+ people everyday.
And with that extraordinary claim it requires extra-extraordinary evidence. What do you have to offer?
That depends on what your mindset is.
I have nothing to offer you with your current mindset because it reeks of bias and massive indoctrination and massive appeals to authority.
It literally has nothing to do with my mindset or indoctrination for fucks sake. Would you just step back from that tired mantra of yours for half a second and address what's in front of you. Talk about tedious, if I had nickel for every time time you appealed to indoctrination I'd be the richest person on the planet.
And stop determining where you think other peoples heads are at. That's so egotistical and pointless. I'm asking you for evidence of how "south" doesn't exist in the sense that it, again, as a concept and an actual physical direction, that is used by billions of people every day to get where they or their stuff needs to go - How does your world work without 1 of 4 cardinal directions that is used by everyone else. My "mindset" has nothing to do with your explanation. Like you ask of all of us all the time for everything to "Explain it to me, in your own words". Now it's your turn to explain it to us how this all works in reality.
You kill your own debates.
You either are interested or you're just doing it for a so called laugh. Make up your mind and try not to be weak like most who look for back pats and stuff.
Just explain exactly how your carbonite crystalline planetarium projector mirroring works and how that specifically refutes the fact that Sig Oct (and the Crux, etc.) can be viewed by everyone looking "south" from everywhere near to or south of the equator. And stop with the deflecting and appealing to the indoctrination bullshit and be specific about the task at hand just as you ask of everyone else. Fit your concept to reality and stop hiding behind the guise of "you guys just won't get it because you're programmed not to" or go home. Man up for god's sake.
-
Sceptimatics understanding of what 'indoctrination' means is obviously lacking. Thousands, if not millions of amateur astronomers across the world are continually making very precise measurements to test established theories and models looking for the tiniest little errors. Measurements which can be done by anyone with the right equipment and results are shared, cross-checked and verified over and over. We can predict events years in advance to accuracies of minutes or even seconds and then watch in the sky ourselves with our own eyes those events taking place exactly as predicted. How is any of that 'indoctrination'?
I think it is sad that Sceptimatic thinks of the stars as just meaningless 'dots of lights in the sky'. That is their visual appearance of course but there is far more to those dots than just meets the eye. For instance why do they vary in brightness and colour for one? What does that tell us about them and how can we find out? These were questions and problems which were answered and solved by 19th century astronomers. We have gone on to classify these 'dots of light in the sky' according to well-defined spectral classes and so on.
Detecting the tiny (arc second or less) annual movements relative to each other which are totally undetectable to the human eye are now measurable using modern optics. It was only in the mid-19th century that optics improved to the point where we discovered these changes in position. Those tiny movements prove that they are distant 'suns' and that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. I can detect these movements because I am fortunate enough to have the equipment. Another project I am currently working on is the use of red shift and blue shift of A type stars (with strong balmer lines in their spectra) in order to measure the orbital velocity of the Earth. I have to use stars (or even just a star) which are on or near the ecliptic since the red and blue shift in the spectral lines will be greatest for those stars because the Earth will be moving directly towards and away from them. Needless to say it will take at least six months to do that.
-
If I have to go down the rabbit hole then I'll tell you there is no north as you think.
But seeing as we go with a compass then north will be centre, only it will be towards into the centre not just towards it and that's it.
A central plug hole would best describe it if you can take a child like analogy and not actually turn it into, we live in a sink mindset like some numpties would.
This is, without a doubt, proof you are the world's best at trolling or something else entirely. The number of questions that spring from this statement due to what it implies is mind-boggling. "Only it will be towards into the centre not just towards it" is lunacy. "There is no south" is lunacy. How do compasses work? Why do they work the way they do? What are they actually aligning with and why? Why has the whole world, that has been navigating using these stars and instruments FOR CENTURIES gotten it wrong this entire time???
You mean the reality you've been indoctrinated into believing?
This statement is asinine given the quality of responses you've provided. Electromagnetism and geology provide explanations that both describe to a great degree of detail and, more importantly, predict reliably what we can expect from our navigational tools when it comes to these concepts. Let's say, for the sake of this argument, you are correct and all that we know about the Earth is wrong. What replaces it? If you needed to get from wherever you are to some distant location, how would you get there and using what tools? How would you even go about building the tool necessary for this journey with the knowledge you claim to have regarding how these concepts work?
Indoctrination is what I went through when I was in the military for 10 years. Educational indoctrination is a real thing in the US, which spins partially false or curated narratives about things in history we'd rather forget about. We downplay them. Science can't afford this, especially the hard sciences. When it comes to medicine and engineering in particular, indoctrination can lead to mistakes that cost lives. I'm not saying those disciplines are immune to personal bias, but you can't build what the human race has accomplished while being indoctrinated about how nearly everything in reality works. This is not a sustainable venture and we would have seen a system like that breakdown.
You do realize that everything, including the computer you're using to type these insane or super-troll comments, was created by the same so-called "indoctrinated" belief system you say exists, right? How does that happen? How does a world that's gotten it so wrong still get so much done using technology built on a foundation you say isn't true? If it isn't true, then do the people that create this technology know the truth? If they know the truth, why aren't they speaking up?
Well, I'm sure you'll respond with the typical evasive BS, which is your calling card. In the nearly 4 years I've been coming here your particular brand of whatever has been comically consistent. That's either some Andy Kaufman level of dedication to a character or you are in serious need of both education and therapy.
-
I don't claim anything as true, so you need to up your game if that's your attempt to try and pretend I pass off anything as fact for my theory.
Really? It's strange you should say that because everyone else seems to have a different opinion. As for your 'theory' you blatantly refuse to accept anything other than what you believe as true. So how is that not you passing off your theory as fact? It's a case of what I believe or nothing with you.
-
Just where on your Earth is there no south?
Everywhere.
-
It is simply one of the 4 cardinal directions.
The only place where there is no south is the south pole.
On your globe.
What about on a map?
No.
Obviously you can follow a set pattern by compass and directionally point to north south east and west for navigation.
I'm talking about the end product of my Earth.
South has no real direction.
North can be construed as merely a pressure push or a magnetic push of pressure towards the centre.
East and west have no direction.
The global model has the pretence of poles and such which you lot accept.
-
I proved the earth was a globe yet again, to my daughter yesterday, while watching the eclipse. Proving it's a globe is like the easiest feat in the world.
No, it's not.
Giving someone the mindset of being on a globe is the easiest thing because you're armed with all the stories about it to regurgitate, over time.
That's all the ammo you have and the reality is, it might go bang but it is blank.
I'm also armed with practicality.
Remember how I said I made a scale model of the earth and moon? Well, in the late afternoon before the night of the eclipse, my daughter asked me how the eclipse works.
So, I took out my Earth and Moon model with the Moon attached to Earth at the scale distance by a piece of string. My daughter held the Moon and I held the Earth in the direction of the actual sun.
My model Earth cast a beautiful circular shadow, and when the shadow went over the model Moon, the arc of the shadow perfectly matched the arc of the Earth's shadow we later watched during the eclipse.
So, Sceptimatic, how would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model? Just an unusual luminary occurrence with lights on the roof of the dome? Telescopes are a myth that don't really work in the real world?
And you can also tell me about your waxing crescent moon. See if you can re-enact that with your model.
Tell me about it.
-
So, Sceptimatic, how would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model? Just an unusual luminary occurrence with lights on the roof of the dome? Telescopes are a myth that don't really work in the real world?
And you can also tell me about your waxing crescent moon. See if you can re-enact that with your model.
Tell me about it.
You first. How would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model?
-
Simply, which way am I looking if I'm looking the opposite of north?
Simply opposite to your view from what you call, north.
Just remember you would be doing it on my Earth theory...not the one you were indoctrinated into, which I also was, at one time.
regardless of sinks, I guess you mean whirlpools.
Yep, whirlpools or atmospheric whirlpools.
You realize that doesn't even remotely fit reality, regardless of your "mirroring" stuff?
You mean the reality you've been indoctrinated into believing?
No, I mean reality of millions of observations and uses. Humans have been using "south" navigationally for 1000's of years. That has nothing to do with "indoctrination". I don't know why you always default to that. It makes no sense in this context. You're literally making no sense.
Navigation is fine but you're not hitting anything specific to any real point.
You may navigate to land but you're not hitting any point.
This is what I'm saying.
You're following a pressure system. A whirlpool of atmospheric pressure towards the centre with your north set compass.
The only direct point, if you can call it that, is the centre from all places looking towards it by the magnetic N point on your compass.
Anything other than that has no point. No S, no W, and no E........but, you can follow a compass that will veer you away from centre.
From then it's a case of hitting areas of land, etc, not points.
(As an aside, you'd have to explain this mirror business as to the angles that it reflects off of from a carbonite crystalline planetarium projector on to a convex dome and where those angles end up...which you haven't or can't)
Can't or won't? Hmmmmm. Ok we'll leave it at that.
Keep prompting and you'll receive the same.
I have no idea what you mean by this either. You keep mentioning "mirroring", but not really describing what that means. In reality, I guess your carbonite crystalline planetarium projector bounces an image off of the convex dome and the image is "mirrored" somewhere else. That's what you mean?
When points of light move over and around they mirror over the other side of the dome. A mirror image.
Ok, so where is it mirrored? And pointed out by myself and others, mirroring doesn't work because the opposing stars/constellations that are supposed to be mirror images are different, in different positions, "not mirrored". So you have to be specific.
Course they're in different positions . They mirror up to angled down and upside down on the other side.
Same as the moon hologram from the sun.
As well as to how the angles work. Which way is the carbonite crystalline planetarium projector pointed so that some sort of mirrored version shows up on another part of the dome where it's supposed to be based upon and where we know it is and can see it, in real time, in reality. You savvy?
It's a dome covering crystal under an ice dome.
Under the crystal is the carbon arc energy and crystals around the centre.
It seems that when you're confronted with an actual real life question as to how your system works in reality, you shut down with something about "Keep prompting and you'll recieve the same." What do you mean by "prompting". I'm prompting, I guess, if that's what you want to call it, to me, it's asking, just how you fit your theory into the real world. You seem to just refuse to do that. And take offense to the question and then flip your switch off.
Nooo. I try to explain bet it's not something that's easily explainable to people who cannot use their mindset to get a grasp of it.
Your mindset is global. It's biased in favour of that.
You trying to think outside of that will be hard and you'll get frustrated because my version doesn't fall into line with your story books Earth.
I'm pretty sure you've gone completely off the rails as thousands of years of human observation and navigation, and extremely well documented at that, says that "south" exists as a direction.
Ok, here we go again.
It doesn't last long, does it?
Yeah, because "south" exists as a concept and a direction that is used by every living navigable entity on the planet.
That's not indoctrination, that's literally 1/4 of how the world's inhabitants and their things get from A to B.
On a compass it says N/NE/SE/S/SW/W/NW, clockwise. You have a N pointer.
You simply use it to hit land and such that is mapped according to that.
I have no issue with the compass.
All I'm saying is, there's no real end point other than, north and even then we can't get to the end point.....but everything feeds into that point from my theory.
So for someone to come along and say that literal cornerstone doesn't exist is, well, of the rails, as it were. So if you're gonna say that, back it up. How does the world navigate without "South" and how is it that everyone successfully uses it though you say it doesn't exist?
The sooner you get it into your head that I do not subscribe to your globe, teh better for you.
Why?
You won't need to feel you have to be amazed when I go against it and try to tell me I'm wrong because your globe doesn't work the way I see my Earth.
Think on it.
And with that extraordinary claim it requires extra-extraordinary evidence. What do you have to offer?
That depends on what your mindset is.
I have nothing to offer you with your current mindset because it reeks of bias and massive indoctrination and massive appeals to authority.
It literally has nothing to do with my mindset or indoctrination for fucks sake.
It actually does but you won't see that. Why would you when you are so absorbed into it amid massive peer pressure to keep that mindset.
Would you just step back from that tired mantra of yours for half a second and address what's in front of you.
I really am trying. You struggling to understand or accept what I'm saying is down to you and all you need to do is to try better ways of getting what you require by trying to get me to explain it by trying to understand analogies and such.
You go on as if I can just jump up and go and take picture of what I'm saying and yet argue it by using pictures/drawings of what you subscribe to, yet have no real clue as to what it is.
And stop with the deflecting and appealing to the indoctrination bullshit and be specific about the task at hand just as you ask of everyone else. Fit your concept to reality and stop hiding behind the guise of "you guys just won't get it because you're programmed not to" or go home.
I'd like to but that's the truth.
I'm being serious because I once used to go with it all. Don't forget that.
Don't take it as me having a dig, take it as me knowing what it's like to be severely indoctrinated and having the mind to see how others are. That's it.
Man up for god's sake.
Maybe you should look in the mirror.
-
Just where on your Earth is there no south?
Everywhere.
Again, then what is opposite north?
Again, why do you continue to ignore questions which show your claims about the RE are pure garbage?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
Obviously you can follow a set pattern by compass and directionally point to north south east and west for navigation.
How can you point to south if south does not exist?
The global model has the pretence of poles and such which you lot accept.
Not a pretence, but a conclusion, based upon the available evidence.
All I'm saying is, there's no real end point other than, north and even then we can't get to the end point
No, you're not. You are claiming south does not exist.
Here is the post that started this little tangent:
There is no south so you're not looking south.
You are claiming we can't look south because south doesn't exist.
The existence or lack thereof of the south pole has no bearing on if you can look south.
It doesn't matter if there is a south pole, and looking south is looking towards it; or if there is no south pole and instead there is jut a north pole and looking south is looking away from that north pole; either way, you can look south.
When points of light move over and around they mirror over the other side of the dome. A mirror image.
We have been over this, it is not a mirror image.
The 2 celestial hemispheres are fundamentally different and are not related by mirror symmetry.
I try to explain
No, you don't.
You will some times come up with pathetic non-answers which you pretend explain it, or try to change the question to then try to explain something much easier for you to do; but you never seem to make any honest attempt to actually explain these massive issues with your claims.
Instead you just insult those who don't accept your non-answers and claimed to have already explained things.
I really am trying.
To deflect from your inability to address the issues raised.
If you were actually trying you would have answered the simple questions asked of you rather than continue to deflect.
If you were actually trying you would have addressed the issue of looking south, rather than claiming south doesn't exist.
Don't take it as me having a dig, take it as me knowing what it's like to be severely indoctrinated and having the mind to see how others are. That's it.
You mean you were poorly educated and then rejected that education to replace it with fantasy, to give you a smug sense of superiority where you can pretend that you are better than all those "indoctrinated fools". And now that you have committed to that, going back on it would make you look even worse, and you can't handle that so you come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid defending your claims and to pretend that we must just all be completely delusional to not see your garbage as true, even though you can't rationally defend it at all.
We are not the indoctrinated ones here.
-
How do compasses work? Why do they work the way they do? What are they actually aligning with and why? Why has the whole world, that has been navigating using these stars and instruments FOR CENTURIES gotten it wrong this entire time???
Gotten what wrong?
They navigate using what's available. They have no need to navigate using a spinning globe mindset with a north or south pole.
A compass points in one direction. Everything else requires setting up to cater for opposites to that direction.
That direction is called north and is set at that with a N pointer. A magnetic flow to the centre.
In your mind it goes to a north or south pole.
The reality is, people follow compasses to land mass from directions set around a circle. Around a circle..Around a circle.
Land masses around a circle.
You mean the reality you've been indoctrinated into believing?
This statement is asinine given the quality of responses you've provided.
To you and your indoctrination, it obviously is.
Electromagnetism and geology provide explanations that both describe to a great degree of detail and, more importantly, predict reliably what we can expect from our navigational tools when it comes to these concepts. Let's say, for the sake of this argument, you are correct and all that we know about the Earth is wrong. What replaces it? If you needed to get from wherever you are to some distant location, how would you get there and using what tools? How would you even go about building the tool necessary for this journey with the knowledge you claim to have regarding how these concepts work?
I have no issue with genuine navigation. Understand that.
Indoctrination is what I went through when I was in the military for 10 years.
Military is just a school with guns and loud voices for people who feel the need to do whatever those in power want them to do.
Educational indoctrination is a real thing in the US, which spins partially false or curated narratives about things in history we'd rather forget about. We downplay them. Science can't afford this, especially the hard sciences. When it comes to medicine and engineering in particular, indoctrination can lead to mistakes that cost lives.
Don't get mixed up with all of real science and real scientists being lumped in with pseudoscientists.
I'm not saying those disciplines are immune to personal bias, but you can't build what the human race has accomplished while being indoctrinated about how nearly everything in reality works.
This is not a sustainable venture and we would have seen a system like that breakdown.
I have no issue with reality. My issue is being told something is reality and zero genuine proof being provided to show it and being fed CGI and storylines hidden behind secrecy as supposed truth.
You do realize that everything, including the computer you're using to type these insane or super-troll comments, was created by the same so-called "indoctrinated" belief system you say exists, right?
There's being taught reality and there's being indoctrinated.
Being taught reality can be found to be that when critically analysed. Indoctrination is being expected to just believe what you're told, uncritically.
How does that happen? How does a world that's gotten it so wrong still get so much done using technology built on a foundation you say isn't true?
A world hasn't got anything wrong.
The people in it that sell pseudoscience as science, are the problem...not real scientists.
If it isn't true, then do the people that create this technology know the truth? If they know the truth, why aren't they speaking up?
That depends on what the truth is and it also depends on who wants to argue and criticise if it costs them their job, social standing and even fates a bit worse than that....maybe.
-
I don't claim anything as true, so you need to up your game if that's your attempt to try and pretend I pass off anything as fact for my theory.
Really? It's strange you should say that because everyone else seems to have a different opinion. As for your 'theory' you blatantly refuse to accept anything other than what you believe as true. So how is that not you passing off your theory as fact? It's a case of what I believe or nothing with you.
None of that makes rational sense.
-
So, Sceptimatic, how would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model? Just an unusual luminary occurrence with lights on the roof of the dome? Telescopes are a myth that don't really work in the real world?
And you can also tell me about your waxing crescent moon. See if you can re-enact that with your model.
Tell me about it.
You first. How would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model?
Show me last night's eclipse.
-
Again, then what is opposite north?
On a compass?
South.
-
So, Sceptimatic, how would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model? Just an unusual luminary occurrence with lights on the roof of the dome? Telescopes are a myth that don't really work in the real world?
And you can also tell me about your waxing crescent moon. See if you can re-enact that with your model.
Tell me about it.
You first. How would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model?
Show me last night's eclipse.
Is your search engine broken?
-
Is your search engine broken?
Yes. Do you want to show me, or not?
-
Is your search engine broken?
Yes. Do you want to show me, or not?
Funny, mine is broken too. So in the mean time, until we both get ours fixed, why don't you just answer the question. I'm sure you can simply explain how an eclipse works in your model without having to look up last night's specifically.
-
There is no south so you're not looking south.
Again, then what is opposite north?
South.
So do you accept that south is real and you can look south? Directly contradicting your prior claim?
They navigate using what's available. They have no need to navigate using a spinning globe mindset with a north or south pole.
A compass points in one direction. Everything else requires setting up to cater for opposites to that direction.
That direction is called north and is set at that with a N pointer. A magnetic flow to the centre.
In your mind it goes to a north or south pole.
People also use the stars.
The reality is, people follow compasses to land mass from directions set around a circle. Around a circle..Around a circle.
No, around a globe. You not liking that will not change reality.
To you and your indoctrination, it obviously is.
No, to anyone honestly evaluating your claim.
Don't get mixed up with all of real science and real scientists being lumped in with pseudoscientists.
That would be you, repeatedly, by pretending all the scientists which support a RE are just pseudoscientists.
I have no issue with reality.
Yes you do. Reality is that Earth is a globe.
You take massive issue with that, and with anything that supports that.
This is why you need to lie so much, why you are completely incapable of defending your claims and why you keep on ignoring trivial questions which show your claims are wrong.
You remember, these questions which you still can't bring yourself to answer as doing so would amount to admitting you are wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
My issue is being told something is reality and zero genuine proof being provided to show it
So your issue is what you do repeatedly?
Being taught reality can be found to be that when critically analysed.
Like the globe, unlike your nonsense which you seem to want people to just believe what they are told, uncritically.
-
To be honest it really doesn't matter what shape Sceptimatic thinks (or knows in his mind) the Earth is. If he's 100% certain and sure that he right and the Earth isn't a globe then good for him. Who cares anymore?
-
I proved the earth was a globe yet again, to my daughter yesterday, while watching the eclipse. Proving it's a globe is like the easiest feat in the world.
No, it's not.
Giving someone the mindset of being on a globe is the easiest thing because you're armed with all the stories about it to regurgitate, over time.
That's all the ammo you have and the reality is, it might go bang but it is blank.
I'm also armed with practicality.
Remember how I said I made a scale model of the earth and moon? Well, in the late afternoon before the night of the eclipse, my daughter asked me how the eclipse works.
So, I took out my Earth and Moon model with the Moon attached to Earth at the scale distance by a piece of string. My daughter held the Moon and I held the Earth in the direction of the actual sun.
My model Earth cast a beautiful circular shadow, and when the shadow went over the model Moon, the arc of the shadow perfectly matched the arc of the Earth's shadow we later watched during the eclipse.
So, Sceptimatic, how would you explain last night's eclipse using your flattish Earth model? Just an unusual luminary occurrence with lights on the roof of the dome? Telescopes are a myth that don't really work in the real world?
And you can also tell me about your waxing crescent moon. See if you can re-enact that with your model.
Tell me about it.
I just told you about the waning crescent moon, which I did re-enact with my model. Why do you need me to tell you about the waxing crescent moon?
It's just the opposite as the earth's circular shadow passes over the moon and the waxing moon crescent begins on the opposite side to the side of the waning crescent, til the moon is full again.
A photo says a thousand words. Would you like a couple of photos of the waning and waxing using my to scale globe earth, moon, and sun set-up? The earth shadow cast against the moon will also be to scale.
I'd like to see you recreate the waning and waxing moon with your flattish earth model, dome and all, with all sizes and distances, to scale.
Well, you didn't like the globe earth club, with all it's spinning around, so you left, thinking you can do better with a stationary flattish....so let's see what you've come up with......
-
I have met lots of people who don't understand how the Moon phase cycle works and the difference between waxing and waning. But then when I explain about and model for them how the Moons phase directly corelates to the angular separation on the sky between the Sun and Moon they get it straight away. Note the Moons position on the sky moves eastwards w.r.t the stars as it orbits around Earth. Orbit time = 27.3 days so 360/27.3 days ~ 13 degree shift per night.
New Moon = Moon between Earth and Sun = separation (or elongation) = 0 degrees. (Moon rise/sets with Sun)
1st quarter (waxing) = elongation 90 degrees. (Moon rises between sunset and midnight)
2nd quarter (full) = Earth now between Moon and Sun = elongation 180 degrees (Moon rises at sunset)
3rd quarter (waning) = elongation 270 degrees (Moon now rises between midnight and sunrise)
4th/New Moon = Moon now back to between Earth and Sun having completed one orbit of Earth so elongation again 0 degrees. (Moon rises/sets with Sun)
Moons orbit at 5 degrees to ecliptic hence why eclipses don't happen every month.
Not exactly rocket science is it?!?
-
Is your search engine broken?
Yes. Do you want to show me, or not?
Funny, mine is broken too. night's specifically.
No problem.
-
So do you accept that south is real and you can look south? Directly contradicting your prior claim?
Let me make this clear...and understand this because I won't be repeating it to you.
Following a compass to areas of land by using all of the features of it NSEW is fine.
The thing is, reaching legitimate points that these features point to cannot be done.
However, the N would be the only real potential pointer that would get you to a central point if we could go that far.
No other points exist in my opinion, in my theory.
Sooooo, understand that I'm not going against navigation. I'm not going against people following a compass to locations.
My issue is the end product, or lack of.
If you can't get your head around that then just leave it because I won't be explaining it to you again for you to cover another million pages saying I haven't explained/answered.
-
To be honest it really doesn't matter what shape Sceptimatic thinks (or knows in his mind) the Earth is. If he's 100% certain and sure that he right and the Earth isn't a globe then good for him. Who cares anymore?
Correct, if it's nonsense to you and all you have is attempted ridicule then pay attention to something you feel is worth your time.
-
I just told you about the waning crescent moon, which I did re-enact with my model. Why do you need me to tell you about the waxing crescent moon?
It's just the opposite as the earth's circular shadow passes over the moon and the waxing moon crescent begins on the opposite side to the side of the waning crescent, til the moon is full again.
A photo says a thousand words. Would you like a couple of photos of the waning and waxing using my to scale globe earth, moon, and sun set-up? The earth shadow cast against the moon will also be to scale.
Ok then let's see the pictures and explain the pictures of the waxing and waning.
I'd like to see you recreate the waning and waxing moon with your flattish earth model, dome and all, with all sizes and distances, to scale.
You don't have any of the answers for your globe with reality so don't bother deflecting.
Well, you didn't like the globe earth club, with all it's spinning around, so you left, thinking you can do better with a stationary flattish....so let's see what you've come up with......
Whether I can do better in terms of showing isn't an issue.
The fact I can prove Earth is not a spinning globe, is all I require.
My theory is my theory.
People can ask about it as just that, or they can argue over it when they have no clue about it.
The reality is, it's special to me and a spinning globe is the fantasy I found it to be after half a life time of indoctrination into that fantasy.
-
I have met lots of people who don't understand how the Moon phase cycle works and the difference between waxing and waning. But then when I explain about and model for them how the Moons phase directly corelates to the angular separation on the sky between the Sun and Moon they get it straight away. Note the Moons position on the sky moves eastwards w.r.t the stars as it orbits around Earth. Orbit time = 27.3 days so 360/27.3 days ~ 13 degree shift per night.
New Moon = Moon between Earth and Sun = separation (or elongation) = 0 degrees. (Moon rise/sets with Sun)
1st quarter (waxing) = elongation 90 degrees. (Moon rises between sunset and midnight)
2nd quarter (full) = Earth now between Moon and Sun = elongation 180 degrees (Moon rises at sunset)
3rd quarter (waning) = elongation 270 degrees (Moon now rises between midnight and sunrise)
4th/New Moon = Moon now back to between Earth and Sun having completed one orbit of Earth so elongation again 0 degrees. (Moon rises/sets with Sun)
Moons orbit at 5 degrees to ecliptic hence why eclipses don't happen every month.
Not exactly rocket science is it?!?
Explain what causes the waxing.
-
The explanation is contained in my last post. What do the words waxing and waning mean and then apply those to the Moon.
I appreciate you might not understand what I've said because you are convinced the Sun and Moon are some sort of reflection so you will no doubt have your own explanations but that's entirely up to you. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a classroom where you are trying to 'explain' to kids what causes the Moon phases.
Try this as an experiment. Equipment needed:
1 A ball sized such that you can conveniently hold it with one hand
2. A desk lamp or similar
3. A willing friend.
Now find a room with a desk placed against a wall near a mains socket. Place lamp on desk, plug in and switch on. Position lamp so it is shining towards the centre of the room.
Next stand in the middle of the room and ask your friend to stand roughly midway between you and the lamp with the ball held up so you can see it. Notice that the unlit side of the ball is facing you.
Next ask your friend to move in a circle such that where you are standing is the centre of the circle while holding the ball so you can always see it. Notice how the lit side of the ball gradually starts to show more and more from your perspective until you can see entirely the lit side of the ball when your friend is stand on the opposite side to you compared to where they started. You are now between the lamp and your friend.
Ask your friend to continue walking in the same circle and notice that the lit side of the ball starts to turn away from you.
Eventually your friend returns to the point where they started and at this point they are once again between the lamp and you.
The lamp it the Sun, the ball is the Moon and you are the Earth. The ball has just completed one 'orbit' of you. You see the ball display the same phase pattern as we see in the Moon.
Unless you don't have any willing friends or a suitable ball Sceptimatic you can do this and check this for yourself. You don't need to just 'accept what you are told'. If you do take the trouble to try this simple experiment compare what you see on the ball, compare it to how we see the Moon in the sky and then tell me what the difference is if you notice one.
-
So do you accept that south is real and you can look south? Directly contradicting your prior claim?
Let me make this clear
Let me make this clear:
You previously entirely dismissed and avoided the issue of the starts to the south by claiming that south does not exist and thus you cannot look south.
You have now directly contradicted yourself by accepting the fact that you can look south, but still avoid the issue of the southern sky.
Grow up and deal with the issue.
Likewise, deal with the questions you still refuse to answer:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
You don't have any of the answers for your globe with reality so don't bother deflecting.
You have been provided with plenty which you just choose to ignore.
The fact I can prove Earth is not a spinning globe, is all I require.
You mean your fantasy. It isn't a fact.
You are yet to present a single disproof of the globe. All you can do is repeatedly lie.
When pressed to defend that outright lie of yours, you just claim that you don't claim anything as fact, even though you repeatedly claim Earth isn't round as fact.
So far in this thread you have come up with:
A blatant lie that if you look out level you would only see sky if Earth is round.
A lie you are yet to yet to defend and which simple questions which you refuse to answer destroy.
A lie refuted by simple logic.
Even when you appeal to a level tube, you still can't show your outright lie is true.
A blatant lie that the horizon is always at eye level. A lie refuted by simple photographic evidence which you just dismiss because it doesn't show you are correct.
A blatant lie that water is always flat, refuted by surface tension and simple photos.
In response to the photo, a blatant lie that if Earth was round the windmill should be tilted massively.
A lie refuted by simple math.
You have no proof that Earth is not a spinning globe.
You just have pathetic lies and wilful rejection of reality.
Explain what causes the waxing.
The same thing that causes the waning.
There is no physical waxing or waning.
It is simply the moon travelling along in its orbit, changing the angular separation between the sun and the moon.
This change in angular separation causes a different region to be illuminated.
In the "waxing" section of the orbit, the angular separation is increasing.
In the "waning" section it is the other side, where the angular separation is decreasing.
-
I just told you about the waning crescent moon, which I did re-enact with my model. Why do you need me to tell you about the waxing crescent moon?
It's just the opposite as the earth's circular shadow passes over the moon and the waxing moon crescent begins on the opposite side to the side of the waning crescent, til the moon is full again.
A photo says a thousand words. Would you like a couple of photos of the waning and waxing using my to scale globe earth, moon, and sun set-up? The earth shadow cast against the moon will also be to scale.
Ok then let's see the pictures and explain the pictures of the waxing and waning.
I'd like to see you recreate the waning and waxing moon with your flattish earth model, dome and all, with all sizes and distances, to scale.
You don't have any of the answers for your globe with reality so don't bother deflecting.
Well, you didn't like the globe earth club, with all it's spinning around, so you left, thinking you can do better with a stationary flattish....so let's see what you've come up with......
Whether I can do better in terms of showing isn't an issue.
The fact I can prove Earth is not a spinning globe, is all I require.
My theory is my theory.
People can ask about it as just that, or they can argue over it when they have no clue about it.
The reality is, it's special to me and a spinning globe is the fantasy I found it to be after half a life time of indoctrination into that fantasy.
I'll get you your photos of my to scale globe earth moon and sun with waning and waxing during the eclipse. You won't believe it, but whatever.
The stationary earth model holds some special value to you. What, I can only imagine.
But a stationary earth goes against everything we see in nature all around us. Everything is in a state of movement, a state of constant flux. Your very house, street, and suburb, are going through subtle changes all the time. Everything is aging. Heraclitus said, "The only constant in life is change."
You could quietly go about your life believing what you do. Why engage in debate over it? Are you trying to get others to join your way of thinking, or are you seeking the one explanation that will force you out of your stationary flattish earth thinking?
Do you feel a spinning globe devalues and invalidates your existence?
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
They navigate using what's available. They have no need to navigate using a spinning globe mindset with a north or south pole.
Incorrect. Aircraft navigation is one of many activities that assume a round Earth. It's been mentioned countless times here and still has not been responded to with any rational answer; Santiago to Sydney. That flight makes no sense if we assume the Earth is flat.
Also incorrect that basic land navigation using only a map and compass isn't based on a spinning round Earth:
https://www.uakron.edu/armyrotc/MS1/7.pdf
A quote from page 7:
Two problems complicate your easy use of a map and compass:
First, the surface of the earth is curved, while the surface of your map is flat. This creates
problems between what your map shows as north (grid north) and what really is north
(true north).
Second, the earth’s magnetic pole is not the same as the earth’s axis. This creates a
difference between what your compass shows as north (magnetic north) and what really
is north (true north).
These are fundamental concepts required to successfully use navigational tools at a basic level. It's totally understandable that a person, like yourself, never having been placed in a situation where this knowledge becomes critical to your survival earns anything more than a passing glance. However, there are thousands of people that apply this information daily because their life depends on it.
A compass points in one direction. Everything else requires setting up to cater for opposites to that direction.
That direction is called north and is set at that with a N pointer. A magnetic flow to the centre.
In your mind it goes to a north or south pole.
Care to provide a source for this?
The reality is, people follow compasses to land mass from directions set around a circle. Around a circle..Around a circle.
Land masses around a circle.
Again, care to provide a source or reference this? Perhaps one that explains it a bit better?
I have no issue with genuine navigation. Understand that.
Genuine navigation is predicated on the shape of the world being an oblong spheroid.
Military is just a school with guns and loud voices for people who feel the need to do whatever those in power want them to do.
Did you serve? If you didn't, what would you know about it? We've butted heads over this in the past and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Best to stay on point.
Don't get mixed up with all of real science and real scientists being lumped in with pseudoscientists.
I don't think you are qualified to make this statement with any real assertion of truth.
I have no issue with reality. My issue is being told something is reality and zero genuine proof being provided to show it and being fed CGI and storylines hidden behind secrecy as supposed truth.
This is naked paranoia coming out of you. You've been provided ample proof and have made the deliberate effort to ignore it. The notion that there is some elaborate cabal trying to suppress the truth about the shape of the world, which would necessarily change how nearly everything in reality actually works, isn't just ridiculous, it's insane. This has been discussed in countless times here; a conspiracy lasting centuries, involving an unknown but significant number of people, all working to hide the truth about what shape the planet it for reasons. When asked to articulate even the purpose behind why this group would do something like this the responses are equally deranged; devil-worship, money (but never explaning how that works), power, control, the end of days, etc.
sceptimatic, this idea that outerspace is all CGI'd, the Apollo missions were faked, and that this is all because some grand conspiracy wants to fool us is classic psychosis.
There's being taught reality and there's being indoctrinated.
And you'd know the difference?
Being taught reality can be found to be that when critically analysed. Indoctrination is being expected to just believe what you're told, uncritically.
Then go take an astronomy class and learn how to do the math and recreate the experiments used to validate it for yourself. In all of the discussions you've been involved with here, I've never once seen you respond with your own experiments. If you claim that your conclusions are arrived at through critical analysis, then you'd agree that the best way to test any theory is to try and disprove it. Instead all I see you do is come up with weird shit that collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. Case in point, the Gleason map is false and can be proven false because of the Southern Cross. That's a wrap and there's nothing that can be done to explain that away. Sure, you can play word games and claim to not understand the problem, put you're being an ostrich at that point ignoring the issue rather than doing anything approximating critical analysis.
If you assert that believing the Earth is round is a form of indoctrination, then what is FE in comparison? I actually agree that RE, at the start, is a form of indoctrination the same as believing the sun will rise tomorrow. It's commonly accepted as being true, without critical analysis, because it's reliable in its capacity to deliver results based on that assumption. Yes, I agree that perhaps more effort should be done at the primary and secondary levels of education to teach kids to not blindly accept something as obvious as what shape the planet is. Recreating Eratosthenes' experiment would be a good starting point for kids and probably for you too.
A world hasn't got anything wrong.
The people in it that sell pseudoscience as science, are the problem...not real scientists.
For reasons I've previously explained, and you've brought up, the majority of people on Earth are wrong, according to you. Pilots, astronomers, philosophers, doctors, nurses, ship captains and navigators, physicists, chemists, assayers, engineers, nearly everyone in the military, mathematicians, philosophers, and anyone that believes the Earth is round "are the problem." Not only are they wrong, but those disciplines have been wrong for centuries. Countless experiments, voyages, and trials are all, according to you, based on bad foundations.
That depends on what the truth is and it also depends on who wants to argue and criticise if it costs them their job, social standing and even fates a bit worse than that....maybe.
So fear is what keeps this all in check? This is what keeps the global conspiracy moving forward, for centuries, with it never once being challenged? And this doesn't sound the least bit paranoid to you?
-
Recreating Eratosthenes' experiment would be a good starting point for kids and probably for you too.
Something along these lines you mean? Literally loads of different (and independent) people doing the same experiment over and over again.
https://eratosthenes.ea.gr/
Of course if Sceptimatic is right then all of this is just part of the 'conspiracy'.
-
Recreating Eratosthenes' experiment would be a good starting point for kids and probably for you too.
Something along these lines you mean? Literally loads of different (and independent) people doing the same experiment over and over again.
https://eratosthenes.ea.gr/
Of course if Sceptimatic is right then all of this is just part of the 'conspiracy'.
Something like this exactly. I fully expect the good ole' ignore or redirect on this one though. We could be wrong but I doubt it.
-
Being taught reality can be found to be that when critically analysed. Indoctrination is being expected to just believe what you're told, uncritically.
I couldn't agree more with Sceptimatic here. And tell me, just where in science do we accept what we are expected to believe uncritically? Where in history have scientists accepted what we are expected to belief without questioning anything?
Flat Earthers will say if the Earth is this massive sphere in space then why is the Moon just hanging there in the sky and not falling in towards it? Well in fact the Moon is falling towards the Earth. All the time. It is also moving around it though at a speed which prevents it colliding with Earth. We cannot visually see that happening minute my minute but we can by seeing the Moons position change w.r.t the stars night after night.
-
Recreating Eratosthenes' experiment would be a good starting point for kids and probably for you too.
Something along these lines you mean? Literally loads of different (and independent) people doing the same experiment over and over again.
https://eratosthenes.ea.gr/
Of course if Sceptimatic is right then all of this is just part of the 'conspiracy'.
Or it's magic bendy light. Which totally exists and has been proven but the research is too hard to type in.
-
Im back
Has he drawn the circle yet?
-
The explanation is contained in my last post. What do the words waxing and waning mean and then apply those to the Moon.
I appreciate you might not understand what I've said because you are convinced the Sun and Moon are some sort of reflection so you will no doubt have your own explanations but that's entirely up to you. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a classroom where you are trying to 'explain' to kids what causes the Moon phases.
Tell me the bit about Earth glow against the moon. Can you?
As for being a fly on the wall in classroom, I was the one in that classroom being explained to just like you. I believed all the utter global nonsense.
-
Explain what causes the waxing.
The same thing that causes the waning.
There is no physical waxing or waning.
It is simply the moon travelling along in its orbit, changing the angular separation between the sun and the moon.
This change in angular separation causes a different region to be illuminated.
In the "waxing" section of the orbit, the angular separation is increasing.
In the "waning" section it is the other side, where the angular separation is decreasing.
Can you explain it when it's in daylight?
-
I'll get you your photos of my to scale globe earth moon and sun with waning and waxing during the eclipse. You won't believe it, but whatever.
Of course I don't believe the way you say it happens but I'd still like to see your set up.
The stationary earth model holds some special value to you. What, I can only imagine.
It depends on how the word "stationary" is construed.
But a stationary earth goes against everything we see in nature all around us. Everything is in a state of movement, a state of constant flux. Your very house, street, and suburb, are going through subtle changes all the time. Everything is aging. Heraclitus said, "The only constant in life is change."
Lights move around the sky and ground is vibrating...etc.....etc....etc. All down to miniscule molecular levels.
Let's stay clear.
Earth isn't a big spinning ball. That's all you need to know from my side. What you do with that is entirely up to you.
You could quietly go about your life believing what you do. Why engage in debate over it?
Why are you here going on about me engaging in a debate about it instead of just getting on with your life.
Why engage with a random nutter when you have all your world wrapped up in encyclopaedias that you unconditionally follow.....etc.
Let me guess....it's fun to poke fun at those who you are told/believe, are nutters...right?
And you're just here to let off some steam.....right?
And blah blah blah.
Are you trying to get others to join your way of thinking, or are you seeking the one explanation that will force you out of your stationary flattish earth thinking?
What others do is their business.
If people want to try to understand my side or pass over it or argue it...it's entirely up to each individual.Whatever happens, none of it stops my way of thinking and experiments and nibbling away at a potential.
Do you feel a spinning globe devalues and invalidates your existence?
It doesn't matter. I know I'm not living on one so it all comes down to a belief system with people like you. And people like you have only a minor part in my life, which means I type back to you, as you do to me.
Other than that you do not exist as anything more than a name on a forum.
If we met and had a coffee or something, then you become more real and part of a thought.
You could be sat in the corner with a big pointy wizards hat on wearing food stained underpants and vest and chuckling in a frenzied manner at typing to me, pretending you're all kinds of characters. I could be doing the same.
-
Tell me the bit about Earth glow against the moon. Can you?
No I won't. Figure it out for yourself. You are pretty good at figuring stuff out for yourself remember.
After all so far all by yourself you've managed to figure out what the true shape of the Earth is (or so you believe) instead of all this 'silly globe nonsense' that we are all apparently indoctrinated with. That's pretty amazing stuff in itself. So working out what causes some Earth glow against the Moon in your mind should be a piece of cake to you.
Have you done my experiment with the ball and a friend yet? It's pretty simple to do and you like simple experiments don't you.
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
Really, tell me how?
They navigate using what's available. They have no need to navigate using a spinning globe mindset with a north or south pole.
Incorrect. Aircraft navigation is one of many activities that assume a round Earth.
It's been mentioned countless times here and still has not been responded to with any rational answer; Santiago to Sydney. That flight makes no sense if we assume the Earth is flat.
How do you know it makes no sense?
You've been told it makes the trip via a spinning globe. That's it. You assume it is a globe and not anything else, so in your eyes the trip can't be made.
You're just arguing from a belief system and an adherence to authority. Also massive appeals to it.
Also incorrect that basic land navigation using only a map and compass isn't based on a spinning round Earth:
https://www.uakron.edu/armyrotc/MS1/7.pdf
A quote from page 7:
Two problems complicate your easy use of a map and compass:
First, the surface of the earth is curved, while the surface of your map is flat. This creates
problems between what your map shows as north (grid north) and what really is north
(true north).
Second, the earth’s magnetic pole is not the same as the earth’s axis. This creates a
difference between what your compass shows as north (magnetic north) and what really
is north (true north).
These are fundamental concepts required to successfully use navigational tools at a basic level. It's totally understandable that a person, like yourself, never having been placed in a situation where this knowledge becomes critical to your survival earns anything more than a passing glance. However, there are thousands of people that apply this information daily because their life depends on it.
Most of us have used maps.
Most of us have placed our compasses onto maps to gain a direction given to us to follow.
You have one point to follow and everything else is based off it.
A compass points in one direction. Everything else requires setting up to cater for opposites to that direction.
That direction is called north and is set at that with a N pointer. A magnetic flow to the centre.
In your mind it goes to a north or south pole.
Care to provide a source for this?
Physically....nope. No more than you can.
The reality is, people follow compasses to land mass from directions set around a circle. Around a circle..Around a circle.
Land masses around a circle.
Again, care to provide a source or reference this? Perhaps one that explains it a bit better?
It is down to how you interpret it.
Your compass is showing you, what you believe to be, following a global system.
North will make you believe you're off to the north pole at the top of your globe.
Where is east and west from that point?
There aren't any points.
All you would have is an about turn with your compass to supposedly follow the opposite of North, which is the S on your compass.
Only then can you veer off to do, what?
To walk around in a circle.
The compass offers you land mass to landmass but it does not follow a global path.
I have no issue with genuine navigation. Understand that.
Genuine navigation is predicated on the shape of the world being an oblong spheroid.
I've never heard that one before.
And you call people for having an alternate to a globe. ;)
Military is just a school with guns and loud voices for people who feel the need to do whatever those in power want them to do.
Did you serve? If you didn't, what would you know about it? We've butted heads over this in the past and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Best to stay on point.
Yeah I spent some time and it is severe indoctrination. You follow orders unconditionally.
If you think you know different then tell me about it.
Don't get mixed up with all of real science and real scientists being lumped in with pseudoscientists.
I don't think you are qualified to make this statement with any real assertion of truth.
Qualified?
I have every right to question and disbelieve anything which cannot or will not be proved.
If I ask you if your name is ****** (male name) and you reply with, "no, my name is ******" (girls name) after giving me a mindset of you being male, I can question it and my belief would be, you're male, if you can't/will not prove you are anything other than that.
Does this mean I'm correct? No it doesn't...but it does mean I'm being truthful in how I'm trying to decipher.
I have no issue with reality. My issue is being told something is reality and zero genuine proof being provided to show it and being fed CGI and storylines hidden behind secrecy as supposed truth.
This is naked paranoia coming out of you. You've been provided ample proof and have made the deliberate effort to ignore it. The notion that there is some elaborate cabal trying to suppress the truth about the shape of the world, which would necessarily change how nearly everything in reality actually works, isn't just ridiculous, it's insane.
The thing is, ample proof does not stand up to reality for me.
I see far too much dodgy stuff and CGI.
If people are clued up then they'd look for it but to do that just once would open up a massive can of worms and no way in hell will those people offer up something like that as a query.
They'd rather make up an excuse as to why it looks CGI....etc.
Are you one of those?
This has been discussed in countless times here; a conspiracy lasting centuries, involving an unknown but significant number of people, all working to hide the truth about what shape the planet it for reasons.
God? Jesus?
Who started that off?
When asked to articulate even the purpose behind why this group would do something like this the responses are equally deranged; devil-worship, money (but never explaning how that works), power, control, the end of days, etc.
And yet you see it all in everyday life.
sceptimatic, this idea that outerspace is all CGI'd, the Apollo missions were faked, and that this is all because some grand conspiracy wants to fool us is classic psychosis.
To your mind being drilled into that set up...of course.
I mean, your world is mapped out for you and you basically unconditionally follow that blueprint.
Anyone going against that grain becomes unstable, nuts, psychotic....a Jekyll and Hyde character....and so on and so on and so on.
Too many people will follow the pied piper for no other reason than, why dare not to follow the masses.
There's being taught reality and there's being indoctrinated.
And you'd know the difference?
That's just it, nobody knows the difference until you actually find out snippets of certain teachings to be questionable and/or untrue.
Most people have no need/desire/mindset to question what they deem as, authority, so they go with the flow.
It's much easier to do. Even I know that.
Being taught reality can be found to be that when critically analysed. Indoctrination is being expected to just believe what you're told, uncritically.
Then go take an astronomy class and learn how to do the math and recreate the experiments used to validate it for yourself.
What would I be learning?
Mapping lights in the dark skies?
Being told some lights are trillions upon trillions of miles away and are so big they make our sun look like a grain of sand...and blah blah blah...but we can see the light, not as it is but as it was millions of years ago and blah blah blah....and so on.
People just go into amazed reactions. Wow, to think we're seeing that star as it was millions of years ago and it might not exist now.
It honestly beggars believe how people believe this utter garbage.
In all of the discussions you've been involved with here, I've never once seen you respond with your own experiments.
I've given plenty out for people to do and its usually met with silence.
If you claim that your conclusions are arrived at through critical analysis, then you'd agree that the best way to test any theory is to try and disprove it.
I have done and so have meny.
Simple water level alone is enough to kill off your global model.
Instead all I see you do is come up with weird shit that collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.
No, you don't. You believe it collapses because you along with others, forum back patting your way through it all by coming up with the same answers from your books and internet ideals.
Case in point, the Gleason map is false and can be proven false because of the Southern Cross. That's a wrap and there's nothing that can be done to explain that away. Sure, you can play word games and claim to not understand the problem, put you're being an ostrich at that point ignoring the issue rather than doing anything approximating critical analysis.
What are you telling me about the gleason map for?
If you assert that believing the Earth is round is a form of indoctrination, then what is FE in comparison?
A lot of alternate hypotheses/theories.
I actually agree that RE, at the start, is a form of indoctrination the same as believing the sun will rise tomorrow.
It's not a case of, at the start. If a person believes it all until they get old or die then it's at the start, in the middle and at the end with indoctrination of it.
You're massively included in this up to whatever age you are right now.
It's commonly accepted as being true, without critical analysis, because it's reliable in its capacity to deliver results based on that assumption.
Of course it's commonly accepted as being true.
That's what schooling is. You're tested on your ability to take in what's placed into your mind and you have to regurgitate it to the best of your ability in order to get a certificate, etc.
It's not all bad and life is what it is. We are encouraged to be a herd and not stray from the areas we are indoctrinated within..
Yes, I agree that perhaps more effort should be done at the primary and secondary levels of education to teach kids to not blindly accept something as obvious as what shape the planet is. Recreating Eratosthenes' experiment would be a good starting point for kids and probably for you too.
Recreating Eratosthenes so called experiment is not going to prove a spinning globe.
Showing reality would do, instead of showing CGI satellites and CGI rockets in space...or models.
If the technology is as good as is made out...show us our reality. Why the need to rely on so called ancient historical figures?
A world hasn't got anything wrong.
The people in it that sell pseudoscience as science, are the problem...not real scientists.
For reasons I've previously explained, and you've brought up, the majority of people on Earth are wrong, according to you.
I believe those who think Earth is a spinning globe are only wrong about their reality. In their minds they are right. In a quiz they'd get marked correct.
If they had to explain it to a group of likeminded people they would be applauded.
And so on.
If I don't believe Earth is a globe then I'm not going to say people who do are correct in their thinking, am I?
Think about it.
Pilots, astronomers, philosophers, doctors, nurses, ship captains and navigators, physicists, chemists, assayers, engineers, nearly everyone in the military, mathematicians, philosophers, and anyone that believes the Earth is round "are the problem."
A problem for what?
Not only are they wrong, but those disciplines have been wrong for centuries. Countless experiments, voyages, and trials are all, according to you, based on bad foundations.
Anything that is and has been passed off as us living on a spinning globe, is wrong, by whatever way the stories were sold and told. In my honest opinion.
That depends on what the truth is and it also depends on who wants to argue and criticise if it costs them their job, social standing and even fates a bit worse than that....maybe.
So fear is what keeps this all in check?
With those who likely know the reality....yes, I'd say so.
This is what keeps the global conspiracy moving forward, for centuries, with it never once being challenged?
It is challenged but those challenging it are cast off as nuts, like I said.
Who knows how deeper down this is challenged and the outcome of those challenging.
And this doesn't sound the least bit paranoid to you?
Not at all.
It sounds perfectly sensible to be questioning this stuff, especially when answer to questions are met with stories and CGI, plus ridicule.....and so on.
-
Explain what causes the waxing.
The same thing that causes the waning.
There is no physical waxing or waning.
It is simply the moon travelling along in its orbit, changing the angular separation between the sun and the moon.
This change in angular separation causes a different region to be illuminated.
In the "waxing" section of the orbit, the angular separation is increasing.
In the "waning" section it is the other side, where the angular separation is decreasing.
Can you explain it when it's in daylight?
My explanation in no way appeals to the time of day. So here:
The same thing that causes the waning.
There is no physical waxing or waning.
It is simply the moon travelling along in its orbit, changing the angular separation between the sun and the moon.
This change in angular separation causes a different region to be illuminated.
In the "waxing" section of the orbit, the angular separation is increasing.
In the "waning" section it is the other side, where the angular separation is decreasing.
Can you start answering the simple questions that demonstrate your claims against the RE are pure nonsense?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
Tell me the bit about Earth glow against the moon. Can you?
So you can just ignore it like all the other explanations that have been provided to you?
So you can continue to use it as an excuse to avoid the massive problems with your claims?
I know I'm not living on one so it all comes down to a belief system with people like you.
Yet you only seem to be able to try to prop up that "knowledge" with blatant lies and need to continually avoid things which demonstrate massive problems with your claims about it.
How do you know it makes no sense?
For the commonly promoted FE model, the distance is simply too great for a commercial jet and the route flown is so indirect it isn't funny.
You're just arguing from a belief system and an adherence to authority. Also massive appeals to it.
No, we argue from reality, with evidence and logical thought.
You just argue from a belief system and outright rejection of things consistent with what "authorities" claim.
I'm somewhat surprised you even say Earth exists.
The reality is, people follow compasses to land mass from directions set around a circle. Around a circle..Around a circle.
Land masses around a circle.
Again, care to provide a source or reference this? Perhaps one that explains it a bit better?
It is down to how you interpret it.
So what you are saying is you have no basis at all for what you claim reality is?
North will make you believe you're off to the north pole at the top of your globe.
Where is east and west from that point?
There is no "top" of the globe.
At the north pole every direction is south. At the south pole every direction is north.
The thing is, ample proof does not stand up to reality for me.
No, it doesn't stand up to your beliefs and what you claim to already know.
The only objection you can raise is that it doesn't agree with you.
And yet you see it all in everyday life.
We see people do things for money in everyday life.
What we don't see is people trying to set up a grand conspiracy for no apparent purpose.
In all of the discussions you've been involved with here, I've never once seen you respond with your own experiments.
I've given plenty out for people to do and its usually met with silence.
You basically only ever provide claims, no actual data.
And you have been provided plenty of experimental evidence from others that you just reject. You rejecting that evidence does not mean you have only been given silence.
If you claim that your conclusions are arrived at through critical analysis, then you'd agree that the best way to test any theory is to try and disprove it.
I have done and so have meny.
Simple water level alone is enough to kill off your global model.
No, you haven't. You are yet to provide a single thing.
You keep repeating the same pathetic lie of water level, but you cannot justify how water level magically disproves the globe.
Conversely you have provided with strong evidence that water curves.
You believe it collapses
No, we KNOW it collapses because we honestly and logically analyse it, and you continually avoid simple questions and refutations of it because you can't handle it.
If a person believes it all until they get old or die then it's at the start, in the middle and at the end with indoctrination of it.
Or they have thought about it and examined the evidence and found it matches reality.
The only reason you dismiss it as indoctrination is because it doesn't agree with you.
Showing reality would do, instead of showing CGI satellites and CGI rockets in space...or models.
No, it wouldn't, as people like you would just dismiss it as CGI.
Because it doesn't show what you want, you dismiss it as fake.
No amount of evidence provided by others will ever get you to admit you are wrong.
In my honest opinion.
There is nothing honest about your opinion.
You continually repeat the same refuted lies and refuse to actually defend them or even answer trivial questions which expose them.
That shows that your opinion is not honest.
It is challenged but those challenging it are cast off as nuts, like I said.
It is dismissed by them, not really challenged as they can't show a fault with it.
-
Recreating Eratosthenes' experiment would be a good starting point for kids and probably for you too.
Something along these lines you mean? Literally loads of different (and independent) people doing the same experiment over and over again.
https://eratosthenes.ea.gr/
Of course if Sceptimatic is right then all of this is just part of the 'conspiracy'.
Show me a reality.
-
My explanation in no way appeals to the time of day. So here:
Can you explain why we see the moon in daylight and why we only see a partial moon?
-
Show me a reality.
OK which one would you like me to show you? I've only got a few left because I have lent the others out.
-
Draw the circle and tell us if you see reality or not.
-
Can you explain why we see the moon in daylight and why we only see a partial moon?
That's easy. How would you explain it?
-
Really, tell me how?
Land navigation over distances extending past the horizon requires adjustments for the curvature if you're using a map and compass. Think military convoy working away from roads. If we didn't make that conversion, the azimuth shot would drift. Not a big deal when moving short distances but fairly significant if you're moving a 100 miles. That fraction of a degree translates to miles off target at the end of the track. Again, if we didn't knowingly perform those corrections, errors, like not ending up where you planned, would happen with greater frequency. This same issue would happen to ships making trans-Pacific or Atlantic crossings.
How do you know it makes no sense?
You've been told it makes the trip via a spinning globe. That's it. You assume it is a globe and not anything else, so in your eyes the trip can't be made.
You're just arguing from a belief system and an adherence to authority. Also massive appeals to it.
If we assume the Gleason map, which is similar to your avatar, then there are problems:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsteemitimages.com%2F0x0%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fsteemitimages.com%2FDQmaxjE6RMEtFZFpMjJRz72R7hhpcEUXn1Btjmz8zVojKFE%2Fsantigo%2520sydney%2520hong%2520kong%2520los%2520angeles%2520fligth%2520path%2520on%2520flat%2520earth%2520SteemTruth.png&f=1&nofb=1)
To be clear, I'm not saying anything about what shape the Earth is, only that we know LATAM and Qantas fly this route. Because this is a real, non-stop flight that takes about 12-14 hours to make, the distance is the problem. First, the aircraft would need to fly at supersonic speeds to make it in that time and second, using the route we know these aircraft fly, the endurance of the longest flying commercial passenger aircraft in service couldn't fly that distance without refueling at least once. I'm pointing that out because we know that flights going from Sydney to Santiago do not fly over the US at any point on their route:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.metabunk.org%2Fsk%2F20150703-122854-zamuk.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Plotting that on the Gleason map creates a route that is nearly 25,000km in length, which exceeds the endurance of even the longest flying commercial aircraft in operation today.
Most of us have used maps.
Most of us have placed our compasses onto maps to gain a direction given to us to follow.
You have one point to follow and everything else is based off it.
You ignored what I said about accounting for curvature when using a map and compass. Short distances, not a big deal. Big distances, you need to adjust the track for the curvature. You can't blindly follow an azimuth and hope to arrive where you want to (map north vs. true north).
Physically....nope. No more than you can.
Are you saying electromagnetism is fake?
It is down to how you interpret it.
Your compass is showing you, what you believe to be, following a global system.
North will make you believe you're off to the north pole at the top of your globe.
Where is east and west from that point?
If I'm facing north, east is to my right and west is to my left. What are you getting at?
There aren't any points.
This is where you're losing me. What you're saying doesn't make sense, not even in an abstract way.
All you would have is an about turn with your compass to supposedly follow the opposite of North, which is the S on your compass.
Only then can you veer off to do, what?
To walk around in a circle.
The compass offers you land mass to landmass but it does not follow a global path.
Yeah, this sounds like something you've contrived that may make sense your head, but doesn't follow. Here's a question that might help me understand what you're saying better; how does a compass work?
I've never heard that one before.
And you call people for having an alternate to a globe. ;)
The planet isn't a perfect sphere. Because it's spinning, it does bulge along the plane of rotation. That feature is more pronounced with gas giants like Saturn, but Earth is similar. I offered you the most correct description, that's all.
Yeah I spent some time and it is severe indoctrination. You follow orders unconditionally.
If you think you know different then tell me about it.
You follow lawful orders unconditionally. I was in for a decade and understood quite well my responsibilities as an NCO. You follow lawful orders. As a member of the armed forces, we are Constitution and UCMJ bound to reject unlawful and illegal orders. I agree, it is full blown indoctrination, and took me as much time as I was in to shake it off.
Qualified?
I have every right to question and disbelieve anything which cannot or will not be proved.
If I ask you if your name is ****** (male name) and you reply with, "no, my name is ******" (girls name) after giving me a mindset of you being male, I can question it and my belief would be, you're male, if you can't/will not prove you are anything other than that.
Does this mean I'm correct? No it doesn't...but it does mean I'm being truthful in how I'm trying to decipher.
You are always entitled to your opinion, that's not the issue here. You are not entitled, without qualification, to expect anyone to believe your opinion without proof, evidence, or rational argument. So, for you to say who is and who isn't a scientist, expert, or whatever, especially because of the off-the-wall stuff you've spouted in the past puts the truth value of those statements in question. You, based on your history here and with me, aren't qualified to be taken at face value.
You may believe you're being truthful in how you are approaching the material, but you really aren't. You reject claims that are supported with evidence, ignore anything you can't make fit into your notion of reality, and redirect when pressed on those points.
-
The thing is, ample proof does not stand up to reality for me.
That's called delusion. I'm not poking fun, I'm being serious. It's deluded to perform mental gymnastics with tortured logic in order to maintain your worldview. Let me put it this way; you believe the Earth is flat. Rather than critically observe the evidence and allow that analysis lead you to a conclusion, you've assumed what the conclusion is and work backwards from it trying to find only the evidence that supports that end. You ignore anything that doesn't fit and only latch on to what does.
I see far too much dodgy stuff and CGI.
Any examples? And you think the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions where CGI too?
If people are clued up then they'd look for it but to do that just once would open up a massive can of worms and no way in hell will those people offer up something like that as a query.
They'd rather make up an excuse as to why it looks CGI....etc.
Are you one of those?
I'm concerned about where deepfake is going; I do believe we're headed to a point where it will become extremely difficult to figure out what's been altered versus what is actually real. Those worries are more centered on what politicians will do with it going forward. As for NASA and the other global space programs, no, I'm not worried that those were or are fake. The lunar program in the 60s should be proof enough; CGI didn't' exist and even the best that Hollywood could create couldn't pull off a stunt like that. There are numerous individual examples, like the moon dust rooster tails on the rover and the no cut away lunar module ascent to CM that are simply too much for special effects to recreate.
God? Jesus?
Who started that off?
Yeah, that doesn't exactly fit though. There are about 4000 different religions on Earth. I don't see a conspiracy so much as a lot of noise and there are plenty of folks that think all of it is BS. Secularism is on the rise globally so I don't see your example as apples to apples.
And yet you see it all in everyday life.
But not in the service of some all encompassing conspiracy. Bad stuff happens, and not in the defense of an invisible collective trying to hide what the true shape of the planet is.
To your mind being drilled into that set up...of course.
Incorrect. Seriously, there are facts about Apollo that simply could not have been faked. From what I gather, the CIA did look at trying to fake it in order to make the USSR look bad, but figured out it would be harder to go that way. Do you get that? In the late 50's, it would have been harder to fake it and make it convincing. The lunar module ascent, for example:
There are no cut aways. There are no splices. Understand that in order to have a camera resolve something from out of sight until it is right in front of you would require one hell of a big sound stage, like miles big. Not to mention you have the moon in the background the whole time. Do you understand just how massive and complex just this shot would be at a time that the most advanced special effects being used in Hollywood was The Creature from the Black Lagoon??
I mean, your world is mapped out for you and you basically unconditionally follow that blueprint.
Anyone going against that grain becomes unstable, nuts, psychotic....a Jekyll and Hyde character....and so on and so on and so on.
Too many people will follow the pied piper for no other reason than, why dare not to follow the masses.
Being different just for the sake of it isn't noble. Having a reason to go against the grain that can be articulated, explained, and makes sense is noble. What you're doing is rejecting anything that doesn't fit your conclusion, and that's why you look foolish. Your attempt and making everyone else out to be feeble or brainwashed is another facet of your delusion; without it, you aren't special. Right now, you can assume the role of the keeper of secret knowledge and we, the masses, are gullible fools that accepted without any critical thought what we were told was true. However, this isn't the truth. It's your truth but not the truth.
And you'd know the difference?
What logically follows necessarily follows. Sigma Octantis can't be in more than one place at a time. I've gone to observatories and looked at the night sky, looked at the phases of Venus, seen the details of the lunar surface, and know that a flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile exists and doesn't break the speed of sound getting there on a single load of fuel. I know that Eratosthenes determined what the circumference of the world was in 160ish BC. His experiment can be recreated today and returns the same results. Yeah, I'd say I know the difference.
-
That's just it, nobody knows the difference until you actually find out snippets of certain teachings to be questionable and/or untrue.
Most people have no need/desire/mindset to question what they deem as, authority, so they go with the flow.
It's much easier to do. Even I know that.
Or, conversely, there are those that reject anything they don't want to believe is true, regardless of what is shown to them. They go against everything because it makes them feel different, and because of that, special.
What would I be learning?
Mapping lights in the dark skies?
Being told some lights are trillions upon trillions of miles away and are so big they make our sun look like a grain of sand...and blah blah blah...but we can see the light, not as it is but as it was millions of years ago and blah blah blah....and so on.
People just go into amazed reactions. Wow, to think we're seeing that star as it was millions of years ago and it might not exist now.
It honestly beggars believe how people believe this utter garbage.
Well, I'd argue that you'd have quite a bit to learn. You might even have fun. That last sentence though, that's where we run into trouble. Folks spend a decade of their life in academia earning degrees learning about what you deem as "utter garbage". It makes me think you haven't spent much time in education, discounting so heavily what other people spend their lives dedicating themselves to learning about. Also, being a man of learning and experiences that you claim to be, isn't it a bit disingenuous to discard without any analysis or review something without ever experiencing it?
I've given plenty out for people to do and its usually met with silence.
Point me to one. I'll gladly take it on.
I have done and so have meny.
Simple water level alone is enough to kill off your global model.
Not really. We're back to that whole ignoring anything that challenges your worldview.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FkADO7nkt-rk%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
If you want to ignore that, then here's a question for you; I live in California. If I stand on the beach in Laguna Niguel, I can see Catalina Island on the horizon, however, I can't see the Port of Avalon. It's completely obscured and no matter how powerful a telescope, binoculars, or other optical enhancing tool I use will bring the Port of Avalon into view. For reference the Port of Avalon is a harbor on Catalina Island that faces California. Catalina is about 35 miles off the coast. What's obstructing my view of the port?
No, you don't. You believe it collapses because you along with others, forum back patting your way through it all by coming up with the same answers from your books and internet ideals.
It collapses bro. Like hard. Sometimes we don't even need to try because of how fractured it is. Simple logic dismantles most of it, like The Southern Cross paradox. Other times, depending on how convoluted you guys like to spin a particular idea, it takes longer. Sort of like your weird way of explaining how navigating with a compass works; you're either bad at explaining things or being deliberately vague, which means now I have to try and decipher what you're actually trying to say (if you're trying to say anything at all) before responding.
What are you telling me about the gleason map for?
It's literally your avatar. One would assume that's the model of FE you believe to be correct.
A lot of alternate hypotheses/theories.
It is a collection of disparate and largely non-inclusive ideas. The only unifying theme among them is how proponents of it defend those ideas.
It's not a case of, at the start. If a person believes it all until they get old or die then it's at the start, in the middle and at the end with indoctrination of it.
You're massively included in this up to whatever age you are right now.
I disagree.
Of course it's commonly accepted as being true.
That's what schooling is. You're tested on your ability to take in what's placed into your mind and you have to regurgitate it to the best of your ability in order to get a certificate, etc.
It's not all bad and life is what it is. We are encouraged to be a herd and not stray from the areas we are indoctrinated within..
Do you argue with your doctor over health decisions? Like if your doctor told you that you have high blood pressure and you needed to get a stint or take medication, would you argue with them the same way you do us?
Recreating Eratosthenes so called experiment is not going to prove a spinning globe.
It proves it isn't flat, for starters.
Showing reality would do, instead of showing CGI satellites and CGI rockets in space...or models.
If the technology is as good as is made out...show us our reality. Why the need to rely on so called ancient historical figures?
Because it proves they got it right way back then! If we can recreate those experiments, and arrive at the same conclusions, it validates the outcome. This is peer review! This is how we find the truth. If Eratosthenes was wrong, we would have found that out, rather than "accept the indoctrination".
I believe those who think Earth is a spinning globe are only wrong about their reality. In their minds they are right. In a quiz they'd get marked correct.
If they had to explain it to a group of likeminded people they would be applauded.
And so on.
You believe. You feel. You don't know. This FE thing is just as baseless as religion. It's all blind faith.
If I don't believe Earth is a globe then I'm not going to say people who do are correct in their thinking, am I?
Think about it.
You need to be able to prove it. What you've proven is that you can't accept the truth.
A problem for what?
All of those disciplines are predicated on the Earth's shape not being flat.
Anything that is and has been passed off as us living on a spinning globe, is wrong, by whatever way the stories were sold and told. In my honest opinion.
And you don't see a problem with that outlook? That all those tasks, if based on the wrong idea, would have failed at some point? But here we are, still getting along just fine using systems based on a spinning globe.
With those who likely know the reality....yes, I'd say so.
Paranoia. Seriously. This is where it gets very difficult to take you seriously. The scope and scale of that sort of conspiracy is the very definition of delusion.
It is challenged but those challenging it are cast off as nuts, like I said.
Who knows how deeper down this is challenged and the outcome of those challenging.
Because it is lunacy. Straight up psychosis.
Not at all.
See above.
It sounds perfectly sensible to be questioning this stuff, especially when answer to questions are met with stories and CGI, plus ridicule.....and so on.
It sounds sensible to you scepti.
-
What would I be learning?
Mapping lights in the dark skies?
Being told some lights are trillions upon trillions of miles away and are so big they make our sun look like a grain of sand...and blah blah blah...but we can see the light, not as it is but as it was millions of years ago and blah blah blah....and so on.
People just go into amazed reactions. Wow, to think we're seeing that star as it was millions of years ago and it might not exist now.
It honestly beggars believe how people believe this utter garbage.
Ooo big numbers! Is that all a bit too much for your poor little brain to cope with?? When I look at the stars it doesn't really matter to me how far away they are. Why should it?
So let me get this straight.. You look out across a stretch of water and it looks to your eyes to be flat right? And that is enough to 'prove' to you that we are not living on a spinning globe is it? That's because your eyes are showing you something you believe to be true. You believe the Earth is flat and when you look out across some water, the surface looks (visually at least) flat. So your mind automatically and naturally accepts that as proof.
You have obviously spent a lot of time working your way through an alternative form of reality in which everything is compacted down to a size and form that you can understand. Perhaps because you find it difficult or impossible to trust anyone who tells you something that you find difficult to understand. The Sun is a huge ball of plasma with a core temperature of 15 million degrees that has been burning away vast amounts of hydrogen gas every second for billions of years is it?!?! How the hell can all that be true!? I hear you say. We just seen a yellow disk of light in the sky. It makes much more sense to think of the Sun as some reflection of the core of the Earth doesn't it surely? We know the Sun is hot because we can feel it so that proves the Earth centre is hot as well right? How do we know the centre of the Earth is hot then? It's not as if anyone has ever been there with a thermometer to measure it.
Well perhaps in your reality you have a cupboard in your bedroom which has a false back and leads you through a portal into a hidden and secret world as well? That's about as believable as your vision of the Sun. After all in your own reality you can make whatever you want to be true can' you.
Doesn't take much to convince you does it. You know what they say about simple things.
-
Sceptimatic, I'll take photos of my setup and post them.
At page 184 of a thread titled, "What would change your mind?", I think questioning your agenda is entirely valid at this point. It does seem to be less about you changing mine or anybody else's mind, and more about you defending your belief as being equally justified and as valid.
Let's be clear, I'd like to see you change your mind. You've set a challenge. You represent the flat earth sub-culture, which, you may beg to differ, but in my thinking is a form of a cult. You are unable to fully engage in, enjoy, nor appreciate, the achievements of your fellow man, out of fear of being duped. There is a whole world you have closed your mind off to. In a sense, you're a prisoner of your own thoughts.
I'm not here to poke fun at the circus freak in the cage and let off steam. If I use humor or ridicule, it's to get you to re-evaluate your beliefs with view to changing them.
You have already drawn a line in the sand and stated if you could tap into a live feed from a satellite that shows events in real time, that would change your mind. So, changing your mind is not an impossibility. Your suspension of disbelief will stretch only so far.
-
You have already drawn a line in the sand and stated if you could tap into a live feed from a satellite that shows events in real time, that would change your mind. So, changing your mind is not an impossibility. Your suspension of disbelief will stretch only so far.
Have you walked past those funny mirrors that can make you look short, fat or freaky? That doesn't represent reality so why would you trust a view high in orbit as the reality?
What if space is weird and surrounding the earth are weird lensing like effects that skew the earth into looking like it's something that it's not?
I'm not saying that's what it is, but I'm also not saying that's what it isn't.
For every 'Aha!' moment, there will always exist in someone's imagination an idea that can knock it down
-
Sceptimatic thinks that our insistence that the Earth is a spinning globe and that the stars are enormous but distant suns just like our own Sun beggars belief as he puts it. So his reaction to our beliefs is much the same as our reaction is towards his beliefs.
That is a common MO of many conspiracy theorists. They think the same as us but in reverse. So trying to knock their beliefs with evidence is never going to work or have an changing influence on what they believe. Scientific evidence means nothing to them. I can point out to Sceptimatic that I can measure the tiny little parallax shifts of certain stars using CCD cameras and telescopes and thereby prove to myself that the stars are very different but he will already have his retort ready to dismiss all that because in his reality, what I'm seeing with my own equipment is impossible. So the fault lies with my equipment and my experiment rather than his beliefs.
@ the end of the day we all have different beliefs. What harm is caused when two or more people with different beliefs encounter each other? At this level, none whatsoever. Makes for some interesting (and often entertaining) debate though.
-
You have already drawn a line in the sand and stated if you could tap into a live feed from a satellite that shows events in real time, that would change your mind. So, changing your mind is not an impossibility. Your suspension of disbelief will stretch only so far.
Or, he stated that because he knew that it wouldn't happen so he wouldn't need to admit he was wrong.
He has made prior claims like that and then went against them.
-
You have already drawn a line in the sand and stated if you could tap into a live feed from a satellite that shows events in real time, that would change your mind. So, changing your mind is not an impossibility. Your suspension of disbelief will stretch only so far.
Have you walked past those funny mirrors that can make you look short, fat or freaky? That doesn't represent reality so why would you trust a view high in orbit as the reality?
What if space is weird and surrounding the earth are weird lensing like effects that skew the earth into looking like it's something that it's not?
I'm not saying that's what it is, but I'm also not saying that's what it isn't.
For every 'Aha!' moment, there will always exist in someone's imagination an idea that can knock it down
Yeah, those mirrors make me look normal. They distort reality.
Maybe you should be suggesting this what if to the sceptical one?
-
That is a common MO of many conspiracy theorists. They think the same as us but in reverse.
Throughout history, there has been many 'conspiracy theories', some almost unbelievable because it would paint the government as criminal and/or murderous - and yet, they have been later found out to be true
Not all conspiracy theorists are whack jobs to laugh at. At the end of the day, our governments history is filled with so much criminality and abuses of it's citizens, it should not look awkward if when they try really hard to reassure you of something, that you should be skeptical
Maybe if the government had a history of trustworthiness it could be different. But they have never been trustworthy. Full of spin, bullshit and coverups at any cost.
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FkADO7nkt-rk%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Not gonna lie... That picture looks shitter than the CCP worst photoshop fails
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/05/floatingphotoshop_mini.jpeg)
-
Not gonna lie... That picture looks shitter than the CCP worst photoshop fails
Totally real. Been across the causeway 4 times. You need a good camera with a nice lens to zoom into this detail or a good pair of binoculars. If you look at each of the high tension towers, not one is duplicated, no artifacting around them, no aliasing leftovers.
-
Recreating Eratosthenes so called experiment is not going to prove a spinning globe.
Of course not. Because you've already proved that to yourself just by looking at a stretch of water right? Such a shame that all those people wasted their time trying to connect with a famous name and famous experiment in scientific history when instead all they had to do was check in with you to learn the truth.
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FkADO7nkt-rk%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Not gonna lie... That picture looks shitter than the CCP worst photoshop fails
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/05/floatingphotoshop_mini.jpeg)
Is that your expert opinion, shifter? It looks shitter than the worst Cpp photoshop fails?
At first glance maybe, but with close examination, definitely not.
The shadowing on each pilon is slightly different. The water edge on each pilon is slightly different. The metal structures are not uniform. The bolts in each timber are not uniformly centralized. Each individual piece of timber has unique characteristics. The wires hanging down, are at different lengths. Spacing is not uniform or even. Sunlight reflection on the metal struts differs between struts.
It's not photoshop. You would fail miserably as a photoshop judge, Shifter. The photo is authentic. That water is curving.
-
It's not photoshop. You would fail miserably as a photoshop judge, Shifter. The photo is authentic. That water is curving.
You'd be surprised how photoshop can manipulate a whole image or a 3D render making a scene as you described
Just like those Chinese guys 'floating' over the background, the bridge looks 'floating' on the water
I'll grant you my language was a bit extreme. It's not 'as bad' as that CCP photo but it's still eyebrow raising
-
It's not photoshop. You would fail miserably as a photoshop judge, Shifter. The photo is authentic. That water is curving.
You'd be surprised how photoshop can manipulate a whole image or a 3D render making a scene as you described
Just like those Chinese guys 'floating' over the background, the bridge looks 'floating' on the water
I'll grant you my language was a bit extreme. It's not 'as bad' as that CCP photo but it's still eyebrow raising
Shifter, I didn't even notice that guy is supposed to be floating on the road. He looks like he is standing there normally, because he is. Some person has digitally removed his shadow on the dirt road.
How do other photos of that structure on the water, compare?
-
Shifter, I didn't even notice that guy is supposed to be floating on the road. He looks like he is standing there normally, because he is.
Hmmm. And we are supposed to take you as a good judge of whats real and fake in a photo?
Tell me what you think of this photo. Real or fake
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/144/543/article-0-0CCCC84A00000578-31_634x575.jpg)
-
Shifter, I didn't even notice that guy is supposed to be floating on the road. He looks like he is standing there normally, because he is.
Hmmm. And we are supposed to take you as a good judge of whats real and fake in a photo?
Tell me what you think of this photo. Real or fake
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/144/543/article-0-0CCCC84A00000578-31_634x575.jpg)
It's Real..................
-
Shifter, I didn't even notice that guy is supposed to be floating on the road. He looks like he is standing there normally, because he is.
Hmmm. And we are supposed to take you as a good judge of whats real and fake in a photo?
Tell me what you think of this photo. Real or fake
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/144/543/article-0-0CCCC84A00000578-31_634x575.jpg)
It's Real..................
That's what I thought. The 3 guys have shadows and everything.
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
Just one continuous heaping pile of cow dung from this guy.
Navigation has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Communication has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Civil engineering has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
-
Shifter, I didn't even notice that guy is supposed to be floating on the road. He looks like he is standing there normally, because he is.
Hmmm. And we are supposed to take you as a good judge of whats real and fake in a photo?
Tell me what you think of this photo. Real or fake
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/144/543/article-0-0CCCC84A00000578-31_634x575.jpg)
It's Real..................
That's what I thought. The 3 guys have shadows and everything.
Generate the same photo using 60s tech.
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
Just one continuous heaping pile of cow dung from this guy.
Navigation has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Communication has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Civil engineering has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Look at you trying so hard to pick a fight while not doing anything to prove the garbage you're saying is true. Your entire post history is the same crap; drive by put downs with no substance, effort, support, or meaning.
Good luck with that.
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
Just one continuous heaping pile of cow dung from this guy.
Navigation has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Communication has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Civil engineering has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Look at you trying so hard to pick a fight while not doing anything to prove the garbage you're saying is true. Your entire post history is the same crap; drive by put downs with no substance, effort, support, or meaning.
Good luck with that.
No support you say?
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Use of the stars.
None of the long distance routes have fundamentally changed since they were first used.
Communication still takes place by the use of land based technology.
Doesn't require a globe.
Civil engineering doesn't require a globe.
Just go lay your weary BS on the bed and use it for a pillow.
-
aah
so GPS relies on stars, not actual pings from orbiting satelites used to triangulate position on a premapped surface that also relies on a ball shape for proper distances at the poles.
got it.
-
No support you say?
That is correct. What you've done below isn't support either. It's called baseless assertion. Let's explore:
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Use of the stars.
This not entirely correct. Navigation can be performed a number of ways. Sailors of old would use the stars along with compasses, dead reckoning, and visually using known topography. (source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/secrets-of-ancient-navigators/) <- This is called support, by the way, not pulling crap out of one's butt.
None of the long distance routes have fundamentally changed since they were first used.
Utterly false. Ancient sea navigation was based primarily on remaining close enough to land that you could see it. Naval shipping lanes exist closer to shore but in the open ocean are largely dictated by where the ship is going. (source: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/shipping-routes-map and https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/apr/13/shipping-routes-history-map)
Land based navigation is dictated by topography and once a road is established, there's not much navigation to do.
Communication still takes place by the use of land based technology.
And another baseless assertion. You aren't too good at this argument thing, are you? All you're doing is saying the same thing over, and over again but not backing anything up with a logic based argument or using evidence to support your claims. Some communication is land based and some is satellite based. Land based communication still deals with LOS (line of sight) which can be impacted by...you guessed it, the curvature of the earth. Transmitters are usually placed on hill tops, mountain peaks, and towers to reduce blinds spots caused by terrain and planetary curvature. (source: https://www.tablotv.com/blog/where-you-live-impacts-OTA-antenna-reception/)
Doesn't require a globe.
Seeing how you don't know how to even support your arguments, I'm not going to take that on just you saying so.
Civil engineering doesn't require a globe.
And another baseless assertion. Every road, bridge, freeway, and other large structure that is built requires the engineers to compensate for planetary curvature. (source: https://www.aboutcivil.org/new/curvature-and-refraction.html)
Just go lay your weary BS on the bed and use it for a pillow.
I don't know what to say about the quality of your writing or the degree to which you utterly fail at proving a point. On a brighter note, you can only improve from here because you can't suck worse than you do right now.
-
No support you say?
That is correct. What you've done below isn't support either. It's called baseless assertion. Let's explore:
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Use of the stars.
This not entirely correct. Navigation can be performed a number of ways. Sailors of old would use the stars along with compasses, dead reckoning, and visually using known topography. (source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/secrets-of-ancient-navigators/) <- This is called support, by the way, not pulling crap out of one's butt.
Use of stars.
None of the long distance routes have fundamentally changed since they were first used.
Utterly false. Ancient sea navigation was based primarily on remaining close enough to land that you could see it. Naval shipping lanes exist closer to shore but in the open ocean are largely dictated by where the ship is going. (source: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/shipping-routes-map and https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/apr/13/shipping-routes-history-map)
Land based navigation is dictated by topography and once a road is established, there's not much navigation to do.
Yeah, the Polynesians hugged a bunch of coastline on the way to South America across the South Pacific.
And land based travelers never oriented themselves to the stars whatsoever.
Jesus.
Communication still takes place by the use of land based technology.
And another baseless assertion. You aren't too good at this argument thing, are you? All you're doing is saying the same thing over, and over again but not backing anything up with a logic based argument or using evidence to support your claims. Some communication is land based and some is satellite based. Land based communication still deals with LOS (line of sight) which can be impacted by...you guessed it, the curvature of the earth. Transmitters are usually placed on hill tops, mountain peaks, and towers to reduce blinds spots caused by terrain and planetary curvature. (source: https://www.tablotv.com/blog/where-you-live-impacts-OTA-antenna-reception/)
It is doubtful any of it takes place via satellites.
Land based communication is much more reliable and is still the primary method.
Doesn't require a globe.
Seeing how you don't know how to even support your arguments, I'm not going to take that on just you saying so.
Civil engineering doesn't require a globe.
And another baseless assertion. Every road, bridge, freeway, and other large structure that is built requires the engineers to compensate for planetary curvature. (source: https://www.aboutcivil.org/new/curvature-and-refraction.html)
LOL!
None of it requires spherical trigonometry!
That is just plain horse manure!
You can assign numbers to anything and make it appear as if it actually counts for something after the fact.
Casting out 9's is one such example.
Just go lay your weary BS on the bed and use it for a pillow.
I don't know what to say about the quality of your writing or the degree to which you utterly fail at proving a point. On a brighter note, you can only improve from here because you can't suck worse than you do right now.
I know you struggle to let go of you globe earth binky, but trust me, it can be done.
-
REPEATS SAME BASELESS, UNSUPPORTED CRAP
You do you pal.
-
so technology hasn't advanced in 200yrs and we're using stars still to sail across the oceans?
and why would stars magically flip rotation after you pass the equator?
and greenland is the size of australia?
come on now...
-
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Use of the stars.
Maybe you should look into how that actually works sometime, and has worked for hundreds of years?
None of the long distance routes have fundamentally changed since they were first used.
The continents haven’t moved by much, and flat Earthers still don’t have anything close to a vaguely functional world map.
Communication still takes place by the use of land based technology.
Doesn't require a globe
Except the sort that uses other technology.
.
Civil engineering doesn't require a globe.
But it is built on a globe, because the earth is a globe.
-
Navigation has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Communication has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Civil engineering has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
So you think navigating around the world has nothing to do with the shape of the world?
Do you know how insane that claim is?
A key part of navigation is maps.
Maps are intrinsically linked to the shape of the world.
Even things like communication do depend on the shape of the world, as the shape of the world places limits of how far you can communicate, and has very significant implications for satellite communication.
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Really?
The ancient people of Earth had GPS and maps built into their phones?
That is the first I have heard of that.
How often do you use the stars to navigate, vs GPS?
Also, even navigation based upon the stars, over all of Earth, requires Earth to be round.
Using the celestial poles (there are 2 of them) to determine your latitude, requires Earth is round, or else the math would be vastly different.
The celestial pole is at an angle of elevation equal to your latitude, BECAUSE Earth is round.
It is doubtful any of it takes place via satellites.
Land based communication is much more reliable and is still the primary method.
And you not liking reality won't change it.
If it all takes place via land based methods, why do satellite dishes for TV point to satellites in geostationary orbit rather than a land based tower? If it is all land based, why don't they just have normal aerials like normal land based TV transmission?
Why do sat phones and GPS manage to get a signal where land based phones don't?
Why does it sometimes work the other way around as well, where you can be inside a building and a normal phone works fine while satellite based communication doesn't because of all the building above you?
None of it requires spherical trigonometry!
It does if you want to have the road go to its destination.
This is intrinsically tied to mapping as well.
If you try to map Earth as flat, it simply doesn't work.
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
Just one continuous heaping pile of cow dung from this guy.
Navigation has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Communication has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Civil engineering has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Look at you trying so hard to pick a fight while not doing anything to prove the garbage you're saying is true. Your entire post history is the same crap; drive by put downs with no substance, effort, support, or meaning.
Good luck with that.
No support you say?
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Use of the stars.
None of the long distance routes have fundamentally changed since they were first used.
Communication still takes place by the use of land based technology.
Doesn't require a globe.
Civil engineering doesn't require a globe.
Just go lay your weary BS on the bed and use it for a pillow.
what do flat earth believers know about the stars? Your knowledge can be equated to those who lived before the invention of simple optical devices. You make comments about subjects you are in total ignorance of. You make comments that deny the incredible technological and scientific leaps that have been made over the last century.
Astronomy has revealed not only the nature of our own solar system and the Milky way of which it is part of but has allowed us to map parts of the universe beyond. Lets be honest flat earth believers unable to see beyond the end of their noses are stuck with no more than a medieval understanding of the cosmos.
-
Gotten what wrong?
According to you and others on this forum, nearly everything. The shape of the world dictates a number of directives regarding navigation, communication, and civil engineering (to name a few). Assuming that the world is not round, we would have problems popping up constantly if that were the case.
Just one continuous heaping pile of cow dung from this guy.
Navigation has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Communication has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Civil engineering has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
Look at you trying so hard to pick a fight while not doing anything to prove the garbage you're saying is true. Your entire post history is the same crap; drive by put downs with no substance, effort, support, or meaning.
Good luck with that.
No support you say?
Navigation has always been performed the exact same way.
Use of the stars.
None of the long distance routes have fundamentally changed since they were first used.
Communication still takes place by the use of land based technology.
Doesn't require a globe.
Civil engineering doesn't require a globe.
Just go lay your weary BS on the bed and use it for a pillow.
Should there be a question mark at the end of your name, wishtolaugh? I wish to laugh all the time, and reading your posts, I most definitely have laughed! :D
Civil engineers factor in earth curvature when building tunnels and bridges, all the time. Are you struggling to find proof of this? Would you like some proof?
Communication still happens over the middle of the pacific ocean, and all other oceans, well out of range of any land based communication towers. The explanation for this is satellites.
Did you have a good time at this year's flat earth convention?
-
so technology hasn't advanced in 200yrs and we're using stars still to sail across the oceans?
and why would stars magically flip rotation after you pass the equator?
and greenland is the size of australia?
come on now...
Why are you writing such nonsense?
-
so technology hasn't advanced in 200yrs and we're using stars still to sail across the oceans?
and why would stars magically flip rotation after you pass the equator?
and greenland is the size of australia?
come on now...
Why are you writing such nonsense?
Well part of that is the nonsense conclusion from your nonsense.
For example, claiming navigation hasn't changed is the same as claiming that technology related to it hasn't advanced in quite some time.
So the real question is why are you writing such nonsense?
-
so technology hasn't advanced in 200yrs and we're using stars still to sail across the oceans?
and why would stars magically flip rotation after you pass the equator?
and greenland is the size of australia?
come on now...
Why are you writing such nonsense?
They are responding to your inane babble my friend.
-
my nonsense is never nonsense.
if you don't get it its because you're not smart.
go ask snomo.
-
Land based communication is more reliable than satellite communication for world wide communications? Interesting concept, wrong in many ways. Land based communication is faster in local areas, very slight possibility of it being more reliable for local communication, unless it's directly wired together. But for me to talk to a friend in Iraq from the States, satellite is the way to go.
-
What would change my mind on Flat earth is nothing.
I believe the earth is flat because instead of reading books i look out my window and see its flat.
Books are not always true like round earth books.
-
What would change my mind on Flat earth is nothing.
I believe the earth is flat because instead of reading books i look out my window and see its flat.
Books are not always true like round earth books.
At least you can admit that you are close-minded and unwilling to see reason.
When I look out my window I see a big hill. Should that make me conclude Earth is a giant hill with me near the centre?
Or should I realise that the topography at the small scale will be more significant than the overall shape of Earth and something other than looking out the window will be needed?
-
What would change my mind on Flat earth is nothing.
I believe the earth is flat because instead of reading books i look out my window and see its flat.
Books are not always true like round earth books.
All you know is the earth directly outside your window, looks flat. What might change your mind about the shape of the entire world, is getting out more, and doing some travel.
-
What would change my mind on Flat earth is nothing.
I believe the earth is flat because instead of reading books i look out my window and see its flat.
Books are not always true like round earth books.
Ah the good old flat earth fallback.....blissful ignorance combined with a childish denial of any knowledge that may conflict with their central belief.
“It looks flat therefore it is”
At the same time he is honest not pretending he’s engaged in some exhaustive ‘research’, flat earth speak for looking stuff up, along with not cherry picking some scientific ditty that is then distorted and misrepresented.
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Oh well. We'll reach the singularity era in the late 2040s and soon after that, it will be known. Then all you morons can be like 'damn that Shifter bloke really was right afterall. I'm such an idiot!'
And because I'm very much a 'don't say I didn't tell you so' kind of guy, I'll be laughing. 8)
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
-
What a stupid question.
Notice how she changed it half way through when she remebered her script.
Can you guarantee to 100% the election was not stolen?
1:35
As per bailed "discussion" with snomo, science is not biased to change when presented with creditble cause for change.
saurumons black hole photo is already challenging einstein.
Mercurys transit photo validated einsteins takeover on newton.
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
Vastly more likely that you are wrong though isn’t it?
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
Vastly more likely that you are wrong though isn’t it?
No, because I checked
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
Vastly more likely that you are wrong though isn’t it?
No, because I checked
You checked wrong. Try again.
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
Vastly more likely that you are wrong though isn’t it?
No, because I checked
You checked wrong. Try again.
You seem...... Unconvinced 8)
-
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
It isn't merely what I have been taught, but also what I have obtained evidence for.
For example, plenty of evidence of how motion works and how it is all relative.
As such, your appeal to a 30 km/s velocity as if that should magically make the air fall off is nonsense.
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
I know that what I know will be altered, but that doesn't mean that everything I know will be.
-
We are told gravity is as weak as piss yet the air and any loose object on the earth stay firmly in place despite being surrounded by a vacuum and moving at 30km/s
Either gravity is a lot stronger or has some magical properties or somebodies not telling the truth about our universe and our place in it
I have often argued gravity is the strongest fundamental force. No one believes it
Possibly because they realise each force is dependent on some property. For gravity, that property is mass.
You can have a strong force with lots of mass, or a weak force with not much.
As for the rest, you sure seem to do your best to completely misunderstand or misrepresent simple physics.
Or maybe what you're taught is incomplete or wrong
Can you guarantee what you know now will not be changed or altered? That everything you write here will appear as correct in 200 years of further study?
Vastly more likely that you are wrong though isn’t it?
No, because I checked
You checked wrong. Try again.
You seem...... Unconvinced 8)
Can you guarantee that your own conspiracy driven beliefs will not be shown to be ridiculous when in the next few years either the Chinese, Americans or Russians or whoever will land on the moon and broadcast not only that but the whole voyage that will include showing the earth like all the other planets are spherical. Remember the onus is on you as the belief you have is blind having no supporting evidence whatsoever. Many things that flat earthers claim like water droplets being flat is driven by ignorance and can simply be shown to be false. Time is running out both for you and your equally blind comrades.
-
Im back
Has he drawn the circle yet?
This guy drew the circle.
Skip to 2:30
-
How about you draw this circle?
-
Refute his circle.
-
How about you draw this circle?
I provided you a too scale diagram before and you just ignored it.
I also provided the math showing your claims were pure garbage.
How about you draw it, or answer the simple questions which show my arguments are correct, or show a problem with the math/arguments presented:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
-
He drew it
Time stmped.
Whats wrobg witb itM
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
You have a known history with being unable to tell the difference between a line and a curve. You really need to go back to 1st grade where they teach you what shapes look like. Maybe that's where your confusion about the shape of the earth came from?
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
LOL.
Scepti doesn't understand the smaller the arc of a curve, the more flat a curve is.
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
What is the curvature, in arc seconds for a 3 mile segment of a circle with the radius of roughly 3900 miles or the circumference at roughly 25000 miles? Can the human eye resolve that amount of curvature? How small, in arc seconds can be resolved by the human eye at 3ish miles of distance? Please continue your baseless incredulity. It is entertaining.
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
Again, you have already been provided with some, like this one here:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
I know, you want to dismiss it, because it shows your claim is pure BS, but you don't actually have any justification for it.
At this scale and resolution, you can't see the difference between round and flat. This just further shows that Earth being round doesn't magically mean that you can't see the ground, even through a level scope.
If you went all the way out to 1 mile, and had a picture which was 1080 px wide, each pixel is roughly 59 inches. That is more than the 8 inches of curvature, so you wouldn't see the curve in such an image.
And this is why you refuse to draw the circle, because it shows that the curvature doesn't magically make the ground fall out of sight, and thus it shows you are wrong.
Just like the simple questions you continue to avoid show you are wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
LOL.
Scepti doesn't understand the smaller the arc of a curve, the more flat a curve is.
I was asked to draw a circle. I drew one. It wasn't good enough.
I was asked to draw another one. I refused because I'd already drew one.
I asked kabool to draw the circle he asked for. He refused.
How about you draw the circle kabool asked for or don't you understand?
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
What is the curvature, in arc seconds for a 3 mile segment of a circle with the radius of roughly 3900 miles or the circumference at roughly 25000 miles? Can the human eye resolve that amount of curvature? How small, in arc seconds can be resolved by the human eye at 3ish miles of distance? Please continue your baseless incredulity. It is entertaining.
Draw your circle.
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
Again, you have already been provided with some, like this one here:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
I know, you want to dismiss it, because it shows your claim is pure BS, but you don't actually have any justification for it.
At this scale and resolution, you can't see the difference between round and flat. This just further shows that Earth being round doesn't magically mean that you can't see the ground, even through a level scope.
If you went all the way out to 1 mile, and had a picture which was 1080 px wide, each pixel is roughly 59 inches. That is more than the 8 inches of curvature, so you wouldn't see the curve in such an image.
And this is why you refuse to draw the circle, because it shows that the curvature doesn't magically make the ground fall out of sight, and thus it shows you are wrong.
Just like the simple questions you continue to avoid show you are wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
Is this you drawing a circle?
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
Again, you have already been provided with some, like this one here:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
I know, you want to dismiss it, because it shows your claim is pure BS, but you don't actually have any justification for it.
At this scale and resolution, you can't see the difference between round and flat. This just further shows that Earth being round doesn't magically mean that you can't see the ground, even through a level scope.
If you went all the way out to 1 mile, and had a picture which was 1080 px wide, each pixel is roughly 59 inches. That is more than the 8 inches of curvature, so you wouldn't see the curve in such an image.
And this is why you refuse to draw the circle, because it shows that the curvature doesn't magically make the ground fall out of sight, and thus it shows you are wrong.
Just like the simple questions you continue to avoid show you are wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
Is this you drawing a circle?
Like I said above, that is a to scale diagram of Earth, of a person with an eye height of 2 m above Earth and a FOV of 10 degrees.
The curvature of Earth is accurately shown in this diagram, limited to the resolution of the diagram.
This clearly shows how over the short distance required to see the ground, the curvature is negligible, it isn't even a single pixel.
If you disagree, provide your own, draw a to scale diagram of the RE, with a person standing with their eye 2 m above Earth, and provide the math to justify it.
Or provide a to scale diagram of the towers, which you claim would show a massive tilt, or the math to justify that outright lie of yours.
Or just answer the trivial questions you continue to avoid because of just how easily they show you are completely wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
I was asked to draw a circle. I drew one. It wasn't good enough.
Because like always you ignored what was actually asked and instead substituted it without something else to pretend you did what was asked.
You were asked to draw a circle TO SCALE!
The drawings you have provided have buildings which are thousands of km tall, and hundreds to thousands of km apart.
You have NEVER provided such a drawing, because you know that doing so will refute yourself.
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
LOL.
Scepti doesn't understand the smaller the arc of a curve, the more flat a curve is.
I was asked to draw a circle. I drew one. It wasn't good enough.
I was asked to draw another one. I refused because I'd already drew one.
I asked kabool to draw the circle he asked for. He refused.
How about you draw the circle kabool asked for or don't you understand?
You didnt draw it to scale
-
You didnt draw it to scale
Nor have you or Jacky.
-
I provided a circle with a CGI image of the globe showing madagascar and counted pixels to approx match calculations by others.
I also found the youtube much better examples of people using CAD for precise images and numbers.
you've done nothing but provided a vague "massive tilt" and a not-to-scale drawing showing a 2.5km tall tower (2.5KILOMETER = 4x the tallest building in the world!)
so
what's the tilt?
let's see you draw a to-scale circle.
-
I provided a circle with a CGI image of the globe showing madagascar and counted pixels to approx match calculations by others.
I also found the youtube much better examples of people using CAD for precise images and numbers.
you've done nothing but provided a vague "massive tilt" and a not-to-scale drawing showing a 2.5km tall tower (2.5KILOMETER = 4x the tallest building in the world!)
so
what's the tilt?
let's see you draw a to-scale circle.
You showed me a picture of what you've been told Earth looks like. You didn't draw any circle.
You simply followed a script.
People like you find it hard to think for yourself.
-
Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?
What is the curvature, in arc seconds for a 3 mile segment of a circle with the radius of roughly 3900 miles or the circumference at roughly 25000 miles? Can the human eye resolve that amount of curvature? How small, in arc seconds can be resolved by the human eye at 3ish miles of distance? Please continue your baseless incredulity. It is entertaining.
Draw your circle.
What does me drawing a circle have to do with your failures in supporting your claims? I asked you specific questions, you deflected, very telling as to your intentions. I hope all see your entertaining foolery and it will stop others from taking you seriously at all. Care to answer the questions?
-
I provided a circle with a CGI image of the globe showing madagascar and counted pixels to approx match calculations by others.
I also found the youtube much better examples of people using CAD for precise images and numbers.
you've done nothing but provided a vague "massive tilt" and a not-to-scale drawing showing a 2.5km tall tower (2.5KILOMETER = 4x the tallest building in the world!)
so
what's the tilt?
let's see you draw a to-scale circle.
You showed me a picture of what you've been told Earth looks like. You didn't draw any circle.
You simply followed a script.
People like you find it hard to think for yourself.
it's still a circle.
it's still to-scale.
soooo you continue to dodge
keep dodging on duck dodger 25th century adventurer.
-
You didnt draw it to scale
Nor have you or Jacky.
I did. The diagram I provided which you were unable to find fault with was drawn to scale.
Again, this is a too scale drawing of someone with an eye height 2 m above Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
You not liking that because it doesn't fit your fantasy won't change that fact.
At the distance required to see the ground, the curvature is insignificant, less than 1 pixel in this image.
So even with a RE, you can see the ground, showing the primary claim you made here is pure garabge.
Again, if you want to disagree, draw your own diagram, TO SCALE!
Show a person with an eye height of 2 m, with a FOV of 10 degree, looking straight out level, on a RE.
If you really need the other one:
(https://i.imgur.com/Bkta3vq.png)
This isn't quite too scale, as it still has the building/turbines being 9 km tall and 500 m wide.
But the important part is that it shows the "massive" tilt you claim should exist between the towers.
The grey line is a straight line 30 km long, to show the distance is correct.
And if you want the code to prove it:
<svg version="1.1"
id="Layer_1"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
width="130000px"
height="130000px"
viewBox="0 0 13000 13000"
xml:space="preserve"
fill="blue">
<g>
<rect width="13000" height="13000" fill="skyblue" />
<circle cx="6500" cy="6500" r="6371" fill="green"/>
</g>
<g>
<line x1="6485" y1="127" x2="6515" y2="127" stroke="grey" stroke-width="0.5px"/>
</g>
<g transform="rotate(0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
<g transform="rotate(-0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
</svg>
Any objections now? Or do you accept your claim of a "massive tilt" is pure BS?
And again, have you decided on answers to the trivial questions which show you are wrong?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
You didnt draw it to scale
Nor have you or Jacky.
I did. The diagram I provided which you were unable to find fault with was drawn to scale.
Again, this is a too scale drawing of someone with an eye height 2 m above Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/29K2oPz.png)
You not liking that because it doesn't fit your fantasy won't change that fact.
At the distance required to see the ground, the curvature is insignificant, less than 1 pixel in this image.
So even with a RE, you can see the ground, showing the primary claim you made here is pure garabge.
Again, if you want to disagree, draw your own diagram, TO SCALE!
Show a person with an eye height of 2 m, with a FOV of 10 degree, looking straight out level, on a RE.
If you really need the other one:
(https://i.imgur.com/Bkta3vq.png)
This isn't quite too scale, as it still has the building/turbines being 9 km tall and 500 m wide.
But the important part is that it shows the "massive" tilt you claim should exist between the towers.
The grey line is a straight line 30 km long, to show the distance is correct.
And if you want the code to prove it:
<svg version="1.1"
id="Layer_1"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
width="130000px"
height="130000px"
viewBox="0 0 13000 13000"
xml:space="preserve"
fill="blue">
<g>
<rect width="13000" height="13000" fill="skyblue" />
<circle cx="6500" cy="6500" r="6371" fill="green"/>
</g>
<g>
<line x1="6485" y1="127" x2="6515" y2="127" stroke="grey" stroke-width="0.5px"/>
</g>
<g transform="rotate(0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
<g transform="rotate(-0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
</svg>
Any objections now? Or do you accept your claim of a "massive tilt" is pure BS?
And again, have you decided on answers to the trivial questions which show you are wrong?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
You can't quite grasp it.
I'll try and make it more clear.
Study what I'm about to say and absorb it.
If you people are arguing the turbines to be losing a fair amount of their height due to curvature of the Earth then you must also know you cannot argue it in terms of the turbine sinking UPRIGHT into the water.
You cannot argue that it falls down a curve whilst staying UPRIGHT.
The only way you could argue your turbine is it it is tilted back and away from your view to get your large chunk of height to disappear.
Now you can argue about your Earth size and do as many calculations as you need by bringing your so called curvature into play but it makes zero sense if you simply look at the disappearing turbine UPRIGHT over such a short distance.
We can clearly see there's no tilt and of course it would be ridiculous to suggest any tilt, unless you literally set it up to tilt, which is not practicable.
So what can it be?
Pretty simple. It's the atmosphere obscuring it over distance due to horizontal mass build of it over distance.
Basically obscuring the light to the turbine UPRIGHT over distance which determines what light we receive back to our eyes.
No matter how you try to dress it up wth so called calculations, it's there in your face.
-
You can't quite grasp it.
You are confusing me seeing that your BS is wrong, and also repeatedly explaining why it is wrong, with me not understanding.
The 2 are vastly different.
I grasp the BS you keep on spouting, but I realise it is BS, and explain why it is BS.
You fail to grasp (or accept) many things.
The amount of the turbines hidden relative to the size of Earth, is TINY.
The tilt is TINY (as clearly shown by the diagram above).
The amount hidden is proportional to d^2/R.
The tilt is proportional to d/R.
These are different functions and thus there is no simple relationship between amount hidden and tilt.
Thus you cannot say that in order for some amount to be hidden it must be tilting back massively.
If you are arguing a massive tilt, you need to justify that outright lie of yours.
Again, the to scale diagram shows you are wrong.
No one is claiming the turbines will be "upright" to the viewer at 30 km distance, instead they are proving, beyond any doubt, in a manner you cannot refute, that the tilt will be tiny and unnoticeable.
We can clearly see there's no tilt
No, we can't.
What we can see is that there is not a massive tilt.
But again, we wouldn't expect a massive tilt.
If people were provided the image above, out of context, they would need see any significant tilt, because of just how tiny the tilt is.
If you want to claim there should be a massive tilt, do the math or draw a to scale diagram.
So what can it be?
Pretty simple.
You are right that it is pretty simple.
They are along the curve of Earth which lowers them by 10s of m, and make them tilt back a tiny 0.26 degrees.
The fact that they appear to have sunk into the ocean shows it cannot possibly just be the atmosphere obscuring the bottom. If it was the atmosphere obscuring the bottom they would appear much higher, with the bottom just obscured by the atmosphere, not water. It's the atmosphere obscuring it over distance due to horizontal mass build of it over distance.
No matter how you want to dress it up, your claims remain pure BS.
No matter how you want to try to dress it up, the curvature is right there in your face.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
This isnt a matter of tilting to reduce appeared height.
So, whats the amount of tilt required to appear in reduced height?
What is it?
State it.
Use a number.
It makes a triangle.
Should be easy enough for you.
Now
Apply it to a to-scale circle.
What is it?
State the number.
Triangles and circles.
Why do you refuse to state the number?
-
Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.
If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.
You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.
-
Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.
If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.
You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.
I get your point, I always have. It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong. Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away. We have explained that there is some degree of tilt away from you but it is so small and at a direction from your eyes that there is no way for your eyes to resolve it.
The Earth is very very very very very very very very very very very very very much larger than a person, or man made objects.
Also still waiting on you to answer, at least one question.
-
Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.
If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.
You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.
I get your point, I always have. It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong. Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away.
No no no. That's the idea of you people, so don't pretend it isn't.
-
so what's the massive tilt?
you keep complaining but never tell us the answer.
-
Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.
If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.
You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.
I get your point, I always have. It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong. Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away.
No no no. That's the idea of you people, so don't pretend it isn't.
No it isn't. That's what you are always spouting about. Massive tilt, with no explanation of why as per your usual. Again, I know your points very well, they are completely wrong and your only recourse has been to say "nuh uhh", constantly.
-
Surely you people get it.
Yes we do.
Logic and evidence shows you are completely and utterly wrong.
You can't handle that.
You want to continue to pretend your fantasy is true.
You don't care about the trurth.
So you will just continue to assert the same pathetic refuted BS to pretend Earth isn't round.
If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.
No, if we lost the amount of ever so slightly tilted turbine that is shown to occur over such a distance, we would argue for the tilt to be insignificant.
On an Earth as large as the one we live on, the object needs to be extremely far away in order for the tilt to be significant.
The tilt is not what hides the object, the drop is.
You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.
Why not?
Again, Earth is a not a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.
That 30 km, is tiny compared to the 6371 km radius of Earth or the ~ 40000 km circumference.
This means the tilt will also be tiny.
It also means that compared to the size of Earth, the amount hidden will be tiny.
It is not "massive" upright loss.
As a first approximation, ignoring the height of the observer, it is d^2/(2*R) = 0.07 km.
Or, in terms of the size of Earth, you know, what would actually matter for such an argument, it is 0.001 %
Are you saying that isn't tiny?
Yes, compared to humans it is quite large, but compared to Earth, humans are tiny.
Again, simple, irrefutable math, math which you can show no problems with at all, shows that the amount expected to be hidden is no more than a few 10s of m, and the tilt is 0.26 degrees.
Again, you have been provided with a to-scale diagram showing the tilt expected for such a distance. I was even nice and provided the code used to generate it a an SVG.
You have nothing but lies to attack the RE with, while we have evidence and logic and math to show your claims are pure BS.
If you want to claim the tilt should be massive, tell us exactly what the tilt should be, including a calculation/justification of it. This means providing it in some kind of angular unit, such as degrees.
If you can't do that, your claim of a massive tilt is pure BS.
Just like your claims that you magically can't see Earth through a level tube are pure BS.
Again, trivial questions repeatedly show you are wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
I get your point, I always have. It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong. Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away.
No no no. That's the idea of you people, so don't pretend it isn't.
No, it isn't.
Reality, which the idea we present and you continually reject without cause, is that the Earth continually curves. It doesn't just magically curve down at the horizon to start making objects tilt massively when they are hidden.
-
Massive tilt, with no explanation of why as per your usual.
Another Jacky who pretends there's been no explanation.
-
Logic and evidence shows you are completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't any logic or evidence from your model.
It is clear fantasy and backed up by fantasy names, like gravity and warped space time continuum and all the rest of the absolute utter gunk that if officially spouted for people to be goggle eyed about.
Dazzle them with brilliance and baffle them with bull crap. This is your globe model.
-
Massive tilt, with no explanation of why as per your usual.
Another Jacky who pretends there's been no explanation.
There hasn't been any explanations from you.. It's all "nuh uhh", no reasoning, no descriptions, just really childish strawman tactics.
Still waiting for those explanations. But you can't, you have nothing beyond the indoctrination. Keep being so dishonest please, it's entertaining, it's clear examples of the FE indoctrination that we can point to. You may just save more people from ruining their lives with the FE nonsense. Hey you can still consider yourself a hero then.
-
There hasn't been any explanations from you.. It's all "nuh uhh", no reasoning, no descriptions, just really childish strawman tactics.
Then don't respond to me. It's simple.
-
Another Jacky who pretends there's been no explanation.
You are the one pretending here.
You are completely incapable of justifying this allege "massive tilt" of yours.
Instead you just continually deflect with whatever dishonest BS you can come up with.
You can't even provide a number for just what this "massive tilt" should be, because if you did, you would show an insignificant tilt of 0.26 degrees.
There isn't any logic or evidence from your model.
You not liking it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Again, you have been provided with it and just fled.
If it wasn't logic you would have been able to refute it.
Again, trivial questions repeatedly show you are wrong:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
Logic and evidence shows you are completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't any logic or evidence from your model.
It is clear fantasy and backed up by fantasy names, like gravity and warped space time continuum and all the rest of the absolute utter gunk that if officially spouted for people to be goggle eyed about.
Dazzle them with brilliance and baffle them with bull crap. This is your globe model.
Are the flat earth shackles that bind you, loosening at all? I mean, this thread is edging closer to 200 friggin pages. I'd like to think you have evolved somewhat over 187 pages of your flat earth propaganda.
Level with me. Are you Nathan Oakley or Nathan Thompson? You're a Nathan through and through.
-
There hasn't been any explanations from you.. It's all "nuh uhh", no reasoning, no descriptions, just really childish strawman tactics.
Then don't respond to me. It's simple.
If you are going to make public claims that I know are complete bullshit, I am going to ask for justification. You never provide justification.
Just provide explanations or stop making claims. Otherwise, as long as it is entertaining to me, I will continue to respond.
-
You are the one pretending here.
Pretending, what?
-
Are the flat earth shackles that bind you, loosening at all? I mean, this thread is edging closer to 200 friggin pages. I'd like to think you have evolved somewhat over 187 pages of your flat earth propaganda.
Level with me. Are you Nathan Oakley or Nathan Thompson? You're a Nathan through and through.
My mindset against a globe gets stronger and stronger by the minute.
Nothing you people put forward changes anything from my side.
I think you people make it worse, to be fair.
I think the global shackles are definitely loosening with you but I feel you're a tad weak in terms of letting it be known for fear of ridicule.
Just my opinion and I may be wrong....but...that's the impression I'm getting.
As for being a Nathan. I can be whatever you want me to be, in your mind.
Pick one and go with it. ;)
-
You are the one pretending here.
Pretending, what?
That your baseless claims need no justification.
-
If you are going to make public claims that I know are complete bullshit, I am going to ask for justification. You never provide justification.
Just provide explanations or stop making claims. Otherwise, as long as it is entertaining to me, I will continue to respond.
Feel free to do and ask what you want.
-
If you are going to make public claims that I know are complete bullshit, I am going to ask for justification. You never provide justification.
Just provide explanations or stop making claims. Otherwise, as long as it is entertaining to me, I will continue to respond.
Feel free to do and ask what you want.
I have asked in many threads. Many times over. You just have no answers, aka full of bullshit.
-
If you are going to make public claims that I know are complete bullshit, I am going to ask for justification. You never provide justification.
Just provide explanations or stop making claims. Otherwise, as long as it is entertaining to me, I will continue to respond.
Feel free to do and ask what you want.
I have asked in many threads. Many times over. You just have no answers, aka full of bullshit.
Ok, then don't ask.
-
Ill ask
What value is the supposed tilt?
-
If you are going to make public claims that I know are complete bullshit, I am going to ask for justification. You never provide justification.
Just provide explanations or stop making claims. Otherwise, as long as it is entertaining to me, I will continue to respond.
Feel free to do and ask what you want.
I have asked in many threads. Many times over. You just have no answers, aka full of bullshit.
Ok, then don't ask.
I ask to highlight your dishonesty. You play right into my intentions by continually refusing to support your claims. Good job.
-
Ill ask
What value is the supposed tilt?
Seconded.
-
You are the one pretending here.
Pretending, what?
So many things.
You are pretending that Earth being round will magically make it disappear from view through a level tube, regardless of FOV, even though a level tube can easily allow you to see the ground a few 10s of m in front of you, where the curvature is insignificant.
You are pretending that by elevating yourself off Earth, it will magically change the drop over 1 mile from 8 inches to 5 feet. Even though it is the exact same drop.
You are pretending that objects can only be hidden by tilting over.
You are pretending that the amount of the turbine hidden is massive, when in fact it is ~ 0.001% of Earth. A tiny amount.
You are pretending that the tilt required would be massive, when math and a too scale diagram shows you that is pure BS.
You are pretending that the evidence presented to you is fake.
And with all that, you are pretending your irrational hatred and irrational attack on the RE is backed up by reason and evidence, and pretending that the RE which you cannot refute has none.
Lots of pretending there.
My mindset against a globe gets stronger and stronger by the minute.
Only because you don't care about the truth and wilful reject reality.
If that belief of yours was actually justified you would have no problem answering the trivial questions which you continue to flee from, or admitting that some of your claims about the RE are in fact incorrect.
Again, care to answer the trivial questions which clearly show you are wrong (And no, that doesn't mean to change the question to what you want it to be so you can pretend you aren't wrong):
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
Are the flat earth shackles that bind you, loosening at all? I mean, this thread is edging closer to 200 friggin pages. I'd like to think you have evolved somewhat over 187 pages of your flat earth propaganda.
Level with me. Are you Nathan Oakley or Nathan Thompson? You're a Nathan through and through.
My mindset against a globe gets stronger and stronger by the minute.
Nothing you people put forward changes anything from my side.
I think you people make it worse, to be fair.
I think the global shackles are definitely loosening with you but I feel you're a tad weak in terms of letting it be known for fear of ridicule.
Just my opinion and I may be wrong....but...that's the impression I'm getting.
As for being a Nathan. I can be whatever you want me to be, in your mind.
Pick one and go with it. ;)
That's very amusing! Ofcourse I'd expect nothing less from you! The shape of the world can be whatever you want it to be in your mind.
Well, if you were Nathan Thompson, I'd expect some bible bashing from your side, of which there is none. Nathan Oakley on the other hand is British, like your favourite sayings. I don't think you're that silly old British fool Chris UK, in his adult diaper, with the swinging gate experiment.
Well, that would make your name, Chris. Chris UK is fairly inventive, though, and Chris UK would argue the different phases of the moon seen, depend upon where on earth you're looking at the moon - your field of view. No, so, I'll go with you being Nathan Oakley, wearing your lawn bowls hat. ;)
-
You are the one pretending here.
Pretending, what?
So many things.
Such as?
-
Are the flat earth shackles that bind you, loosening at all? I mean, this thread is edging closer to 200 friggin pages. I'd like to think you have evolved somewhat over 187 pages of your flat earth propaganda.
Level with me. Are you Nathan Oakley or Nathan Thompson? You're a Nathan through and through.
My mindset against a globe gets stronger and stronger by the minute.
Nothing you people put forward changes anything from my side.
I think you people make it worse, to be fair.
I think the global shackles are definitely loosening with you but I feel you're a tad weak in terms of letting it be known for fear of ridicule.
Just my opinion and I may be wrong....but...that's the impression I'm getting.
As for being a Nathan. I can be whatever you want me to be, in your mind.
Pick one and go with it. ;)
That's very amusing! Ofcourse I'd expect nothing less from you! The shape of the world can be whatever you want it to be in your mind.
Well, if you were Nathan Thompson, I'd expect some bible bashing from your side, of which there is none. Nathan Oakley on the other hand is British, like your favourite sayings. I don't think you're that silly old British fool Chris UK, in his adult diaper, with the swinging gate experiment.
Well, that would make your name, Chris. Chris UK is fairly inventive, though, and Chris UK would argue the different phases of the moon seen, depend upon where on earth you're looking at the moon - your field of view. No, so, I'll go with you being Nathan Oakley, wearing your lawn bowls hat. ;)
You appear to be struggling badly.
-
You are the one pretending here.
Pretending, what?
So many things.
Such as?
Why not book a flight on this:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57689855
When that takes off on July 11 there will be yet more proof that you can add to your conspiracy. Let’s all remember that’s all you actually have to keep you going.
-
Why not book a flight on this:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57689855
When that takes off on July 11 there will be yet more proof that you can add to your conspiracy. Let’s all remember that’s all you actually have to keep you going.
This is why you have no chance.
-
How so?
-
Are the flat earth shackles that bind you, loosening at all? I mean, this thread is edging closer to 200 friggin pages. I'd like to think you have evolved somewhat over 187 pages of your flat earth propaganda.
Level with me. Are you Nathan Oakley or Nathan Thompson? You're a Nathan through and through.
My mindset against a globe gets stronger and stronger by the minute.
Nothing you people put forward changes anything from my side.
I think you people make it worse, to be fair.
I think the global shackles are definitely loosening with you but I feel you're a tad weak in terms of letting it be known for fear of ridicule.
Just my opinion and I may be wrong....but...that's the impression I'm getting.
As for being a Nathan. I can be whatever you want me to be, in your mind.
Pick one and go with it. ;)
That's very amusing! Ofcourse I'd expect nothing less from you! The shape of the world can be whatever you want it to be in your mind.
Well, if you were Nathan Thompson, I'd expect some bible bashing from your side, of which there is none. Nathan Oakley on the other hand is British, like your favourite sayings. I don't think you're that silly old British fool Chris UK, in his adult diaper, with the swinging gate experiment.
Well, that would make your name, Chris. Chris UK is fairly inventive, though, and Chris UK would argue the different phases of the moon seen, depend upon where on earth you're looking at the moon - your field of view. No, so, I'll go with you being Nathan Oakley, wearing your lawn bowls hat. ;)
You appear to be struggling badly.
Struggling badly to put a smirk on your face, struggling badly to offend you, or struggling badly to put any effort into a post to you on this particular thread? Let's run with all three!
Give me the moon landing thread any day of the week over this shitty thread!
-
Struggling badly to put a smirk on your face, struggling badly to offend you, or struggling badly to put any effort into a post to you on this particular thread? Let's run with all three!
Give me the moon landing thread any day of the week over this shitty thread!
Still struggling.
-
[spam]
Answer the questions:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
You appear to be struggling badly.
The only one struggling here is you.
Struggling so badly that you need to ignore basically everything said in a post, continually play dumb and continually avoid trivial questions.
It truly is pathetic.
-
Why not book a flight on this:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57689855
When that takes off on July 11 there will be yet more proof that you can add to your conspiracy. Let’s all remember that’s all you actually have to keep you going.
This is why you have no chance.
Take the blinkers off for a moment. In a couple of days that plane, if all goes well will go to an altitude of 90Km, the edge of space, where it will reveal the spherical planet earth spinning on its journey through space.
Your only recourse is to invoke the conspiracy. To clarify it’s a conspiracy that involves multiple nations, scientists, engineers , astronomers etc etc.
You have no proof for your beliefs, all you have to run on is an idea that you, for some reason, are being lied to by millions of people.
Why would all those people be wanting to hide the truth?
You tell me!
-
Answer the questions:
All answered.
Try and be honest.
-
Why not book a flight on this:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57689855
When that takes off on July 11 there will be yet more proof that you can add to your conspiracy. Let’s all remember that’s all you actually have to keep you going.
This is why you have no chance.
Take the blinkers off for a moment. In a couple of days that plane, if all goes well will go to an altitude of 90Km, the edge of space, where it will reveal the spherical planet earth spinning on its journey through space.
Your only recourse is to invoke the conspiracy. To clarify it’s a conspiracy that involves multiple nations, scientists, engineers , astronomers etc etc.
You have no proof for your beliefs, all you have to run on is an idea that you, for some reason, are being lied to by millions of people.
Why would all those people be wanting to hide the truth?
You tell me!
Take off your own blinkers.
-
All answered.
No, you have never answered them.
You have sometimes replaced the questions with different questions and then answered those other questions, but you haven't answered these.
You continually refuse to answer them and instead lie and claim you already have.
If you had actually answered them it would be trivial for you to provide the answers.
The only reason for you to continually claim to have answered them, while continually refusing to provide the answers, is if you haven't answered them and are lying to try to avoid answering them.
I would tell you to try and be honest, but we both know that will never happen.
Answer the questions:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
I would tell you to try and be honest, but we both know that will never happen.
Then don't look for answers if that's your mindset.
-
I would tell you to try and be honest, but we both know that will never happen.
Then don't look for answers if that's your mindset.
Then don't spout garbage about the RE.
I ask the questions, because of your lies about the RE.
If you didn't make those lies, I wouldn't ask the questions.
So if you want me to stop asking, stop spouting such garbage about the RE.
Otherwise, answer the questions:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
I would tell you to try and be honest, but we both know that will never happen.
Then don't look for answers if that's your mindset.
Are you looking forward to hearing from a plane load of liars saying they have seen earth's curvature when Branson's plane lands, with hundreds of faked photos and videos of earth's curvature?
All the windows on the plane will be curved to curve the straight edges of the earth, and preserve the truth. Right, Sceptimatic? ;) :) :)
-
I ask the questions, because of your lies about the RE.
Carry on doing what you're doing.
I'll respond how I see fit.
-
Carry on doing what you're doing.
I'll respond how I see fit.
i.e. you will continue to cling to your fantasy, refusing to answer trivial questions that show you are wrong.
But don't worry, I'll keep bringing them up:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
Why not book a flight on this:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57689855
When that takes off on July 11 there will be yet more proof that you can add to your conspiracy. Let’s all remember that’s all you actually have to keep you going.
This is why you have no chance.
Chance of what?
Some people on this site are fond of thinking outside the box. You should try it rather than wearing it.
These flights you refuse to believe will go ahead despite you wailing in the wilderness. It’s a bit like those 6500 or so satellites that whizz over your head each day and those natty little rovers driving, albeit at less than a snails pace chugging around Mars. Add to that all the other space vehicles beaming back telemetry 24/7 that you deny exist.
It’s an awful lot of denial you have going there and that’s not even counting all the denial required for all those people based on the ground doing the daily work required, never mind all the designers and manufacturers! And what about all those that work at all the various launch sites? What are they up to?
What about all those crazy radio hams who are picking up signals from the Mars rover using a big comma dish in Germany? What’s going on there?
These flights are just a tiny tip of a gigantic iceberg of denial that you have to deal with, quite one hell of a conspiracy!
-
But don't worry, I'll keep bringing them up:
Bring what you want up and I'll respond when it's worth responding to.
-
Bring what you want up and I'll respond when it's worth responding to.
You mean you will respond when you can come up with some excuse for why you aren't wrong?
Because if you were honest, or even interested in if your arguments do actually work against the RE, they are worth responding to.
The only reason they wouldn't be worth responding to is if you know the answers will show you are wrong, and you don't want that.
Again:
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
I ask the questions, because of your lies about the RE.
Carry on doing what you're doing.
I'll respond how I see fit.
Whats the value of the massive tilt?
Is mercator a reasonably valid map?
Is the equator a thing that exists?
-
You mean you will respond when you can come up with some excuse for why you aren't wrong?
I will respond when you stop acting like a ****.
-
You mean you will respond when you can come up with some excuse for why you aren't wrong?
I will respond when you stop acting like a ****.
Calling you out for your BS isn't acting like an ass.
You have shown repeatedly then when you are unable to refute the arguments against you, or answer the simple questions which show you are wrong, you do whatever you can to deflect.
If you didn't make so many lies about the RE, or if you would actually admit you are wrong (which you have now done once), I wouldn't seem so bad.
The only reason I seem so bad to you is that you are spouting BS and can't justify it, and I call you out on it.
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?
-
You mean you will respond when you can come up with some excuse for why you aren't wrong?
I will respond when you stop acting like a ****.
It's interesting that you are both right and wrong.
Right about xxxxBlack and totally wrong about the shape of the earth and all the other things you go on about.